LIBRARY 

OF  THE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


OF" 


Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
^Accessions  No.  Si:  tf02j.      Class  No. 


®3S<D>3B,<3ffll 


LECTURES 


STEREOTYPED   BY   L.   JOHNSON   *   CO. 

1845. 


LECTURES 


ON 


CHRISTIAN   THEOLOGY. 


BY 


GEORGE  CHRISTIAN  KNAPP,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  THEOLOaY  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  HALLE. 


TRANSLATED    BY 


LEONARD  WOODS,  JUN.  D.D. 

PRESIDENT   OF  BOWDOIN   COLLEGE,   BRUNSWICK,   MAINE. 


SECOND  AMEKICAN  EDITION, 

REPRINTED   FROM  THE   LAST  LONDON  EDITION. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
THOMAS   WARDLE,   144   CHESTNUT   STREET. 

STEREOTYPED   BY   L.   JOHNSON   ft   CO. 

1845. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1845,  by  THOMAS  WARDLE,  in  the  clerk's  office  of  the 
District  Court  of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


PRINTED  BT  C.  SHERMAN, 

19  St.  James  Street. 


CONTENTS. 


Translator's  Preface p.  9 

INTRODUCTION. 
SECT.  PAGE 

1.  Of  Religion  and  Theology,  and  the  difference  be- 

tween them 23 

2.  Of  religion  as  the  means  of  the  moral  improve- 

ment and  perfection  of  men 27 

3.  Of  natural  and  revealed  religion     28 

4.  Is  the  knowledge  of  God  innate  1 32 

5.  Of  the  articles  of  faith,  and  the  analogy  of  faith  33 

6.  Of  the  mysteries  of  religion 35 

7.  General  observations  on  the  use  of  the  holy  scrip- 

tures, reason,  and  tradition,  as  sources  of 
Christian  doctrines 37 

8.  Of  the  object,  different  degrees,  principal  periods, 

and  biblical  appellations  of  divine  revelation      40 

9.  Of  the  scientific  treatment  of  Christian  theology     43 

ARTICLE  I. 

THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES   AS   THE  SOURCE  OF    OUR 
KNOWLEDGE  IN  CHRISTIAN   THEOLOGY. 

1.  Names  and  divisions  of  the  books  belonging  to 

the  holy  scriptures 47 

2.  Of  the  authenticity  or  genuineness  of  the  books 

of  the  New  Testament 47 


SECT.  PAGE 

3.  Of  the  authenticity  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 

tament       48 

4.  Of  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  the  collec- 

tion of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  into  a 
whole 50 

5.  Of  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  or  the  col- 

lection of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
into  a  whole 53 

6.  Of  the  unadulterated  correctness  and  integrity  of 

the  Old  and  New  Testament  scriptures. ...      56 

7.  Of  the  truth  and  divinity  of  the  doctrines  taught 

by  Christ  and  his  apostles 57 

8.  Of  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures  of  the  Old 

and  New  Testament,  or  the  higher  divine  in- 
fluence enjoyed  by  the  sacred  writers    ....      62 

9.  Historical  observations  comparing  the  concep- 

tions and  expressions  of  the  ancient  world 
respecting  immediate  divine  influence  ....      66 

10.  Of  the  various  theories  respecting  the  manner 

and  the  degrees  of  inspiration 68 

11.  Of  some  of  the  principal  attributes  of  the  holy 

scriptures     71 

12.  Of  the  use  of  the  Bible  as  the  source  of  the  doc- 

trines of  revelation 74 

13.  Of  the  reading  of  the  holy  scriptures     78 


BOOK   I.— DOCTRINE   OP    GOD. 


PART  I. 

THE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 

ARTICLE  II. 

THE  EXISTENCE  AND   THE  NOTION   OF  GOD. 


14.  Of  the  notion  of  God     85 

15.  Of  the  proofs  of  the  divine  existence     8C 

16.  Of  the  unity  of  God flO 

17.  Of  the  scriptural  names  of  God 93 

ARTICLE  III. 

THE  NATURE  AND   ATTRIBUTES   OF  OOD. 

18.  Introduction  to  the  doctrine  respecting  the  na- 

ture and  attributes  of  God 94 

19.  Of  the  spirituality  of  God 98 


SECT. 

20.  Of  the  eternity  and  immutability  of  God     ....  99 

21.  The  omnipotence  of  God     101 

22.  Of  the  omniscience  of  God 103 

23.  Of  the  omnipresence  of  God      105 

24.  The  wisdom  of  God 108 

25.  Introductory  remarks  respecting  the  nature  and 

perfections  of  the  divine  will     109 

26.  Of  the  freedom,  immutability,  and  efficacy  of  the 

divine  will HI 

27.  General  remarks  on  the  moral  attributes  of  the 

divine  will 113 

28.  Of  the  veracity  and  the  goodness  of  God     . .    . .  114 

29.  Of  the  holiness  of  God 116 

30.  Of  the  justice  of  God     H7 

31.  Of  the  justice  of  God  (continued) 120 

32.  Of  the  decrees  of  God  (Appendix) 124 


CONTENTS. 


ARTICLE  IV. 

DOCTRINE  OF  FATHER,  SOU,  AND   HOLY  GHOST. 


PAGE 
.    130 


33.  Introductory  remarks 

CHAP.  I. 

BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

34.  Is  this  doctrine  taught  in  the  Old  Testament  1    131 

35.  Of  those  texts  in  the  New  Testament  in  which 

Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  mentioned 

in  connection     133 

36.  Of  those  texts  in  which  the  Father,  Son,  and 

Holy  Ghost  are  separately  mentioned,  and  in 
which  their  nature  and  mutual  relation  are 
taught 135 

37.  Of  the  texts  in  which  divine  names  are  given 

to  Christ 136 

38.  Of  the  texts  in  which  divine  attributes  and 

works  are  ascribed  to  Christ,  and  in  which 

divine  honour  is  required  for  him 138 

39.  Of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  personality      . .    . .  140 

40.  Of  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit 142 

CHAP.  II. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

41.  Are  there  in  Jewish  or  heathen  writings  any 

traces  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  which 
were  not  derived  from  Christian  sources  ?  . .  144 

42.  History  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  during  the 

second  and  third  centuries,  before  the  Nicene 
Council 148 

43.  History  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  during 

the  fourth  century,  and  of  the  distinctions 
established  at  the  Nicene  Council,  and  since 
adopted  in  the  orthodox  church 

44.  History  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  since  the 

time  of  the  Reformation 


152 


158 


PART  II. 

THE   WORKS   OF   GOD. 
ARTICLE  V. 

OF  THE  CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

45.  Of  the  meaning  of  the  word  «  World,"  and  of 

synonymous  words  ..............    161 

46.  What  we  mean  when  we  speak  of  the  creation 

of  the  world  ;  the  proof  of  a  creation  ;  the 
material  from  which  it  was  made;  with  a 
sketch  of  the  various  opinions  entertained 
on  this  subject  ................  163 

47.  The   doctrine   and    language   of  the   Biblical 

writers  respecting  the  creation  in  general, 
and  how  they  are  to  be  understood  ......  166 

48.  The  work  of  creation  twofold;  different  classes 

of  creatures;  our  knowledge  of  them;  and 
of  God  in  the  creation  of  the  world;  the  best 


169 


49.  Of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation  ;  its  ob- 

ject ;  and  the  various  hypotheses  adopted  to 
explain  it     ..................    171 

50.  Explanation  of  the  Mosaic  history  of  the  creation    176 


ARTICLE  VI. 

CREATION  AND  ORIGINAL  CONDITION   OF  MAN. 
SECT.  PAGB 

51.  Of  the  nature  of  man,  especially  of  the  soul  of 

man,  and  of  his  destination 180 

52.  Of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  origin  of  the  hu- 

man race      ..    ..    184 

53.  Of  the  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created    189 

54.  Of  the  primitive  state  of  man ;  his  mental  and 

moral  perfections     192 

55.  Of  the  primitive  state  of  man ;  his  bodily  excel- 

lences, and  speech 195 

56.  Of  the  primitive  state  of  man;  his  external  ad- 

vantages ;  and  the  notion  of  a  golden  age  . .    197 

57.  Of  the  propagation  of  the  human  race 200 


ARTICLE  VII. 

THE    DOCTRINE   RESPECTING    ANGELS. 

58.  Of  the  importance  of  the  doctrine  concerning 

angels,  and  some  introductory  historical  re- 
marks   202 

59.  Of  the  appellations  of  angels ;  their  nature ; 

proofs  of  their  existence ;  their  creation  and 
original  state;  and  the  classes  into  which 
they  are  divided  207 

CHAP.  I. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  ANOELS. 

60.  Of  the  present  state  and  employment  of  holy 

angels 209 

61.  Of  the  classes  of  good  angels ;  their  names ;  and 

the  worship  rendered  them 212 

CHAP.  II. 

THE   FALLEN   ANGELS,   OR    EVIL  SPIRITS. 

62.  Of  the  existence  of  evil  spirits,  and  their  apos- 

tasy  215 

63.  Of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  evil  spirits ; 

their  present  and  future  condition;  their 
number,  classes,  and  names 219 

64.  Of  the  employments  and  the  effects  of  evil  spirits    222 

APPENDIX. 

POWER  OF  SATAN  OVER  THE  HUMAN  BODY  AND  THE 
MATERIAL  WORLD. 

65.  Of  the  bodily  possessions  recorded  in  the  New 

Testament 226 

66.  Of  magic  and  spectres 231 


ARTICLE  VIII. 

THE  DOCTRINE  RESPECTING  DIVINE  PROVIDENCE. 

67.  What  is  meant  by  the  providence  of  God,  and 

historical  remarks  respecting  this  doctrine  ?    235 

68.  Of  the  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  divine  provi- 

dence, and  of  the  divisions  under  which  it 
has  been  treated       238 

69.  Of  the  preservation  of  the  existence  and  of  the 

powers  of  created  beings  and  things     . .    . .    241 

70.  Of  the  government  of  God      245 

71.  The  government  of  God  in  relation  to  the  free- 

dom of  man,  and  to  the  evil  existing  in  the 
world     247 

72.  Of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  Divine  Provi- 

dence      252 


CONTENTS. 


BOOK  II.— THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN. 


PART  I. 

STATE    INTO   WHICH    MAN   IS   BROUGHT   BY 
THE    FALL. 


ARTICLE  IX. 

OF  SIN,  AND  THE   PUNISHMENT  OF  SIN. 
SECT.  PAGE 

73.  What  is  meant  by  sin  ;  the  different  words  used 

in  the  Bible  to  denote  sin,  and  the  meaning 

of  them  ....................    259 

74.  What  does  reason,  without  the  use  of  the  Bible, 

teach  us  respecting  the  sinful  state  of  man, 
and  the  origin  of  it?  And  how  far  do  the 
results  of  reason  on  this  subject  agree  with 
the  Bible?  ..................  261 


75.  Mosaic  account  of  the  sin  of  our  first  parents 


266 


76.  Of  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of  our  first  parents    273 

77.  In  what  the  natural  depravity  of  man  consists  ; 

its  appellations  in  the  Bible;  when  it  has 
its  principal  seat  in  man;  and  how  its  ex- 
istence may  be  proved  from  the  holy  scrip- 
tures ....................  277 

78.  Of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  this  corruption  ; 

its  propagation  ;  its  punishableness  ;  also  of 
the  origin  of  sinful  desires  among  men,  and 
their  punishableness  ............  284 

79.  Of  the  representations  of  the  ancient  church- 

fathers  respecting  human  depravity,  and  the 
manner  in  which  the  ecclesiastical  phrase- 
ology on  this  subject  and  the  various  forms 
of  doctrine  were  gradually  developed  .  .  .  .  289 

80.  Results  of  the  foregoing  discussion  respecting 

the  doctrine  of  natural  depravity,  and  ob- 
servations on  the  mode  of  teaching  this  doc- 
trine ....................  293 

81.  Explanation  of  the  idea  which   is    commonly 

connected  in  theology  with  the  expression 
"Actual  Sins,"  and  of  the  different  degrees 
of  sin  ....................  297 

82.  Divisions  of  sin  in  respect  to  the  law,  to  the 

knowledge  and  purpose  of  him  who  commits 

it,  and  to  the  action  itself    .......  ,    .  .    299 

83.  Of  some  other  divisions  of  sin,  and  sins  of  par- 

ticipation    ................. 


303 


84.  Of  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  the 

sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  ..........    305 

85.  Of  the  state  into  which  men  are  brought  by  the 

commission  of  sin,  and  the  different  kinds 
and  names  of  it  ................  308 

86.  What  punishment  is,  and  what  is  the  object  of 

it;  how  the  divine  punishments  are  named 
in  the  Bible,  and  what  we  are  there  taught 
respecting  their  nature  ;  also  the  various  di- 
visions of  the  divine  punishments  ..  ..  ..  311 

87.  Some  remarks  on  positive  divine  punishments    314 


PART  II. 

STATE  INTO  WHICH   MAN  IS   BROUGHT  BY 
THE  REDEMPTION. 


ARTICLE  X. 

OF   JESUS   CHRIST. 
CHAP.  I. 

OF  THE  DIVINE  INSTITUTIONS  FOB  THE  RESTORATION  OF 
MEN,  IN  A  GENERAL  VIEW;  THE  EXPECTATIONS,  PRE- 
DICTIONS, AND  TYPES  OP  THE  MESSIAH,  AND  THEIR 
FULFILMENT  IN  JESUS  OF  NAZARETH. 

SECT.  PAGE 

88.  Of  the  institutions  established  by  God  for  the 

moral  recovery  and  the  salvation  of  the 
human  race,  in  a  general  view ;  the  scrip- 
tural doctrines  and  representations  on  this 
subject;  as  a  general  introduction  to  what 
follows 317 

89.  Formation  and  development  of  the  idea  of  Mes- 

siah among  the  ancient  and  modern  Jews 
their  opinions  respecting  him;  and  the  proof 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah 321 

90.  Of  the  principles  on  which  we  are  to  interpret 

the  literal  and  figurative  predictions  con- 
tained in  the  Old  Testament  respecting  the 
Messiah,  and  the  new  institute  founded  by 
him 325 

91.  Of  the  successive  degrees  of  the  revelations  and 

predictions  contained  in  the  Old  Testament 
respecting  the  Messiah 328 

CHAP.  II. 

HISTORY  OF  JESUS   IN  HIS  TWO  STATES  OF  HUMILIATION 
AND  EXALTATION. 

92.  The  scriptural  representation  of  the  two  prin- 

cipal periods  in  the  life  of  Jesus  ;  the  scrip- 
tural names  of  these  periods ;  the  proof  texts  ; 
and  some  conclusions 331 

93.  Of  the  origin,  conception,  birth,  and  youth  of 

Jesus ;  his  true  humanity,  and  the  excel- 
lences of  it 33-1 

94.  Of  the  doctrine   of  Jesus,  and  his  office  as 

teacher  . .    , .. 337 

95.  Of  the  hardships  and  sufferings  of  Jesus     . .    ..    341 

96.  Of  Christ's  descent  into  hell     343 

97.  History  of  Christ  considered  as  a  man,  in  his 

state  of  exaltation 346 

98.  Wherein  the  heavenly  glory  or  majesty  of  Christ, 

as  a  man,  consists ;  and  the  scriptural  idea 

of  this  kingdom  and  dominion  of  Christ. ...    350 

99.  Remarks  on  the  form  and  sense  of  the  scrip- 

tural representation  respecting  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  of  Christ;  and  on  the  signification 
of  the  phrase,  to  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  God, 
as  applied  to  Christ 352 


CONTENTS. 


CHAP.  III. 

DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PERSON   OF  CHRIST. 
SECT.  PAGE 

100.  The   higher  nature  of  Christ,  and    how  it  is 

proved 355 

101.  Of  the  connection  between  the  deity  and  huma- 

nity of  Christ  according  to  what  the  Bible 
directly  teaches,  and  the  consequences  which 
may  be  deduced  from  its  instructions  . .  . .  357 

102.  Historical  observations  explanatory  of  the  origin 

and  progressive  development  of  the  eccle- 
siastical system  respecting  the  person  and 
the  two  natures  of  Christ,  until  the  eighth 
century 361 

103.  Historical  observations  continued;  the  ancient 

terminology  respecting  this  doctrine  ex- 
plained  366 

104.  A  brief  exhibition  of  the  ecclesiastical  system 

respecting  the  person  and  the  two  natures 
of  Christ ;  an  explanation  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical phraseology  now  in  use  in  the  doctrine 
de  communicatione  idiomatum  j  and  a  critical 
judgment  upon  the  same  369 

CHAP.  IV. 

THE  WORK   OF  CHRIST,   AND   WHAT   HAS   BEEN 
EFFECTED   BY   IT.      . 

105.  Scriptural  names  and  descriptions  of  the  works 

of  Christ,  and  their  salutary  effects;  also, 
the  names  of  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  the 
world  372 

106.  What  is  considered  in  the  scriptures  as  properly 

belonging  to  the  work  which  Christ  per- 
formed for  the  good  of  men  ;  explanation  of 
the  word  "redemption,"  as  used  in  the 
Bible  ;  and  what  is  the  most  convenient  and 
natural  order  and  connection  for  exhibiting 
the  doctrine  of  the  entire  merits  of  Christ  . .  374 

107.  Of  the  method  formerly  adopted  of  considering 

the  work  of  Christ  as  consisting  of  the  pro- 
ohetic,  priestly,  and  kingly  offices 377 


PART   I.    OF  CHAP.    IV. 

On  redemption  from  the  punishment  of  sin;  or,  the 
Atonement  of  Christ,  and  the  Justification  of  Men 
before  Ood,—the  Consequence  of  the  Atonement. 

108.  Of  the  various  opinions  respecting  the  forgive- 

ness by  God,  and  the  conditions  on  which 
forgiveness  may  be  granted  ;  and  an  applica- 
tion of  this  to  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the 
atonement 380 

109.  Scriptural  doctrine  respecting  the  necessity  of 

the  forgiveness  of  sin;  what  is  meant  by 
forgiveness,  pardon,  justification;  and  the 
scriptural  terms  by  which  they  are  desig- 
nated   385 

110.  Illustration    of  the   scriptural  statement,  that 

men  owe  it  to  Christ  alone  that  God  justifies 
them  or  forgives  their  sins 388 

111.  Of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ ;  how  far 

we  are  indebted  to  them  for  our  justification 
or  pardon  ;  together  with  observations  on 
some  of  the  principal  attributes  (affections) 
of  the  death  of  Christ  390 

112.  Of  the  influence  which  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 

and  his  subsequent  exaltation  and  inter- 
cession, have  upon  our  forgiveness  or  justifi- 
cation    .305 


113.  The  scripture  doctrine  of  pardon  or  justification 

through  Christ,  as  an  universal  and  unmerited 
favour  of  God 397 

114.  Of  the  various  theories  respecting  the  nature  and 

manner  of  the  atonement  of  Christ ;  and  a 
notice  of  some  of  the  most  important  works 
on  atonement  and  justification 400 

115.  Of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ    .  .    405 


PART   II.    OF   CHAP.    IV. 

On  Redemption  from  the  Power  or  Dominion  of  Sin. 

116.  Of  the  importance  of  this  doctrine;   its  con- 

formity with  scripture,  and  the  manner  in 
which  we  are  freed  from  sin  through  Christ  408 

117.  Of  the  deliverance  from  the  power  and  dominion 

of  sin,  for  which  we  are  indebted,  under  di- 
vine assistance,  to  the  instruction  and  ex- 
ample of  Christ 410 

PART    III.    OF    CHAP.   IV. 

On  the  present  and  future  consequences  of  the  work 
of  Christ. 

118.  Scriptural  titles  of  the  salvation  procured  by 

Christ  for  men ;  its  general  nature ;  the  doc- 
trine of  the  New  Testament  respecting  the 
abolition  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation 
by  Christianity,  and  the  advantages  resulting 
from  it  to  the  world 412 

119.  The  happiness  which  Christians  obtain  in  this 

life  from  Christ 415 

120.  The  happiness  which  Christians  obtain  through 

Christ  in  the  future  life 418 

ARTICLE  XI. 

DOCTRINE   OF  THE  CONDITIONS   OF  SALVATION. 

121.  Of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  faith,  as  the  only 

condition  of  salvation,  together  with  remarks 
respecting  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  and 
of  infants  420 

122.  Of  the  various  significations  of  the  word  "faith" 

as  used  in  the  Bible ;  some  of  the  principal 
passages  relating  to  faith;  the  parts  of  which 
faith  is  made  up ;  and  some  of  the  most  im- 
portant theological  divisions  of  faith  ..  ..  423 

123.  Of  the  different  objects  of  Christian  doctrine  to 

which  faith  refers ;  and  the  relation  of  faith 

to  the  same 427 

124.  Of  the  connection  of  the  parts  of  which  faith  is 

composed ;  the  characteristics  and  degrees 
of  faith ;  and  the  conditions  on  which  it  is 
saving 431 

125.  Of  the  nature  of  Christian  good  works  or  virtues ; 

the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  salvation ; 
and  their  meritoriousness 


435 


126.  Explanation  of  the  terms  which  are  used  in  the 

scriptures  to  denote  both  the  external  pro- 
fession of  Christianity  (fides  externa)  and 
internal  moral  improvement  and  sanctifi- 
cation  439 

127.  Statement  of  the  doctrine  of  moral  reformation; 

its  commencement ;  on  putting  off  repent- 
ance, and  on  late  conversions 442 

128.  Remarks  on  the  false  opinions  and  perversions 

concerning  the  doctrine  of  repentance,  which 
have  been  gradually  adopted  in  the  Christian 
church 447 


CONTENTS. 


ARTICLE  XII. 

THE    OPERATIONS    OF    GRACE;    OR    THE    DIVINE    INSTITU- 
TIONS  FOR  PROMOTING  REPENTANCE  AND   FAITH. 

SECT.  PAGE 

129.  Explanation  of  the  terms  "grace,"  "operations 

of  grace,"  "means  of  grace,"  and  other 
phrases  employed  in  theology  on  this  sub- 
ject; and  the  connection  of  this  doctrine  with 
the  preceding  449 

130.  What  are  the  operations  of  divine  grace  for  pro- 

moting the  repentance  and  salvation  of  those 
who  live  in  Christian  lands ;  and  what  meana 
does  God  employ  in  exerting  these  influences 
on  their  hearts  ? 451 

131.  How  is  the  divine  origin  of  these  gracious  renew- 

ing influences  proved  from  the  holy  scrip- 
tures? and  remarks  in  explanation  of  the 
scriptural  phraseology  on  this  subject  . .  . .  454 

132.  A  sketch  of  some  of  the  principal  theories  re- 

specting the  operations  of  divine  grace,  and 
the  freedom  (or  ability)  of  man  in  spiritual 
things ;  and  the  controversies  on  this  subject 
in  the  Christian  Church 458 

133.  Exhibition  of  the  modern  theory  respecting  the 

divinity  of  the  operations  of  grace,  and  the 
power  of  the  word  of  God 462 

APPENDIX. 
Of  prayer  as  a  means  of  grace 467 

ARTICLE  XIII. 

THE  DOCTRINE   OF  THE    CHRISTIAN   SOCIETY  OR 
CHURCH. 

134.  What  is  meant  by  the  Christian  church  ;  its  ob- 

ject; its  names;  and  the  divisions  of  the 
church  common  in  theology 469 

135.  Attributes  of  the  Christian  church ;  the  ecclesi- 

astical terms  commonly  employed  to  desig- 
nate them,  and  their  signification 472 

136.  Of  the  head  of  the  Christian  church;  and  of  the 

institutions  established  to  maintain  and  ex- 
tend it,  especially  through  the  office  of  public 
teaching  475 

ARTICLE  XIV. 

THE  TWO  SACRAMENTS— BAPTISM  AND  THE 

LORD'S  SUPPER. 

137.  The  sacraments  in  general 479 

CHAP.  I. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

138.  Names,   institution,   and    origin    of   Christian 

baptism;  with  observations  on  John  the 
Baptist  and  the  Jewish  baptism  of  prose- 
lytes   483 

139.  How  and  by  whom  baptism  is  to  be  adminis- 

tered; and  respecting  the  optional  and  un- 
essential things  attending  the  observance  of 
this  rite 485 

140.  Object,  uses,  and  effects  of  Christian  baptism  . .    488 

141.  The  necessity  of  baptism,  and  whether  it  may  be 

repeated 491 

142.  The  baptism  of  infanta 494 


CHAP.  II. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 
SECT.  PAGE 

143.  The  names  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  the  oc- 

casion and  objects  of  its  institution 496 

144.  The  distinction  between  what  is  essential  and 

unessential  in  the  celebration  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  Supper  500 

145.  The  uses  and  efficacy  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  and 

inferences  from  these     505 

146.  The  various  opinions  and  forms  of  doctrine  re- 

specting the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  historically 
explained,  and  also  a  critique  respecting  them  508 


ARTICLE  XV. 

ON  DEATH,  AND  THE  CONTINUANCE  AND  DESTINY  OF 
MEN  AFTER  DEATH  ;  OR  THE  DOCTRINE  RESPECTING 
THE  LAST  THINGS. 

147.  Death 514 

148.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  the  continuance  of  the 

human  soul,  and  its  state  after  death     . .    . .    516 

149.  Historical  illustrations  of  the  various  opinions 

which  have  prevailed  in  ancient  and  modern 
times  respecting  the  continuance  of  the  soul 
after  death  ;  and  the  proofs  drawn  from  rea- 

son  in  favour  of  it 519 

160.  Some  of  the  most  important  of  the  various 
opinions  respecting  the  place  of  departed 
souls,  and  their  condition  there 523 

151.  What  is  understood  by  the  resurrection  of  the 

dead ;  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  resurrec- 
tion;" and  what  is  taught  respecting  it  by 
the  Jews  527 

152.  The  Christian  doctrine  respecting  the  resurrec- 

tion of  the  body 531 

153.  Doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  respecting  the 

nature  of  the  body  which  we  shall  receive  at 
the  resurrection ;  and  the  opinions  of  theolo- 
gians on  this  point 534 

154.  The  last  appearing  of  Christ  before  the  end  of  the 

world ;  the  various  opinions  on  this  subject ; 
also  respecting  the  Millennial  kingdom,  and 
the  universal  conversion  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  538 

155.  The  general  judgment,  and  the  end  of  the  pre- 

sent constitution  of  the  world 541 

156.  The  punishments  of  hell,  or  eternal  condemnation    545 

157.  Duration  of  future  punishments ;  reasons  for  and 

against  their  eternal  duration 549 

158.  Result  drawn  from  comparing  and  examining 

the  different  arguments  for  and  against  the 
eternal  duration  of  future  punishment ;  and 
a  sketch  of  the  history  of  this  doctrine  ..  ..  558 


ON   ETERNAL  BLESSEDNESS. 

159.  Introduction  to  this  doctrine;  and  explanation 

of  the  scriptural  phraseology  with  regard 

to  it 555 

160.  What  do  reason  and  scripture  teach,  and  lead  us 

to  expect,  in  a  general  view,  as  to  the  real 
nature  of  future  blessedness      558 


TRANSLATOR'S    PREFACE. 


AM  happy  in  being  able  to 
present  to  the  friends  of  bibli- 
cal theology  the  translation  of 
DR.  KNAPP'S  LECTURES.  The 
prevailing  preference  of  the 
method  adopted  by  this  author 
above  other  methods  of  pur- 
suing theological  study,  leads  me  to 
hope  that  this  work  will  be  an  accept- 
able offering  to  the  public.  It  was  the 
ultimate  object  of  that  eminent  servant 
of  Christ  who  composed  these  lectures, 
to  promote  vital  piety  and  practical  religion 
even  by  his  more  theoretical  writings.  If  the 
translation  of  these  lectures  may  conduce  to  the 
same  end,  the  translator  will  feel  abundantly 
rewarded  for  his  labour. 

On  opening  a  book  we  naturally  feel  a  desire 
to  know  something  of  the  author;  and  if  he 
treats  on  controverted  points,  to  know  on  what 
principles  he  wrote,  and  with  whom  he  stood 
connected.  I  shall  endeavour  to  satisfy  this  cu- 
riosity, by  giving  some  account  of  the  school  of 
Biblical  Theology  in  Germany,  to  which  our 
author  belonged,  together  with  an  outline  of  his 
life  and  character.  I  cannot  expect,  however, 
within  the  narrow  limits  of  a  preface,  to  do  full 
justice  to  either  of  these  subjects. 

The  school  of  Biblical  Theology  was  esta- 
blished by  Spener  at  Halle,  in  1694,  for  the 
avowed  purpose  of  having  theology  taught  in  a 
different  manner  from  that  common  in  the  Ger- 
man universities.  Spener  states  that  it  was  usual 
for  persons  to  spend  five  or  six  years  at  the  uni- 
versities without  hearing,  or  caring  to  hear,  a 
single  book,  chapter,  or  verse  of  the  Bible  ex- 
plained. In  the  few  cases  where  exegetical 
lectures  were  commenced  by  such  teachers  as 
Olearius  and  Carpzov,  they  were  soon  aban- 
doned. The  Bible  was  perhaps  less  used  before 
the  time  of  Spener  in  Protestant  universities  than 
it  had  been,  under  penalty  of  excommunication, 
by  pious  Catholics  before  the  Reformation.  In 
place  of  the  Scriptures,  the  different  symbols 
established  by  the  Protestant  church  were  taught 
and  studied.  The  minutest  distinctions  esta- 
blished by  them  were  contended  for  with  the 
greatest  zeal,  and  the  least  deviation  from  them 
was  pronounced  heresy  as  decidedly  as  if  they 
had  been  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  was 


punished  accordingly  with  the  greatest  severity. 
The  spirit  of  Protestantism  seemed  to  have 
thrown  off  the  hierarchal  yoke,  only  to  assume 
another  and  perhaps  a  more  degrading  form  of 
bondage.  In  explaining  and  defending  these 
symbols,  the  Aristotelian  dialectics  were  em- 
ployed, and  in  the  use  of  them  the  students  were 
thoroughly  exercised.  As  to  the  practical  effect 
which  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  should  have 
upon  their  own  hearts,  and  the  manner  in  which 
they  should  exhibit  them  for  the  benefit  of  others, 
nothing  was  said  to  them  by  their  teachers. 
Thus  disciplined,  they  went  forth  to  repeat  from 
the  pulpit  what  they  had  learned  at  the  university, 
and  fought  over  their  idle  battles,  in  which  their 
own  learning  and  skill  were  carefully  displayed, 
to  the  neglect  of  every  thing  which  might  arouse 
the  careless,  persuade  the  doubting,  or  satisfy 
the  deep  desires  and  assuage  the  sorrows  of  the 
heart. 

This  was  a  state  of  things  which  Spener  de- 
plored. Others  before  him,  especially  pious  lay- 
men, had  noticed  these  evils,  but  had  withdrawn, 
like  the  mystics  of  a  former  period,  and  sought 
in  private  contemplation  that  satisfaction  of  their 
spiritual  wants  which  they  could  not  obtain  from 
the  learned  jargon  of  the  pulpit;  or  if,  like  An- 
dreas and  Arndt,  they  had  lifted  up  a  voice  of 
remonstrance  against  the  prevailing  disorders,  it 
had  been  drowned  in  the  noise  of  angry  pole- 
mics. But  the  reputation  and  influence  of  Spener 
were  too  great  to  allow  his  remonstrances  to 
pass  unnoticed.  Without  aiming  at  the  name, 
he  performed  the  work  of  a  reformer.  In  the 
unpretending  form  of  a  preface  to  an  edition  of 
Arndt's  Sermons,  he  published  in  1675  his  Pia 
Desideria,  in  which  he  urged  the  necessity  of 
amending  the  prevailing  mode  of  instruction 
and  preaching.  It  was  his  great  object  to  divert 
attention  from  the  symbols,  and  direct  it  to  the 
scriptures.  He  wished  every  student  to  derive 
his  system  for  himself  directly  from  the  Bible; 
and  to  feel  and  enjoy  the  truths  thus  learned, 
rather  than  contend  about  them  ;  and  especially 
he  wished  the  teachers  in  the  universities,  and 
the  preachers  in  the  desk,  abandoning  for  ever 
their  foolish  questions  and  subtle  dialectics,  to 
labour  to  promote  the  solid  instruction  and  the 
true  piety  of  those  committed  to  their  charge. 
This  was  the  object  which  more  and  more  en- 

9 


10 


PREFACE. 


grossed  his  attention,  as  he  saw  more  of  the 
deadening  influence  of  scholastic  theology ;  and 
he  at  length  pursued  it  with  such  zeal  that 
he  awakened  the  jealousy  and  hatred  of  those 
who  loved  the  letter  more  than  the  spirit,  the 
form  of  godliness  more  than  its  power.  After 
removing  from  place  to  place,  and  being  at 
length  driven  from  Dresden  by  the  violence  of 
the  opposition  against  him,  he  found  refuge  and 
rest  in  Berlin.  He  there  exerted  his  influence 
with  Frederick  III.  to  procure  the  establishment 
of  a  new  university  at  Halle.  For  various  rea- 
sons, political  and  religious,  his  proposal  was 
adopted,  and  to  Spener  was  committed  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Theological  Faculty.  He 
selected  for  this  purpose  Anton,  Breithaupt,  and 
Franke,  men  of  congenial  spirit  with  himself, 
who  had  visited  him  in  Berlin,  imbibed  his 
views,  and  were  then  labouring  in  different 
places,  and  under  great  discouragements,  to 
promote  the  revival  of  scriptural  knowledge  and 
practical  Christianity.  They  were  now  united 
in  the  new  university  at  Halle ;  and  though  de- 
nounced by  the  theologians  of  the  sister  univer- 
sities, and  especially  those  of  Wittemberg,  as 
pietists,  innovators,  and  heretics,  they  were  not 
to  be  hindered  from  appointing  a  new  course  of 
studies,  nor  from  pursuing  a  new  method  in 
teaching. 

The  establishment  of  the  Theological  Faculty 
at  Halle  forms  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  theo- 
logical science  ;  and  to  those  who  founded  and 
composed  it,  especially  to  Spener  and  Franke, 
are  Protestants  indebted  for  the  revival  and  per- 
petuation of  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation.  They 
entered  a  new  protest  against  the  reign  of  eccle- 
siastical authority,  and  asserted  anew  the  right 
of  Christians  in  matters  of  faith.  That  we  are 
free  to  judge  for  ourselves  as  to  what  we  shall 
believe,  in  opposition  to  the  decretals  of  Popes 
or  Councils,  whether  Catholic  or  Protestant; 
that  the  holy  scriptures  are  the  pure  source 
whence  we  must  draw  our  religious  knowledge, 
and  not  symbols,  confessions,  or  systems  framed 
and  established  by  men ;  and  that  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible  are  to  be  used,  by  the  learned  as 
well  as  the  unlearned,  to  promote  holiness  of 
heart  and  life,  rather  than  merely  as  objects  of 
speculation, — these  were  the  great  principles 
upon  which  Luther  and  Melancthon,  Spener 
and  Franke,  alike  proceeded. 

It  is  not  uncommon  to  see  the  founders  of  this 
school  classed  with  those  narrow-minded  and 
bigoted  enthusiasts  who  regard  learning  and 
science  with  hatred  and  contempt,  and  presume 
upon  a  miraculous  illumination,  superseding  the 
necessity  of  studying  divine  truth.  But  to  this 
class  Spener  and  Franke  did  not  belong;  and 
decided  as  was  the  stand  which  they  took 
against  the  scholastic  learning  of  the  times  in 
which  they  lived,  they  were  far  from  falling 


into  the  opposite  and  equally  dangerous  extreme. 
Their  principles  respecting  the  study  of  theo- 
logy are  so  often  misstated  that  I  feel  induced, 
after  a  perusal  of  some  of  their  own  writings, 
to  exhibit  them  here  more  at  length. 

I.  They  believed  that  God  had  revealed  him- 
self directly  to  men,  and  that  this  revelation  is 
contained  in  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, which  are  the  only  source  of  our  reli- 
gious knowledge,  to  the  exclusion  of  those  pre- 
tended revelations  of  which  theosophy  boasts. 
To  obtain  the  meaning  of  these  scriptures  they 
made  therefore  the  first  duty  of  the  theological 
student.     In  scripturis  theologus  nascitur,  was 
their  constant  maxim.    They  did  not,  like  their 
contemporaries  in  the  other  universities,  suffer 
the  student  to  rely  indolently  on  the  traditionary 
interpretation  of  the  word  of  God,  nor  to  adduce, 
without  examination,  exactly  the  same  proof- 
texts,  neither  more  nor  less,  as  had  been  used 
in  every  preceding  system ;  nor  did  they  suffer 
him  to  expect,  like  some  ancient  and  modern 
visionaries,  that  a  culpable  ignorance  would  be 
removed  by  supernatural  illumination.     On  the 
contrary,  they  insisted  upon  the  importance  of 
his  becoming  acquainted  with  the  original  lan- 
guages in  which  the  holy  scriptures  were  writ- 
ten, and  diligently  using  the  whole  apparatus 
of  hermeneutical  helps,  (then  indeed  compara- 
tively small,)  in  oraer  to  ascertain  the  very  sense 
in  the  mind  of  the  inspired  writer. 

II.  By  these  means,  however,  important  as 
they  are,  the  student  attains  only  to  what  they 
called  a  natural,  human,  and  literal  knowledge, 
in  distinction  from  a  spiritual  and  divine  percep- 
tion of  the  doctrines  of  revelation.     The  sacred 
writers  did  not  invent  new  words  and  expressions 
to  designate  the  new  relations  to  God  into  which 
men  were  brought  by  Christianity,  and  the.  feel- 
ings belonging  to  those  relations;  but  rathei 
employed  language  used  to  designate  relations 
and  feelings  previously  known,  analogous  tc 
those  intended.     To  every  man,  therefore,  theii 
language,   even  with   respect  to  the  peculiar 
states  of  which  the  Christian  is  conscious,  con- 
veys a  general  meaning — viz.,  the  notion  of 
something  in  the  thing  intended,  answering  to 
something  in  the  analogous  relation  or  feeling 
from  which  the  representation  is  taken.     But 
what  is  the  very  thing,  among  the  many  things 
in  this  new  relation,  which  would  justify  the 
metaphor, — what  is  the  very  thing  intended  by 
the  evangelist  or  the  apostle  in  the  use  of  it,  can 
be  understood  only  by  one  who  has  in  reality 
been  brought  into  this  new  relation,  and  expe- 
rienced the  feelings  belonging  to  it.  To  be  more 
definite:  the  new  relation  instituted  by  Chris- 
tianity is  most  frequently  denoted  in  the  sacred 
writings   by  the  words  sonship,  adoption,  and 
those  of  a  similar  import,  which  clearly  convey 
to  every  reader  a  general  notion  of  what  this 


PREFACE. 


11 


new  relation  is ;  and  this  general  notion  is  th 
literal  knowledge  of  the  subject  which  the  na 
tural  man  may  possess.     But  there  are  man] 
things  in  the  human  relation  of  a  son  to  a  fathe 
which  might  be  the  foundation  of  the  metapho 
employed.     Resemblance,  imitation,  obedience 
love,  or  actual  descent  and  possession  of  th 
same  nature,   and   many   other   things  which 
might  be  mentioned,  would  furnish  a  prope 
foundation  for  the    metaphor  of   sonship   anc 
adoption.     And  so  these  have  all  been  made  by 
different  commentators  the  point  of  analogy  be- 
tween this  common  and  this  Christian  relation 
v  But  what  is  the  very  thing  in  this  new  relation 
which  the  evangelists  and  apostles  had  in  view 
when  they  called  it  sonship,  he  only  can  under- 
stand who,  by  believing  in  Christ,  has  had  the 
power  given  him  to  become  a  son  of  God.    And 
even  he  will  understand  it  better  in  proportion 
to  the  depth  and  liveliness  of  his  Christian  ex 
perience,  and  then  only  attain  to  its  full  import 
when,  in  the  world  of  glory,  what  is  here  begun 
in  him  shall  be  perfected.     This  is  the  spiritual 
perception  spoken  of,  arising  from  the  personal 
experience  of  the  things  signified  in  the  holy 
scriptures;   and   this  experience  results  from 
faith,  which  receives  the  doctrines  of  revelation 
in  their  sanctifying  and  enlightening  power. 
Faith,  therefore,  has  the  same  relation  to  divine 
things  that  sense  has  to  natural  things  ;  and  it  is 
equally  true  in  one  case  as  in  the  other,  that 
sense  or  experience  is  the  only  foundation  of 
knowledge, — sensus  est  principium  cognoscendi. 
This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  Spener  and 
Franke  when  they  say  so  often  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  indispensable  to  the  study  of  theology. 
That  this  personal  experience,  or  feeling  percep- 
tion, must  precede  all  true  knowledge  of  the 
things  of  revelation, — in  other  words,  that  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible  must  be  felt,  in  order  to 
be  truly  understood,  have  root  in  the  heart  before 
they  can  be  rightly  apprehended  by  the  under- 
standing,— though  often  deemed  an  exploded 
proposition,  and  in  the  ears  of  many  perfectly 
paradoxical,  is  yet  as  philosophically  just  as  it 
is  conformed  to  scripture.     This  view  cannot 
be  better  expressed  than  in  the  following  re- 
markable words  of  Pascal : — "  Les  verites  di- 
vines sont  infiniment  au-dessus  de  la  nature. 
Dieu  seul  peut  les  mettre  dans  Tame.     II  a 
voulu  qu'ils  entrent  du  cffiur  dans  1'esprit,  et 
non  pas  de  1'esprit  dans  le  cceur.     Par  cette 
raison,  s'il  faut  connaitre  les  choses  humaines, 
pour  pouvoir  les  aimer,  il  faut  aimer  les  choses 
divines,  pour  pouvoir  les  connaitre.11     u  Divine 
things  are  infinitely  above  nature,  and  God  only 
can  place  them  in  the  soul.     He  has  designed 
that  they  should  pass  from  the  heart  into  the 
head,  and  not  from  the  head  into  the  heart; 
and   so,  as  it  is   necessary   to  know  human 
things  in  order  to  love  them,  it  is  necessary  to 


love  divine  things  in  order  to  know  them."  Let 
not  the  student,  then,  who  would  penetrate  into 
the  real  meaning  of  the  sacred  text,  rely  upon 
the  Grammar  and  the  Lexicon,  upon  Commen- 
taries and  Institutes  of  Interpretation,  which 
cannot  lead  beyond  the  letter.  Ml  true  know- 
ledge of  the  scripture  must  proceed  from  the  life 
of  faith ;  we  must  believe  in  order  to  experience, 
and  experience  in  order  to  understand.  Such  is 
the  import  of  the  following  words  of  Anselmus, 
which  have  been  chosen  by  Schleiermacher,  one 
of  the  profoundest  theologians  in  Germany,  for 
his  motto,  and  which  deserve  to  be  engraven  on 
the  memory  of  every  student  in  theology : — 
"  Non  enim  qusero  intelligere  ut  credam,  sed 
credo  ut  intelligam.  Nam  qui  non  crediderit, 
non  experietur,  et  qui  expertus  non  fuerit,  non 
intelliget." 

III.  When  the  literal  sense  of  scripture  has 
been  ascertained  by  grammatical  and  historical 
interpretation,  and  when  the  hidden  meaning  of 
the  sacred  hieroglyphics  has  been  unlocked  by 
a  believing  experience  of  the  things  signified, 
then  are  the  materials  provided  for  theological 
science ;  as  yet,  however,  confused  and  disor- 
ganized. With  these  insulated  experiences,  and 
the  direct  processes  of  the  spiritual  life,  many 
would  have  us  remain  contented,  and  are  jealous 
of  the  reflective  and  systematizing  acts  of  the 
mind.     This  is  the  mistake  of  the  Mystici  im- 
puri,  and  of  many  sincerely  pious,  but  less  en- 
lightened Christians  in  modern  times.     They 
justly  ascribe  much  of  the  coldness,  contention, 
and  heresy  that  has  disturbed  and  corrupted  the 
church,  to  the  influence  of  speculative  reason, 
and  would  gladly  exclude  it  wholly  from  the 
province  of  faith.     But  they  overlook  the  im- 
perfections of  religion  when  it  exists  merely  as 
feeling,  and  the  darkness,  confusion,  and  extra- 
vagance which  result  from  the  want  of  strict 
science  in  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.    These 
evils  are  not  merely  incidental  to  simple  faith, 
jut  almost  inseparable  from  it;  for  what  can 
prevent  that  exaggeration  of  its  particular  ob- 
jects, to  which  feeling  always  tends,  and  give 
o  each  its  due  importance,  but  that  view  of  the 
whole  which  science  alone  can  furnish  1   These 
evils  were  not  overlooked  by  Spener ;  and  he 
contended  for  the  proper  use  of  system   and 
science  in  religion  with  a  zeal  only  inferior  to 
hat  with  which  he  contended   against  their 
abuse.     He  held  the  just  medium  between  the 
ious  enthusiast  and  the  cold  speculator;  and 
vished  that  the  system  might  proceed  from  a 
iving  faith  and  be  pervaded  by  it,  and  that  faith 
night  be  regulated  and  rectified  by  thorough 
ystem;  and  he  thus  aimed  to  secure  to  Chris- 
ianity,  what  it  may  justly  claim,  the  whole  man; 
he  powers  of  the  understanding  and  the  feelings 
f  the  heart. 
The  effort  to  attain  to  an  insight  into  the  in- 


PREFACE. 


ternal  connection  of  the  various  objects  of  our 
experience,  to  attain  to  the  one  principle  under 
which  the  phenomena  we  witness  may  be  class- 
ed,— the  effort,  in  short,  which  lies  at  the  foun- 
dation of  science  in  every  department,  is  one  of 
the  original  and  higher  efforts  or  instincts  of  the 
human  soul;  and  though  in  some  periods,  and 
in  individual  minds,  it  is  less  predominant,  at 
other  times,  and  in  other  minds,  it  is  wholly 
irrepressible.  Its  utility  in  reducing  to  order 
the  disconnected  elements  of  human  knowledge, 
and  in  constructing  from  them  an  organized 
whole,  cannot  be  questioned  ;  and  why  should 
not  this  systematizing,  organific  instinct  of  the 
mind  be  suffered  to  employ  itself  upon  the  no 
bier  elements  of  religious  knowledge,  scattered 
over  the  page  of  revelation  and  of  experience, 
collecting  and  classifying  them,  and  from  them 
constructing  an  harmonious  system  of  religious 
truth  ? 

Here  it  must  be  remarked,  that  a  believing 
experience  is  equally  essential  to  a  truly  scien- 
tific combination  of  all  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity as  to  an  adequate  understanding  of  each 
particular  one.  In  every  scientific  system,  the 
parts  should  have  a  real  relation  to  one  great 
object,  for  which  the  whole  is  constructed  ;  and 
if  we  would  have  it  a  living,  and  not  a  lifeless 
organization,  we  must  have  this  great  object 
within  ourselves.  The  name  of  science  cannot 
justly  be  applied  to  a  mere  artificial  collocation 
of  particulars,  wanting  internal  unity,  and  desti- 
tute of  a  pervading  soul.  Hence  it  may  be  safely 
affirmed,  that  true  theological  science  is  possible 
only  on  condition  of  personal  Christian  expe- 
rience ;  this  alone  can  furnish  the  last  end,  the 
point  of  unity,  the  living  spirit  of  the  whole. 
Where  this  does  not  exist,  combining  the  re- 
sults of  the  mere  philological  study  of  the  Bible 
furnishes  at  best  a  piece  of  lifeless  mechanism, 
where  the  parts  cohere,  as  the  cards  in  the  pup- 
pet, and  not  as  the  limbs  in  the  body.  It  was 
from  the  exegetical  school  in  Asia  Minor,  and 
from  the  feet  of  the  philologist  Lucian,  that  the 
heresiarch  Arius  proceeded ;  and  his  error  arose, 
in  a  great  measure,  from  his  making  the  Bible 
grammatically  interpreted,  separately  from  the 
light  of  experience,  the  foundation  of  theology.* 
The  elements  of  theological  science  should  not, 
therefore,  be  drawn  solely  from  the  written  page 
of  revelation ;  the  contents  of  this  page  must  be 
first  transferred  to  the  tablets  of  the  heart;  these 
inward  tablets  must  then  be  studied,  and  strictly 
compared  with  the  outward  letter ;  and  from  this 
faithful  and  living  transcript,  corresponding 
with  the  original  revelation,  and  from  this  reve- 
lation thus  transferred  to  the  heart,  the  elements 
of  the  system  must  be  derived.  The  direction 
here  given,  to  make  the  results  of  Christian  ex- 


*  Vide  Neander,  Allgem.  Kirchengeschichte,  b. 
n.  Abth.  2,  s.  770. 


perience,  derived  from  and  regulated  by  the 
written  word,  rather  than  the  mere  fruits  of  the 
exegetical  study  of  the  Bible,  the  elements  of 
theological  science,  is,  I  believe,  in  the  spirit 
of  the  founders  of  this  school  of  biblical  and 
practical  Christianity.  Theological  study  is 
happily  turning  more  and  more  to  the  inward 
scroll  of  experience ;  and  instances  might  easily 
be  mentioned,  did  my  limits  permit,  in  which 
the  established  ecclesiastical  system  has  been 
rectified,  by  being  made  to  answer  more  entirely 
to  the  demands  of  pious  feeling.*  When  Chris- 
tian faith  shall  receive  and  hold  the  pure  and 
unadulterated  truths  of  revelation,  and  Christian 
theology  shall  wholly  correspond  to  Christian 
faith,  then  will  the  science  of  Christianity  attain 
its  highest  perfection. 

IV.  The  system  of  truth  which  was  adopted 
by  the  founders  of  this  school  agreed  substan- 
tially with  that  of  their  contemporaries,  although 
the  eagle-eyed  malignity  of  Deutschmann  of 
Wittemberg  espied  no  less  than  two  hundred 
and  sixty  heresies  in  a  single  writing  of  Spener. 
The  latter,  however,  and  his  associates,  professed 
to  hold  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  established 
symbols,  and  differed  from  the  theologians  of 
the  other  universities  only  with  respect  to  the 
grounds  on  which  they  believed  them,  and  the 
ends  for  which  they  employed  them.  While 
their  contemporaries  believed  in  these  doctrines 
because  they  were  contained  in  the  symbols,  the 
theologians  of  Halle  believed  them  because, 
after  independent  investigation,  they  found  them 
contained  in  the  word  of  God,  and  confirmed  by 
their  own  experience.  And  while  their  con- 
temporaries employed  these  doctrines  for  no 
other  purposes  than  speculation  and  contention, 
they  insisted  that  the  doctrines  of  revelation  should 
be  taught  in  the  universities,  as  well  as  exhibited 
in  the  pulpit,  with  the  ultimate  design  of  promot- 
ing personal  piety \  This  was  their  fourth  gene- 
ral principle  respecting  the  study  of  theology, 
and  that  which  procured  for  their  school  the 
honourable  distinction  of  a  school  of  practical 
theology.  They  regarded  it  as  almost  certain 
that  students  in  theology  would  treat  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  as  public  teachers  very 
much  as  they  had  been  accustomed  to  hear  them 
treated  at  the  university, — that  if  they  had  been 
taught  theology  in  a  scholastic  method,  they 
would  probably  fall  into  the  same  method  in 
preaching.  Such  had  really  been  the  effect  of 
the  speculative  turn  given  to  theological  instruc- 
tion. Students  of  theology  had  come  from  the 
university  expert  and  disputatious  metaphysi- 
cians, rather  than  evangelical  pastors,  well 
qualified  by  their  own  experience  of  divine  truth 
to  impart  it  with  sincerity  and  earnestness  to 
thers ;  and  the  piety  of  the  church  wanting  its 


*  Vide  Schleiermacher,  in  the  last  article  in  his 
'  Zeitschrift,"  s.  29,  and  especially  s.  299—304. 


PREFACE. 


proper  nutriment,  the  simple  truth  of  the  gospel 
had  long  been  declining.  The  first  theologians 
at  Halle  sought  to  remedy  these  evils  at  their 
very  source,  to  apply  the  doctrines  of  salvation 
to  their  own  case,  and  keep  their  own  hearts 
alive  to  the  practical  influence  of  revealed  truth ; 
and  then  to  induce  their  hearers  to  abstain  from 
useless  questions,  and  see  to  it  that  they  them- 
selves were  builded  upon  that  foundation,  which 
it  would  be  their  duty  to  point  out  to  others,  and 
to  show  them  how  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible 
should  be  exhibited  in  order  to  answer  the  ends 
for  which  they  were  given — the  conviction  and 
conversion  of  sinners,  and  the  consolation  and 
encouragement  of  believers.  It  was  in  pursu- 
ance of  these  objects  that  Franke  delivered  his 
"  Lectiones  Paraeneticae,"  which  were  followed 
by  more  real  and  lasting  benefit  than  any  other 
part  of  his  academical  labours.  They  were  first 
delivered  by  him  in  his  own  study,  and  after- 
wards in  the  public  hall  of  the  theological  fa- 
culty, one  hour  a  week — viz.,  from  10  to  11 
o'clock  on  Thursday,  when  other  exercises  were 
suspended,  that  all  the  students  in  the  theologi- 
sal  department  might  be  at  liberty  to  attend. 
En  the  preface  to  the  first  collection  of  these 
lectures,  Franke  gives  the  following  account  of 
them : — "  I  have  not  been  accustomed  to  follow 
my  particular  method  in  these  lectures,  but 
tiave  made  it  my  rule  to  say  on  each  occasion 
what  I  saw  then  to  be  most  necessary  to  the 
students  in  theology,  either  to  promote  their 
thorough  conversion  and  Christian  walk,  or  the 
wise  and  orderly  prosecution  of  their  studies, 
that  they  might  be  at  length  sent  forth  as  faith- 
ful, wise,  and  useful  labourers  in  the  vineyard 
}f  the  Lord,  each  according  to  the  gift  granted 
to  him  by  God." 

Such  were  the  principles  of  the  founders  of 
the  university  at  Halle  respecting  the  study  of 
theology;  and  it  deserves  to  be  remarked  that 
Dn  these  principles,  and  these  alone,  theology  is 
i  distinct  and  independent  science.  On  these 
principles,  it  is  the  science  of  truths  revealed  by 
God  and  received  by  faith,  and  is  thus,  in  a  two- 
fold sense,  divine — viz.,  as  to  the  original  source 
Df  its  truths,  and  the  organ  through  which  they 
are  transmitted  to  the  reflecting  mind ;  that  faith 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  produces  in  the  heart. 
It  is  in  this  way  distinguished  from  all  human 
sciences ;  not  that  the  scientific  effort  of  the 
mind  (the  effort  to  bring  connexion  and  unity 
into  our  various  experiences)  is  different  in  the 
two  cases,  for  this  is  not  supposed ;  but  that  the 
materials  about  which  this  scientific  effort  is 
employed  are  different  in  theology  and  in  human 
sciences.  This  is  a  distinction  which  the  im- 
mortal Bacon  acknowledges  in  a  passage  which 
deserves  careful  consideration  at  the  present 
time : — "  Scientia  aquarum  similis  est ;  aquarum 
aliae  descendunt  ccelitus,  alise  emanant  e  terra. 


Etiam  scientiarum  primaria  partitiosumendaest 
ex  fontibus  suis;  riorum  alii  in  alto  siti  sunt; 
alii  hie  infra.  Omnis  enim  scientia  duplicem 
sortitur  informationem.  Una  inspiratur  divini- 
tus;  aliter  oritur  a  sensu.  Partiemur  igitur 
scientiam  in  theologiam  et  philosophiam.  Theo- 
logiam  hie  intelligimus  inspiratam,  non  natura- 
lem."*  By  this  division  of  the  sciences  accord- 
ing to  their  sources,  a  perfect  independence  of 
all  others  is  secured  to  theology.  The  believer 
in  revelation  draws  the  doctrines  of  his  creed 
from  a  higher  source,  and  so  holds  them  with 
perfect  certainty,  without  waiting  for  the  results 
which  may  be  attained  in  the  lower  sphere  of 
philosophy.  Indeed,  he  considers  them  not  only 
as  true,  but  as  the  test  and  standard  of  all  truth, 
and  so  he  looks  without  fear  for  the  stability  of 
his  faith  upon  the  highest  advances  of  light  and 
knowledge.  Are  any  discoveries  alleged,  or 
any  hypotheses  maintained  in  opposition  to  the 
truths  of  revealed  religion,  he  presupposes  the 
latter  to  be  true,  and  concludes  that  the  former, 
however  plausibly  supported,  are  false.  In  short, 
he  acknowledges  the  correctness  of  the  princi- 
ples of  science  and  philosophy  only  so  far  as 
they  admit  a  source  and  order  of  truth  above 
their  measure ;  and  the  validity  of  their  results 
only  so  far  as  they  illustrate  and  confirm,  or  at 
least  are  consistent  with,  the  doctrines  and  facts 
of  revelation.  This  is  indeed  an  elevated  stand, 
but  one  which  the  believer  in  revelation  is  en- 
titled to  assume,  and  has  always  been  able  to 
maintain.  Where  is  the  declaration  of  Scripture 
which  has  been  fairly  disproved  by  philosophy, 
or  by  any  of  the  sciences,  most  of  which  have 
begun  to  exist  since  the  Bible  was  written1?  On 
the  other  hand,  how  universally  have  the  theo- 
ries and  alleged  discoveries,  which  were  sup- 
posed to  invalidate  the  Scriptures,  proved  in  the 
end  false  and  imaginary.  From  every  attack 
of  an  infidel  philosophy  the  truth  of  revelation 
has  come  off  triumphant,  justifying  the  confi- 
dence of  those  who  implicitly  receive  it,  and 
putting  to  shame  the  exultation  of  unbelievers. 
So  far  from  bringing  up  the  rear,  the  science  of 
revelation  has  led  the  van  in  this  general  march 
of  knowledge  and  improvement,  and  has  in  many 
cases  from  the  first  held  forth  truths  which  phi- 
losophy afterwards  adopted  when  it  became 
more  enlightened. ^ 

How  unworthy,  then,  of  the  dignity  and  inde- 
pendence of  the  true  theologian  is  the  procedure 
of  some  of  the  modern  professors  of  theological 
science,  who  are  ready  to  relinquish  the  clearest 
doctrines  of  the  Bible  on  the  first  semblance  of 
discrepancy  between  them  and  a  philosophy 
which  acknowledges  no  revelation.  There  are 

*  De  dignit.  et  augm.  Scientia.  1.  iii.  cap.  1. 

t  Consider — e.  g.,  the  doctrine  of  creation  from 
nothing,  long  a  doctrine  of  theology,  but  only  lately 
of  philosophy. 

B 


14 


PREFACE. 


of 

corruption,  TJ 


Bat  they  forget  that 
„  and  the  kindred 


not  subject  to  human  revision.    By  their  gra- 

teitMM  cftt^f^aaewm  in  nhilfMOTnhv  HIM!  iuaRimp 

they  depnve  Christian  theology  of  its  proper 
ekmeats,  and  Christian  faith  of  the  ground  of 
hs  reliance.  They  make  the  great  truths  upon 

We  are  thus  left  to  drift 
sea,  while  the  holy 
lifted  our  eyes,  and 
them  kindled  with  the  revealed  glory  of 

t:  psMl  u?  en  tm  ri*5i^  liMlIk,  MV 
i  fires  of  this  modern 


but  we  are  told  they  are  irritable. 
Theologians,  it  is  said,  haTe  no  choice  left  them, 
and  most  adopt  the  splendid  results  which  are 
every  day  disclosed  in  all  departments  of  know- 
ledge; and  if  they  would  not  srfer  theology  to 
Hi 


doctrines  and  the  rapid 


R: 


,::- 


to  restore  the  interrapt- 
theology  and  human  sci- 
r  product  of  the  scien- 
Bot  whence 

of  this  compromise!  It  is  a  ne- 
cessity with  which  the  believer  in  revelation 
can  never  be  pressed,  and  which  certainly  was 
was  not  felt  by  theologians  of  the  old  stamp. 
They  had  not  asserted  their  independence  of  the 
the  schoolmen  only  to  yield  it  again 


to  the  empiric;  and  as  to  the  ad  vantages  of  this 
compromise,  what  has  really  been  accomplished 
by  this  far-famed  rationalism  after  all  its  pro- 
mises! It  professed  friendship  for  Christianity, 
but  has  proved  its  deadly  foe;  standing  within 
the  pale  of  the  church,  it  has  been  in  league 
with  the  enemy  without,  and  has  readily  adopt, 
ed  every  thing  which  infidelity  could  engender, 


philosophy  has  done  to  confirm  the  truths  of  re- 
Telation.    It  promised  to  save  theology  from 


and  how  has  this  promise  been  per- 
formed !  In  the  days  of  Spener,  theology  was 
the  qoeen  of  sciences,  so  acknowledged  by  the 
month  of  Bacon,  Leibnitz,  Haller,  and  others, 
their  chosen  oracles.  She  wore  the  insignia  of 
divinity,  and  «*  filled  her  odorous  lamp"  at  the 
very  original  fountain  of  light ;  but,  in  an  evil 
hour,  she  took  this  flattering  rationalism  to  her 
bosom.  Now,  stripped  of  every  mark  of  divi- 
nity, cut  off  from  her  native  sources  of  light,  and 
thrust  out  into  the  dark,  this  foolish  virgin  is 
compelled  to  say  to  her  sister  sciences,  **  Give 
me  of  your  oil,  for  my  lamp  has  gone  out." 

The  establishment  of  the  school  of  theology 
at  Halle  forms,  as  was  above  remarked,  an  epoch 
in  the  history  of  this  science.  It  gave  an  im- 
pulse which  is  still  felt  both  for  good  and  for  evil, 
and  which  will  probably  be  still  felt  for  many 
ages  to  cone.  To  the  direct  influence  of  this 
i  as  reviving  and  perpetuating 


the  spirit  of  the  Reformation,  may  be  attributed 
all  the  favourable  results  of  free  and  unshackled 
inquiry  in  matters  of  faith.  To  its  indirect  in- 
floence— to  the  abuse  of  the  principles  upon 
which  it  was  established — most  be  ascribed 
those  unprecedented  evils  which  have  been 
lately  inflicted  upon  the  German  church.  In  one 
way  or  another,  this  school  stands  connected 
with  those  great  diverging  tendencies,  whose 
violent  conflict  have  made  the  last  period  of 
theological  development  more  interesting  and 
important  than  any  which  have  preceded.  The 
principles  of  Spener,  made  effective  by  the  la- 
bours of  his  faculty  at  Halle,  are  the  secret 
leaven  which  has  wrought  all  this  commotion  in 
the  once  lifeless  mass  of  orthodoxy.  It  would 
be  highly  interesting  to  follow  down  the  history 
of  this  school,  and  trace  minutely  the  salutary 
influence  of  its  principles,  as  far  as  they  have 
been  observed,  and  the  evils  resulting  from  the 
abuse  of  them.  My  narrow  limits,  however, 
will  permit  me  only  to  describe  very  briefly  the 
iscaco  of  these  principles  in  pietitm  on  the  one 
hand,  and  rafionalt'tm  on  the  other,  and  to  show 
in  what  points  these  two  opposing  directions 
deviate  from  the  just  medium  of  this  Protestant 
school  of  biblical  and  practical  theology,  to 
which  they  both  claim  to  belong. 

We  have  seen,  that  according  to  the  principles 
of  this  school,  failh  and  sctenec,  *t0*>t$  and  y»«- 
0($,  are  made  essential  to  the  theologian.  And 
in  the  early  teachers  of  this  school,  and  some 
of  their  immediate  successors,  we  have  fine  ex- 
amples of  the  just  balance  and  mutual  influence 
of  piety  and  learning.  Their  piety  was  regular, 
enlightened,  and  uniform,  through  the  influence 
of  their  knowledge  of  religious  tiuth ;  while 
their  knowledge  was  humble,  vital,  and  sound, 
through  the  influence  of  faith  and  piety.  Bat 
one  acquainted  with  the  imperfection  of  human 
nature,  and  with  the  history  of  the  church,  could 


PREFACE. 


15 


hardly  expect  that  this  happy  combination 
would  long  continue.  Piety,  which  has  its  seat 
in  the  feelings,  has  ever  tended  to  shun  the 
restraints  and  regulations  which  reflection-  and 
system  i  mpose ;  and  speculation  has  been  equally 
prone  to  dissociate  itself  from  piety,  and  to 
abandon  the  Word  of  God  and  Christian  faith 
as  the  only  foundation  of  religious  knowledge. 
At  an  early  period  of  the  church,  we  see  the 
practical  and  theoretical  spirit  in  violent  oppo- 
sition, under  the  peculiar  forms  and  names  of 
montanism  and  gnosticism.  At  a  later  period  in 
the  western  church,  the  elements  of  fttatis  and 
yvcotft?  were  again  separated  and  in  conflict, 
assuming  the  new  type  of  mysticism  and  scholas- 
ticism. And  in  the  period  now  under  conside- 
ration, the  same  contention  again  exists,  under 
the  still  different  aspect  of  ascetic  pietism  and 
rationalism.  The  practical  tendency  of  the 
founders  of  this  school,  being  unaccompanied 
in  some  of  their  successors  by  the  theoretical 
tendency,  degenerated  into  a  dark,  ascetic, 
bigoted  pietism.  Their  theoretical  tendency, 
being  in  others  of  their  successors  separated 
from  the  practical, — the  head  divorced  from  the 
heart,  degenerated  into  that  cold  and  malignant 
form  of  speculation  known  by  the  name  of  ra- 
tionalism. 

The  first  instance  in  the  latter  period  in  which 
we  discover  the  incipient  alienation  of  the  prac- 
tical from  the  theoretical  direction  of  rnind,  is 
the  opposition  which  arose  at  Halle  to  the  phi- 
losophy of  Wolf.  It  was  very  natural  for  theo- 
logians to  feel,  that  Wolf  allowed  too  much 
scope  to  speculative  reason  when  he  attempted 
to  demonstrate  the  highest  problems  of  meta- 
physics, the  existence  of  God,  the  immortality 
of  the  soul,  the  freedom  of  the  will,  &c.,  with 
mathematical  precision  and  certainty.  And  in 
condemning  these  assumptions  of  reason  re- 
specting matters  of  faith,  the  theologians  of 
Halle  only  anticipated  the  sentence  which  Kant 
and  his  followers  afterwards  pronounced  upon 
the  dogmatism  of  the  earlier  philosophy.  The 
jealousy  in  guarding  the  province  of  faith  against 
the  invasions  of  speculative  reason  thus  excited, 
was  heightened  by  the  writings  of  the  English 
and  French  deists  and  free-thinkers,  then  begin- 
ning to  be  known  and  circulated  in  Germany. 
Upon  these  writings  they  looked  with  abhor- 
rence ;  and  at  length  the  thought  naturally  arose, 
that  if  such  were  the  results  of  philosophy,  it 
was  the  foe  of  religion,  and  should  be  wholly 
discarded.  But  when  they  arrived  at  this  partial 
and  rash  conclusion,  and  acted  according  to  it, 
they  fell  into  the  excesses  with  which  the  same 
mistake  has  always  been  attended.  From  the 
neglect  and  contempt  of  scientific  cultivation, 
their  views  of  divine  truth  soon  became  super- 
ficial. Their  piety  became  more  and  more  a 
matter  of  mere  feeling,  and,  wanting  the  re- 


straints of  reflection,  degenerated  into  wild  en- 
thusiasm, or  dark,  severe,  and  ostentatious 
bigotry.  These  results  have  almost  invariably 
followed  an  undue  jealousy  of  learning  in  mat- 
ters of  faith,  and  teach,  in  a  language  too  loud 
and  distinct  to  be  disregarded,  the  importance 
of  a  thorough  acquaintance  with  systematic  the- 
ology. Too  much  practical  religion  we  cannot 
have ;  but  that  the  highest  purity  and  safety  of 
the  church  demand  more  attention  than  is  usu- 
ally paid  in  this  country  to  the  science  of  the 
Christian  religion,  can  hardly  be  questioned. 
It  should  be  remembered,  that  it  was  upon  this 
degenerate  and  corrupt  pietism,  which  began  to 
infect  the  body  of  the  church  when  the  science 
of  religion  was  neglected,  that  the  corrosive 
poison  of  infidelity  first  seized  and  fed.  Had 
the  ardent  and  practical  piety  of  all  the  succes- 
sors of  the  first  teachers  at  Halle  been  associated 
with  the  theoretical  spirit,  as  it  was  in  Freyling- 
hausen,  Baumgarten,  and  a  few  others,  infidelity 
could  never  have  made  such  ravages  in  the 
church. 

Far- more  fatal,  however,  is  the  other  of  the 
above-named  divergences  from  the  principles  of 
the  biblical  school  of  theology.  Speculation  on 
the  subject  of  religion,  where  living  faith  is  not 
associated  with  it,  is  attended  with  a  twofold 
danger.  The  true  spiritual  understanding  of  the 
truths  of  religion  being  dependent  upon  the 
principle  of  faith,  where  this  does  not  exist,  error 
in  doctrine  is  almost  inevitable.  But,  what  is 
more  important  to  be  considered,  the  only  anti- 
dote to  the  pride  and  blindness  of  natural  reason 
is  the  corrective,  sanctifying  influence  of  faith 
as  a  living  principle  in  the  heart.  "Where  reason 
is  unhumbled,  and  its  disorders  are  unrectified 
by  the  pervading  influence  of  true  piety,  its  ex- 
ercise on  the  subjects  of  religion  cannot  be  salu- 
tary, or  even  safe.  The  unbeliever  is  therefore 
doubly  disqualified  for  forming  a  right  judgment 
upon  the  particular  doctrines  of  religion,  and  for 
combining  them  into  a  correct  system ;  he  wants 
that  experience  by  which  alone  he  can  truly  un- 
derstand them,  and  that  humility  and  reverence 
for  the  deep  things  of  God,  which  is  the  only 
spirit  of  inquiry  congenial  with  the  truths  of  the 
gospel. 

The  nature  and  effects  of  rationalism,  the 
great  object  of  which  is,  to  deny  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  Christian  faith  are  the  only  and 
essential  foundation  of  religious  science,  and  to 
proclaim  the  reason  of  man  as  the  source  and 
arbiter  of  the  truths  of  religion,  has  been  already 
briefly  described.  A  few  words  in  addition,  re- 
specting its  relation  to  this  protestant  school  of 
theology,  will  be  sufficient  for  my  present  object. 
It  is  well  known  that  rationalists  profess  to  act 
in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  protestant- 
ism, when  they  carry  their  freedom  of  investi- 
gation even  to  the  point  of  denying  alike  the 


16 


PREFACE. 


fact  and  the  possibility  of  revelation.  But  this 
freedom  is  entirely  different  from  that  for  which 
the  protestants  contended.  In  performing  their 
work  as  protestants,  they  assumed  both  the  fact 
and  authority  of  revelation.  They  had,  indeed, 
in  the  legitimate  use  of  reason,  well  investigated 
these  points,  and  did  not  receive  the  Scriptures 
as  the  word  of  God  without  conclusive  evidence. 
But  they  contended  only  for  entire  freedom  from 
ecclesiastical  authority  in  determining  what  the 
Scriptures,  admitted  to  be  a  revelation  from  God, 
really  taught  to  men.  They  asserted  the  right 
of  the  Christian  believer  to  derive  the  truths  of 
Christianity  from  revelation  itself,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  authority  of  any  uninspired  men ; 
but  by  no  means  the  right  of  any  man  to  receive 
or  reject  at  option  the  fact  or  the  authority  of  a 
revelation.  This  right,  by  whomsoever  claimed, 
is  not  the  right  which  Luther  or  Spener  advo- 
cated. In  performing  their  work  as  reformers, 
they  thus  assumed  the  principles  which  ration- 
alists deny.  They  came  forward  appealing  to 
the  testimony  of  Christ,  of  prophets  and  apos- 
tles, against  the  errors  and  abuses  of  the  church. 
Rationalists  claim  fellowship  with  them,  while 
they  question  and  deny  the  validity  of  this  very 
testimony.  The  protestants  did  not  undertake 
to  lay  another  foundation  than  that  which  is  laid ; 
and  wished  only  to  prove  the  work  of  every  man 
who  builds  thereon.  But  rationalists  strike  at 
the  foundation  itself;  they  set  aside  the  whole 
historic  basis  of  Christianity,  and  would  sub- 
stitute for  the  unerring  word  of  God  and  Chris- 
tian faith,  which  are  the  same  in  every  age,  the 
fallible,  unsanctified,  and  changing  reason  of 
man.  The  protestants  were  reformers  only,  but 
rationalists  are  innovators  and  revolutionizers, 
aiming  to  overturn  the  whole  Christian  system. 
The  protestants,  in  short,  protested  against  the 
errors  of  the  Romish  church ;  rationalists,  against 
the  truth  of  the  gospel.  It  must  be  obvious, 
then,  that  rationalism  can  claim  but  little  kin- 
dred with  the  true  spirit  of  protestantism,  and 
bears  a  much  nearer  affinity  to  that  wild,  revo- 
lutionary, infidel  spirit,  which  arose  at  nearly 
the  same  time  in  France,  and  swept  over  the 
face  of  Europe. 

It  would  be  a  mistake  also  to  suppose,  that 
rationalism,  like  the  Alexandrine  Gnosis,  or  the 
scholasticism  of  the  middle  ages,  is  objection- 
able only  in  the  excess  to  which  it  carries  spe- 
culation on  subjects  of  faith.  This  excess  is 
indeed  contrary  to  the  maxims  which  we  have 
been  considering,  which  require  a  just  propor- 
tion between  faith  and  knowledge.  It  is  not  so 
much,  however,  the  quantity  as  the  quality  of 
speculation,  which  constitutes  the  malignity  of 
rationalism.  It  is  speculation  without  the  cor- 
rective influence  of  a  sanctified  heart ;  it  is  rea- 
son in  all  its  natural  pride  and  darkness,  un- 
humbled  and  unenlightened  by  divine  influence; 


it  is  science  wanting  that  heavenly  CHARITAS, 
cujus  mixtio,  says  Bacon,  temperat  scientiam* 
eamque  saluberrimam  efficit,  and  without  which, 
omnis  scientia  malignum  quid  habet  venenosum- 
que,  Jlatuosis  syrnptomatibus  plenissimum  ,•  it  is 
this  character  and  quality  of  speculative  reason, 
and  not  its  mere  excess,  which  makes  rational- 
ism the  terror  and  abhorrence  of  religion. 

These  diverging  tendencies  had  already  be- 
come distinct  when  our  author  appeared  upon 
the  stage,  and  the  theologians  of  Halle  were 
then  divided  into  different  schools,  according  as 
they  adhered  more  closely  to  the  principles  of 
Spener  and  Franke,  or  fell  in  either  with  the 
more  ascetic  or  the  more  free  and  liberal  princi- 
ples then  prevailing.  His  father  had  been  elect- 
ed in  1737  to  the  theological  faculty  at  Halle, 
and  was  associated  with  the  younger  Franke  in 
the  direction  of  those  institutes  of  learning  and 
charity  which  are  generally  known  by  the  name 
of  the  Orphan  House.  He  had  seen  the  exam- 
ple, and  heard  the  instructions,  of  the  founders 
of  the  university,  and  was  one  of  the  few  who 
had  walked  in  their  footsteps.  He  laboured, 
though  with  a  mildness  and  moderation  which 
won  the  praises  even  of  his  opponents,  to  pro- 
mote practical  Christianity,  in  opposition  to  the 
bold  and  reckless  speculations  of  some  of  his 
colleagues.  His  only  son,  the  author  of  these 
lectures,  George  Christian  Knapp,  was  born  in 
the  Orphan  House  at  Glaucha  in  Halle  on  the 
17th  of  Sept.,  1753,  and  received  his  early  educa- 
tion in  the  Royal  Psedagogium,  one  of  the  cluster 
of  institutes  there  established  by  Franke.*  In  a 
brief  account  which  he  himself  has  given  of  his 
early  life,  he  mentions  a  fact  not  a  little  credit- 
able to  the  personal  character  of  his  father. 
Nee  tamen  acquievit  pater,"  says  he,  "  in  pub- 
lica  ilia,  qua  in  scholis  fruebar  institutione ;  sed 
ubi  vacuus  a  negotiis  erat,  ipse  me  instituit;  et 
quid  in  schola  profecissem  percunctando  cogno- 
vit, variis  que  exercitationibus,  ingenium  exci- 
tare  et  judicium  acuere  studuit." 

He  entered  the  university  at  Halle,  Sept.  1770, 
in  the  17th  year  of  his  age,  and  there  attended 
the  lectures  of  Semler,  the  first  herald  of  the 
alse  illumination  then  breaking  upon  the  world, 
and  of  Noesselt,  Gruner,  and  others,  who  were 
one  in  feeling  and  action  with  Semler.  During 
the  first  year  of  his  course,  he  sustained  a  great 
oss  in  the  death  of  his  father.  But  in  pursuance 
of  his  counsels,  and  in  the  very  spirit  of  those 
early  teachers  at  Halle  whom  he  had  been 
taught  from  his  youth  to  venerate,  he  devoted 
limself  to  the  study  of  the  original  Scriptures; 
and  made  it  his  great  object  to  become  thorough- 
y  acquainted  with  the  language,  the  facts,  and 
the  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  With  what  unusual 
success  he  prosecuted  these  exegetical  studies, 


*  For  an  account  of  these  institutes,  vide  Biblical 
K-epcrsitory,  vol.  i.  No.  I.  p.  30. 


PREFACE. 


17 


maybe  inferred  from  his  programm,  "Ad  Vatici- 
nium  Jacobi,"  Genesis,  xlix.  1—27,  and  from 
his  disputation,  "  De  Versione  Alexandrina," 
both  contained  in  his  "  Scripta  Varii  Argumen- 
ti ;"  and  also  from  his  translation  of  the  Psalms, 
all  of  which  were  composed  and  published, 
either  during;  his  pupilage  at  Halle,  or  shortly 
after  its  completion. 

While  at  the  university  he  also  pursued  the 
study  of  the  Latin  and  Greek  classics  with  great 
zeal.  Of  the  value  of  this  study  to  the  theolo- 
gian there  can  be  little  doubt.  It  not  only  pre- 
pares him  to  understand  the  language,  and  relish 
the  beauties  of  the  sacred  classics,  but  furnishes 
him  with  those  analogies  of  feeling  and  opinion 
which  are  highly  important  in  the  illustration  of 
revealed  truth.  The  writings  of  Dr.  Knapp  are 
everywhere  enriched  by  the  various  illustrations 
of  scriptural  ideas,  which  he  draws  from  Grecian 
and  Roman  literature. 

He  completed  his  studies  at  Halle,  in  Aprilr 
1774 ;  and  after  an  absence  of  a  few  months, 
which  he  spent  in  study  at  Gottingen,  in  visit- 
ing the  most  celebrated  cities  in  Germany,  and 
forming  acquaintances  with  the  most  distin- 
guished men,  he  returned,  and  in  1775  began  to 
lecture  upon  Cicero,  and  also  upon  the  New 
Testament,  and  some  of  the  more  difficult  por- 
tions of  the  Old.  He  was  at  that  time  in  feeble 
health,  and  probably  could  hardly  have  believed 
that  he  should  be  continued  half  a  century  in 
the  employment  which  he  then  commenced. 
The  unusual  approbation  with  which  he  was 
heard  in  these  courses  obtained  for  him  the 
appointment,  first  of  Professor  Extraordinary 
(1777),  and  then  of  Professor  Ordinary  (in  1782). 
In  addition  to  his  exegetical  courses,  he  now 
lectured  on  church  history  and  Jewish  and 
Christian  antiquities.  But  he  was  not,  like  the 
great  majority  of  the  professors  in  the  German 
universities,  employed  merely  in  academical 
labours.  On  the  death  of  Freylinghausen  ( 1785), 
he  and  Niemeyer  were  appointed  Directors  of 
Franke's  Institutes,  and  continued  jointly  to 
superintend  these  noble  and  extensive  establish- 
ments for  more  than  forty  years.  In  the  division 
of  duties,  the  oversight  of  the  Bible  and  mis- 
sionary establishment  fell  to  Dr.  Knapp,  and 
he  was  thus  brought  into  connection  with  the 
Moravian  brethren. 

It  was  in  the  summer  of  the  same  year  in 
which  he  received  this  appointment,  and  after 
he  had  often  lectured  on  subsidiary  branches, 
that  he  commenced  the  composition  of  the  lec- 
tures on  theology  now  presented  to  the  public. 
As  he  continued  his  regular  courses  in  exegesis 
and  history,  was  occupied  partly  in  the  concerns 
of  the  institutes,  and  was  moreover  often  inter- 
rupted in  his  studies  by  severe  illness,  he  did 
not  complete  them  before  the  summer  of  1789, 
when  he  first  read  them  before  a  class  of  186. 
3 


After  this  time  he  continued  to  lecture  on  theo- 
[ogy  (though  latterly  in  shorter  courses)  until 
near  his  death,  and  always  to  numerous  audi- 
tories. 

But  while  his  life  passed  away  in  these  pur- 
suits so  congenial  to  his  taste,  he  was  not  freed 
from  those  pains  and  sorrows  which  are  the 
common  lot  of  man.  His  peaceful  professional 
career  was  frequently  interrupted  by  the  poli- 
tical disorders  of  the  times,  and  the  repeated 
occupation  of  Halle  by  foreign  troops.  His  do- 
mestic peace  was  also  invaded  by  the  long-con- 
tinued illness  of  his  wife,  and  by  the  violent 
sickness  with  which  he  himself  was  often  at- 
tacked, and  the  constant  infirmity  under  which 
he  laboured.  These  evils,  however,  great  as 
they  might  be,  must  have  appeared  trivial  in 
comparison  with  those  with  which  he  saw  the 
church  afflicted.  He  was  called  to  behold  new 
principles,  which  he  regarded  as  false  and  dan- 
gerous, rapidly  supplanting  those  in  which  he 
had  been  educated,  and  to  which,  from  his  own 
conviction,  he  was  attached.  He  was  compelled 
to  hear  the  truths  which  he  held  most  sacred 
and  precious  treated  with  profane  levity.  He 
found  himself,  at  last,  the  only  decided  advocate 
of  evangelical  religion  among  the  professors  at 
Halle,  and  exposed  to  ridicule  and  contempt  for 
teaching  the  very  doctrines  in  which  Spener 
and  Franke  had  most  gloried.  These  were  trials 
under  which  his  natural  firmness  and  composure 
must  have  failed  him,  and  in  which  he  could  be 
supported  only  by  a  pious  confidence  in  God. 
He  cherished  this  confidence,  and  through  its 
influence  remained  unmoved  during  times  of 
unparalleled  darkness  and  danger.  Nor  was  his 
confidence  misplaced.  Towards  the  close  of  his 
life  the  prospect  seemed  to  brighten.  The  letter 
times  which  Spener  thought  so  near,  but  which 
had  been  long  delayed,  seemed  again  approach- 
ing, and  it  was  not  difficult  to  discern  the  signs 
of  a  new  epoch  at  hand.  On  the  third  centennial 
festival  in  commemoration  of  the  Reformation, 
which  occurred  in  the  year  1817,  the  slumber- 
ing spirit  of  the  evangelical  churches  was 
awakened.  In  a  programm  which  our  author 
delivered  on  that  occasion,  and  which  is  inserted 
in  his  "  Scripta  Varii  Argument!,"  he  poured 
forth  his  pious  supplications  in  behalf  of  the 
German  church  and  his  beloved  university  in  a 
strain  of  unusual  eloquence.  From  that  time 
he  had  the  joy  of  beholding  the  cause  which  he 
held  most  dear  gradually  gaining  ground.  His 
own  reputation,  too,  increased  with  his  declining 
years.  And  among  the  most  cheerful  passages 
in  his  life,  is  that  which  occurred  just  before  its 
close.  On  the  first  of  May,  1825,  he  had  been 
fifty  years  connected  with  the  theological  faculty 
of  the  university,  and ,  according  to  an  established 
custom,  a  jubilee  festival  was  then  held  in  his 
honour ;  and  many  were  the  marks  of  personal 
•  9 


18 


PREFACE. 


affection  and  esteem,  as  well  as  the  civic  and 
academic  honours,  then  heaped  upon  the  vene- 
rable and  happy  jubilar. 

Not  long  after  this,  while  he  was  continuing 
his  summer  course  of  theology,  he  was  seized 
with  a  violent  illness,  from  which  he  never  re- 
covered. He  died  in  peace  and  Christian  con- 
fidence, on  the  14th  day  of  October,  1825,  in  the 
73d  year  of  his  age.  According  to  his  particular 
direction,  his  remains  were  interred  privately, 
early  on  the  third  morning  after  his  decease,  in 
his  family  tomb,  by  the  side  of  his  wife,  who 
had  died  eight  years  before.  He  requested,  with 
that  genuine  modesty  for  which  he  was  always 
distinguished,  that  in  the  public  notices  of  his 
death  nothing  should  be  said  to  his  honour,  and 
that  it  should  only  be  witnessed  of  him  that  he 
lived  by  faith  in  the  words,  "  I  know  that  my 
Redeemer  liveth." 

Few  are  the  men  whose  lives  are  so  uniform, 
happy,  and  useful.  Born  and  educated  in  the 
midst  of  those  noble  institutes  which  stand  a 
living  monument  of  the  faith  of  their  founder — 
blessed  with  the  example  and  instructions  of  a 
father,  high  in  office  and  eminent  for  excellence 
and  learning, — the  inheritor  of  his  virtues,  and 
called  afterwards  by  Providence  to  succeed  him 
both  as  director  of  Franke's  Institutes  and  as 
theological  professor, — richly  provided  with  the 
means  of  improvement,  and  freed  from  the  em- 
barrassments with  which  the  acquisition  of 
learning  is  often  attended, — received  with  fa- 
vour at  the  very  commencement  of  his  profes- 
sional duties,  and  through  all  the  variations  of 
public  opinion  and  feeling  thronged  by  pupils 
who  loved  and  revered  him, — encircled  in  his 
family  with  children  and  friends,  by  whom  he 
was  fondly  cherished, — in  his  old  age  permitted 
to  witness  the  brightening  prospects  of  the  cause 
which  was  nearest  his  heart,  and  honoured  with 
every  mark  of  public  confidence  and  esteem ; — 
he  was  indeed  signally  favoured  of  God.  He 
was  faithful  in  the  trust  committed  to  him,  and 
found  God  faithful  to  his  promises.  His  labour 
was  not  in  vain  in  the  Lord ;  he  was  blessed 
during  his  life,  and  in  death  his  remembrance 
does  not  perish.  "Wherever  the  news  shall 
reach,"  says  Niemeyer,  his  colleague  and  eulo- 
gist, "  that  this  gifted  teacher  is  for  ever  re- 
moved from  the  sphere  of  his  labours,  there  will 
witnesses  arise  who  will  acknowledge  how  much 
they  owe  to  his  instructions  ;  and  even  beyond 
the  sea  his  memory  will  be  cherished  and  his 
name  not  forgotten." 

I  shall  close  these  prefatory  remarks  with  a 
general  view  of  the  character  of  Dr.  Knapp,  and 
with  some  more  particular  information  respect- 
ing the  Lectures  .now  offered  to  the  public. 

His  bodily  constitution  was  frail  and  sickly, 
even  from  his  childhood.  He  had  a  complica- 
tion of  disorders,  which  would  have  consigned 


one  less  zealous  for  a  life  of  usefulness,  and  less 
resolute  in  adopting  and  pursuing  the  means 
necessary  to  attain  it,  to  an  indolent  and  unpro- 
fitable existence,  or  to  an  early  grave.  That 
sickness  and  bodily  infirmity  had  not  this  effect 
upon  him,  must  be  attributed  to  the  exact  course 
of  discipline  which  he  pursued.  In  all  things  he 
practised  the  most  rigid  temperance,  and  daily 
took  bodily  exercise  in  the  open  air,  measured 
almost  by  the  minute,  and  uninterrupted  by  any 
severity  of  weather.  "  We  could  hardly  have 
thought,"  says  Niemeyer,  in  his  funeral  address, 
"  when  we  saw  him,  weak  and  exhausted,  con- 
tending with  the  rude  elements,  supported  by 
his  pilgrim  staff,  that  his  frail  earthly  tabernacle 
could  endure  so  long."  Such  was  the  effect, 
however,  of  the  rigid  discipline  which  he  main- 
tained, that  he  reached  an  advanced  age,  in  the 
midst  of  arduous  public  duties,  in  which  he  was 
rarely  interrupted,  and  died  at  length  without 
having  kept  his  bed  for  a  single  day — an  exam- 
ple worthy  of  the  consideration  of  the  irresolute 
hypochondriac  who  broods  over  his  ailings,  and 
lives  a  burden  to  himself  and  those  about  him. 

In  his  personal  character  he  was  rather  amia- 
ble than  commanding.  He  possessed  in  an 
unusual  degree  that  mildness,  benignity,  and 
gentleness  of  disposition  which  wins  affection, 
and  that  integrity,  guilelessness,  and  perfect 
simplicity  of  heart  which  secures  confidence. 
In  his  intercourse  with  others  he  was  unassum- 
ing, and  entirely  free  from  suspicion  and  jea- 
lousy. He  was  distinguished  for  punctuality 
in  the  fulfilment  of  all  his  engagements,  and 
was  one  of  the  few  men  who  do  every  part  of 
duty  in  its  proper  time  and  place.  His  personal 
faults  were  those  which  almost  invariably  ac- 
company the  excellent  attributes  of  character  for 
which  he  was  distinguished— a  degree  of  timid- 
ity, too  great  desire  to  please,  and  fear  to  offend, 
and  pliability  in  trying  emergencies,  where  the 
highest  degree  of  energy  is  required. 

As  to  the  religious  character  of  Dr.  Knapp, 
the  evidence  in  favour  of  his  strictly  evangelical 
piety  is  clear  and  decisive.  There  is  no  proof  of 
any  sudden  alteration  in  his  views  and  feelings 
on  the  subject  of  personal  religion,  and  there  are 
no  means,  therefore,  of  ascertaining  the  precise 
period  when  his  spiritual  life  commenced.  His 
is  one  of  the  thousand  cases  in  which  early  pa- 
rental instruction,  by  exciting  the  religious  sen- 
sibilities of  the  soul,  prepares  the  way,  through 
the  divine  blessing,  for  the  higher  life  of  faith. 
The  influence  of  these  early  parental  instructions, 
in  restraining  from  hardening  vices,  and  in  awa- 
kening the  moral  impulses  of  the  soul,  cannot 
be  better  described  than  by  his  .own  words : — 
"  Vitae  morumque  praecepta,  quse  mihi  puero  et 
juveni  a.  b.  parente  graviter  quidem,  sed  tamen 
peramanter,  inculcabantur,  crebraeque  exhorta- 
tiones  ad  studium  pietatis  in  Deum  ac  veri 


PREFACE. 


19 


rectique  amorem,  menti  meas  tarn  alte  infixae 
heeserunt,  ut  earum  memoria  nunquam  deleri 
poterit.  Nam  post  ejus  obitum  quoque,  si  forte 
adessent  peccandi  illecebrse,  quibus  tentari  ju- 
venilis  setas  solet,  statim  ejus  imago  animo  meo 
obversabatur,  simulque  in  memoriam  revocabam 
cohortationesomnemqueinstitutionempaternam, 
qua  juvenilis  animus  mature  erat  imbutus.  Hac 
cura  ac  diligentia  parentum  effectual  est  unice, 
ut  varia  pericula  atque  incitamenta  ad  peccan- 
dum,  quibus  multos  aequalium,  optimae  spei  ju- 
venis,  in  academia  prsesertim,  succumbere  vidi, 
feliciter  superarem." 

The  good  effect  of  these  pious  counsels  was 
in  some  degree  counteracted  for  a  time  by  the 
extremely  dangerous  circumstances  in  which  he 
was  placed  at  the  university,  and  especially  by 
the  instructions  of  the  neological  professors, 
which  were  as  unfavourable  to  vital  piety  as 
they  were  to  sound  doctrine.  He  was  naturally 
somewhat  affected  by  the  spirit  of  the  times, 
though  he  was  never  carried  so  far  as  to  lose  his 
confidence  in  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  or 
to  join  with  the  scoffers  by  whom  he  was  sur- 
rounded in  deriding  things  sacred.  Through 
the  blessing  of  God  he  was  speedily  recovered 
from  this  temporary  aberration,  and  became 
more  and  more  in  earnest  about  his  salvation. 
About  the  time  he  was  chosen  ordinary  profes- 
sor, he  began  to  keep  a  diary,  on  the  first  leaf 
of  which  he  wrote  as  follows :- — "I  have  re- 
solved to-day,  with  the  help  of  God,  to  write 
something  from  time  to  time  respecting  my  spi- 
ritual condition.  It  is  my  hope  that  by  this 
means  I  shall  render  myself  more  observant  of 
my  whole  character  and  conduct  than,  as  I  must 
confess  to  my  shame,  I  have  hitherto  been.  If 
by  the  grace  of  God  I  succeed  in  this,  oh,  how 
shall  I  bless  this  day !"  It  was  not,  however, 
until  eight  or  ten  years  after  this  period  that  he 
gave  that  clear  evidence  of  evangelical  piety 
which  he  exhibited  during  the  latter  part  of  his 
life.  In  1794  he  became  more  decided  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  prevailing  unbelief,  and  in  the  love 
and  defence  of  truth ;  and  it  is  at  this  period  that 
one  of  his  eulogists*  dates  his  conversion.  The 
fact,  however,  probably  was,  that  at  the  time 
specified  the  inward  life  of  God  in  his  soul, 
before  hidden,  and  by  adverse  influences  almost 
extinct,  became  more  evident  and  vigorous.  As 
the  ways  of  God  in  leading  men  to  Christ  are 
often  secret  and  unknown,  so  too  is  the  operation 
of  the  Spirit  dwelling  in  believers.  Its  presence 
is  often  undiscovered;  and  while  it  secretly 
works  the  mortification  of  sinful  nature  and  con- 
formity to  Christ,  the  believer  himself  may  be 
unconscious  of  the  inward  mystery  of  grace; 
and  to  others  certainly  it  is  wholly  impercepti- 
ble. 


Dr.  Scheibel.  of  Breslau. 


The  question  when  his  spiritual  life  com- 
menced is,  however,  of  little  interest  compared 
with  the  question,  how  it  was  exhibited, — what, 
were,  its  principal  characteristics  ?  It  has  been  al- 
ready remarked,  that  in  place  of  the  enlightened 
and  scriptural  piety  of  the  first  teachers  of  theo- 
logy at  Halle,  some  of  their  successors  exhibited 
a  gloomy,  exclusive,  pharisaical  religion,  the 
principal  marks  of  which  were  an  ostentatious 
display  of  sanctity,  and  total  abstinence  from  the 
innocent  enjoyments  of  life.  Very  far  from  this 
was  the  character  of  Knapp's  piety.  With  the 
deep  feeling  of  his  own  unworthiness  he  always 
associated  the  genuine  evangelical  enjoyment 
arising  from  the  consciousness  of  the  Divine 
forgiveness  and  favour.  This  consciousness 
diffused  a  peace  and  composure  within  which 
influenced  his  external  deportment,  and  made 
his  religion  attractive  to  beholders.  Nor  was 
the  piety  of  Knapp  of  that  high-toned  mystical 
cast  which  appears  in  many  of  the  speculative 
theologians  of  modern  Germany.  So  intense  is 
the  process  of  sublimation  to  which  they  some- 
times subject  their  religious  feelings,  that  the 
solid  substance  of  their  piety  seems  the  while 
to  be  quite  evaporated.  To  any  thing  like  this, 
Knapp  was  wholly  indisposed  by  the  natural 
plainness  and  simplicity  of  his  character. 
Among  the  most  prominent  characteristics  of 
that  piety  which  he  exhibited  is  the  sense  of 
unworthiness,  and  of  dependence  on  the  grace 
of  God.  When  on  the  day  of  his  jubilee  his 
merits  were  largely  recounted,  he  frequently 
spoke  of  what  he  had  omitted  to  do,  and  was 
prone  to  confess  himself  an  unprofitable  servant. 
He  gratefully  ascribed  his  success  in  whatever 
he  undertook  to  the  blessing  of  God,  and  espe- 
cially acknowledged  him  as  the  author  of  every 
good  thought,  word,  and  work.  His  piety  was 
in  a  high  degree  active ,-  he  was  unwearied  in 
his  efforts  to  promote  the  prosperity  and  en- 
largement of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  By  his 
practical  writings  he  contributed  much  to  revive 
the  declining  flame  of  piety  in  the  German 
church,  and  by  his  exertions  in  behalf  of  mis- 
sions to  spread  the  gospel  over  the  earth.  In 
the  severe  pains  and  heavy  afflictions  which  he 
was  called  to  endure,  he  honoured  religion  by 
his  quiet  submission  to  the  will  of  God.  His 
private  walk  was  strictly  conformed  to  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  gospel;  and  to  all  with  whom  he 
was  associated  it  was  evident  that  his  conver- 
sation was  in  heaven ;  and  this  it  was  which 
gave  to  his  explanations  of  the  Bible,  his  lec- 
tures on  theology,  and  all  his  religious  instruc- 
tions, an  energy  and  effect  unknown  in  the  la- 
bours of  those  whose  lives  do  not  bear  witness 
to  their  sincerity. 

But  we  are  here  concerned  with  Dr.  Knapp 
principally  as  a  teacher  and  theological  profes- 
sor. For  this  office  he  was  eminently  qualified, 


20 


PREFACE. 


both  by  the  natural  endowments  of  his  mind 
and  by  his  acquisitions.  His  thoughts  on  the 
different  subjects  to  which  he  turned  his  atten- 
tion were  plain,  natural,  and  solid.  His  know- 
ledge was  deep  and  thorough;  and  he  always 
cautioned  his  pupils  against  whatever  was 
showy  or  superficial  in  their  attainments,  as 
tending  to  foster  that  pride  of  learning  which 
from  his  very  soul  he  abhorred.  To  know  a 
little  well,  rather  than  a  great  deal  imperfectly, 
was  his  invariable  direction.  The  clearness  and 
distinctness  of  his  conceptions  rendered  his  style 
uncommonly  lucid  and  perspicuous.  His  hear- 
ers were  never  left  in  doubt  as  to  his  meaning 
by  any  vagueness  or  indefiniteness  in  his  ex- 
pressions. These  were  the  qualities  which 
made  him  so  highly  popular  as  a  teacher.  Al- 
though he  by  no  means  fell  in  with  the  prevail- 
ing taste  of  theological  study,  his  lecture-room 
was  always  thronged.  Students  who  are  really 
in  pursuit  of  the  truth  prefer  to  follow  the  slow, 
but  certain  steps  of  a  teacher,  who  proceeds 
in  the  orderly  demonstrative  method,  rather 
than  of  one  who  is  hasty  and  headlong  in  his 
decisions.  No  teacher  was  ever  more  popular 
in  Germany  than  Baumgarten,  and  none  ever 
more  logical,  or  painfully  slow  and  moderate  in 
his  delivery.  In  judging  of  the  opinions  of 
others,  Knapp  was  distinguished  for  fairness  and 
candour.  He  allowed  the  full  weight  of  their 
arguments ;  and  while  he  never  spared  that  pro- 
fane trifling  and  contempt  with  which  the  doc- 
trines of  religion  were  treated  by  many  of  his 
contemporaries,  he  did  not  assume  to  condemn 
those  who  differed  from  him  merely  in  opinion. 
Through  the  exercise  of  this  Christian  candour 
and  charity,  he  was  enabled  to  live  in  perfect 
harmony  with  colleagues  whose  system  of  be- 
lief and  manner  of  instruction  were  directly  op- 
posite to  his  own. 

The  Lectures  on  Theology  now  offered  to  the 
public  were  composed,  as  has  been  already  re- 
marked, between  the  years  1785  and  '89,  and 
first  publicly  read  during  the  latter  year.  Al- 
though often  repeated  after  that  time,  and  at 
each  reading  corrected  in  minor  particulars, 
they  remained,  in  all  their  essential  features,  the 
same  as  when  first  written.  This  will  appear 
less  strange,  when  it  is  considered  that  the  au- 
thor came  to  the  composition  of  them  well  versed 
in  all  the  branches  of  subsidiary  theology.  But 
there  is  another  reason  which  will  perfectly 
account  for  the  stability  of  Knapp's  theological 
system,  during  a  period  distinguished  above  all 
others  for  rapid  fluctuations  of  opinion,  and  the 
rise  and  fall  of  philosophical  theories.  It  was 
built  on  the  sure  foundation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  therefore  fell  not,  though  the  rains  descend- 
ed, and  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew. 
He  assumed  at  the  very  outset  of  his  theological 
course,  the  principle,  that  lead  where  they  may, 


the  decisions  uf  inspiration  are  to  be  fearlessly 
followed.  In  the  truth  of  this  principle  he  be- 
came more  and  more  confirmed,  the  more  he 
saw  of  the  uncertainty,  pride,  and  blindness  of 
human  reason,  in  the  speculations  of  contempo- 
rary philosophers.  And  most  of  the  few  changes 
which  he  made  in  his  lectures  were  owing  to 
the  stricter  application  of  this  essential  principle 
in  cases  where  he  had  before  hesitated  to  apply 
it,  under  the  influence  of  the  very  different  prin- 
ciples respecting  the  word  of  God  which  he  had 
learned  in  the  school  of  Semler.  In  his  earlier 
statements  respecting  the  doctrines  of  the  Tri- 
nity, demoniacal  possessions,  the  prophecies 
relating  to  the  Messiah,  the  endlessness  of  future 
punishments,  &c.,  as  they  are  given  by  his 
German  editor  Thilo,  he  was  more  conformed  to 
the  loose  and  arbitrary  principles  of  his  neolo- 
gian  associates,  than  in  his  later  statements, 
which  the  reader  will  find  in  the  following  pages. 

In  the  composition  of  these  lectures,  Dr.  Knapp 
followed  strictly  the  principles  of  the  school  of 
Spener  and  Franke.  The  Holy  Scriptures  and 
Christian  experience  were  the  source  from  which 
he  derived  the  elements  of  his  system.  He  en- 
deavoured to  illustrate  the  doctrines  of  revelation 
by  analogies  from  classical  writers,  by  showing 
to  what  ideas  in  the  human  mind  they  corre- 
spond, and  what  wants  of  our  nature  they  are 
intended  to  meet,  and  by  giving  a  history  of  the 
opinions  entertained,  and  the  various  learned 
distinctions  adopted  respecting  them  in  ancient 
and  modern  times.  He  then  endeavoured  to 
combine  these  doctrines,  thus  illustrated,  into  a 
thorough  system.  The  philosophy  which  he 
adopted,  and  by  which  he  was  influenced  as  far 
as  by  any,  is  that  popular  eclectic  system  which 
prevailed  between  the  downfall  of  Wolf  and  the 
ascendency  of  Kant.  But  he  was  especially 
faithful  to  the  requisition,  that  impractical  effect 
of  the  doctrines  of  revelation  should  be  ever  kept 
in  view  by  theological  teachers.  Under  each 
of  the  important  doctrines  he  gave  directions 
respecting  the  best  mode  of  presenting  them  in 
popular  discourse;  and  these  directions  consti- 
tute a  very  considerable  part  of  the  value  of  this 
work. 

I  will  only  add  a  word  respecting  the  transla- 
tion of  these  Lectures.  I  undertook  it  at  the 
commencement  of  my  theological  studies,  at  the 
suggestion  and  with  the  approbation  of  my  in- 
structers,  and  soon  completed  a  hasty  translation 
of  most  of  the  Articles.  In  correcting  the  copy 
and  preparing  it  for  the  press,  I  felt  myself 
tempted  to  relieve  the  tediousness  of  simple  re- 
vision by  entering  upon  the  wide  field  of  theo- 
logical investigation  to  which  I  was  pointed  by 
the  references  of  the  author,  and  for  which  the 
library  in  this  seminary  furnishes  ample  means. 
This  was  in  many  cases  necessary  to  enable  me 
to  understand  fully  the  meaning  of  the  author 


PREFACE. 


21 


These  collateral  studies  have  occasioned  an  un- 
expected delay  in  the  publication  of  this  work, 
though  I  hope  they  will  contribute  to  render  it 
more  complete.  I  have  endeavoured  to  bring 
down  the  literature  of  the  more  important  Arti- 
cles to  the  present  time,  and  in  doing  this  have 
made  use  of  the  excellent  Manual  of  Hahn  of 
Leipsic,  and  of  Bretschneider's  "  Dogmatik." 
I  have  frequently  introduced  important  passages 
from  authors  referred  to  by  Knapp,  but  not  ac- 
cessible to  readers  in  general.  In  some  cases 
in  which  Knapp  differs  from  the  opinion  com- 
monly received  by  theologians  in  this  country, 
as  in  the  doctrine  of  decrees ;  or  in  which  his 
statements  have  been  corrected  or  mended  by 
later  investigations,  as  in  some  portions  of  the 
history  of  the  Trinity ;  I  have  either  stated  the 
opposite  opinion,  with  the  reasons  for  it,  or  re- 
ferred to  authors  where  different  statements  can 
be  found.  It  must  not  be  inferred,  however, 
that  whenever  this  is  not  done,  the  author's 
opinions  are  considered  to  be  unexceptionable. 
It  should  be  distinctly  stated,  that  neither  the 
translator  nor  the  gentlemen  by  whose  advice 
this  work  was  undertaken,  are  vouchers  for  the 
exact  truth  of  all  its  doctrines.  Of  its  general 
correctness  they  are  well  satisfied,  and  this  is 
all  for  which  they  are  responsible. 
The  additions  made  by  the  translator  are  in- 


cluded in  brackets,  and  are  sometimes  printed 
uniformly  with  the  text,  though  more  generally 
thrown  into  notes;  they  are  in  most  cases, 
though  not  always,  designated  by  the  abbrevia- 
tion TR. 

The  translation  which  I  have  given  will  be 
found,  if  compared  with  the  original,  to  be  some- 
what free.  I  have  endeavoured  to  express  the 
meaning  of  the  author,  as  he  himself  would  have 
expressed  it  in  English,  rather  than  to  follow 
the  German,  to  the  violation  of  the  purity  of  our 
own  language.  The  imperfect  state  of  the  ori- 
ginal text  justifies  a  greater  freedom  of  version 
than  would  otherwise  be  allowable.  These 
lectures  were  published  after  the  death  of  their 
author,  without  any  alteration,  from  manuscripts 
which  he  had  never  prepared  for  the  press. 
Many  passages  are  therefore  quite  incomplete, 
and  could  be  intelligibly  rendered  only  by  a 
copious  paraphrase. 

I  embrace  this  opportunity  to  express  my 
thanks  to  the  gentlemen  who  have  rendered  me 
assistance;  and  especially  to  my  honoured 
father,  to  whose  careful  revision  much  of  the 
correctness  of  this  work  is  to  be  attributed. 
,  LEONARD  WOODS,  JUN. 


Theological  Seminai 
Sept.  26,  1£ 


f,  Andover, 
31. 


INTRODUCTION. 


23 


INTRODUCTION. 


SECTION  I. 

OF   RELIGION  AND  THEOLOGY  ;    AND   THE    DIFFER- 
ENCE   BETWEEN   THEM. 

I.  Of  Religion. 

ELIGION,  understood  sub- 
'jectively,  and  in  the  widest 
sense,  is  commonly  defined, 
reverence  for  God,  or  piety  to 
him.  The  objection  which 
Staudlinand  some  other  mod- 
ern writers  have  urgedagainst 
this  definition  is  not  important  enough 
to  require  us  to  abandon  it.  We  say 
of  one  who  performs  what  he  acknow- 
ledges to  be  agreeable  to  the  will  of 
God,  that  he  reverences  God,  or  is  pious, 
(colere  deum,  cultus  dei.)  Thus  Kant  defines 
religion  to  be,  the  acknowledgment  of  our  duties- 
as  divine  commands.  It  is  clear  that  two  things 
are  essential  to  piety  to  God — viz.,  (1)  The 
knowledge  of  God,  as  to  his  nature,  attributes, 
&c.;  of  his  relation  to  men,  and  his  disposition 
towards  them;  and  also  of  his  will.  (2)  Affec- 
tions and  conduct  correspondent  with  this  know- 
ledge; or  the  application  of  this  knowledge. 
The  science  of  religion,  then,  is  that  science 
which  comprises  every  thing  relative  to  the 
knowledge  and  reverence  of  God.  The  hu- 
man understanding  is  employed  about  the  for- 
mer, which  is  called  the  theoretic  part  of  reli- 
gion, (yrtutfis,  rtttfT'cj,  t'o  TtKjT's'UEtv.)  The  hu- 
man will  is  employed  about  the  latter,  which  is 
called  the  practical  part  of  religion,  (ra  tpya,  to 
Ttotstv.)  These  two  parts  must  coexist.  One 
is  equally  essential  with  the  other.  They  are, 
therefore,  always  connected  in  the  discourses  of 
Christ  and  the  writings  of  the  apostles.  Vide 
John,  xiii.  17;  Titus,  i.  1;  Jas.  i.  22—27. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  2,  biblica  nomina  religionis, 
<J>6i3o$  ®iov,  x.  *.  h. 

The  correctness  of  this  knowledge  of  God  is 
very  important  in  regard  to  our  conduct.  The 
human  mind  is  compelled  to  conceive  of  God  as 
the  great  ideal  of  moral  perfection,  and  conse- 
quently, to  make  him  the  pattern  for  imitation. 
False  notions,  therefore,  respecting  his  nature, 
attributes,  and  commands,  are  in  the  highest 
degree  injurious  to  morality. 

But  religion  is  often  used  in  a  more  limited 
sense,  denoting  either  the  theoretic  or  the  prac- 
tical part  merely.    And  in  either  of  these  re- 
4 


spects  a  man  is  called  religious.  Religion  is  a 
name  which  is  also  very  frequently  given  to  the 
xternal  rites  of  divine  service.  And  thus  a  man 
who  lives  devoutly,  frequents  public  worship, 
and  observes  the  ordinances,  is  called  a  religious 
man.  But  this  is  a  perversion  of  the  word, 
which  has  bad  consequences.  Vide  Morus,  s.  2, 
not.  extra. 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  religion  subjec- 
tively— i.  e.,  in  respect  to  those  who  possess  it. 
But, 

(6)  The  word  religion  is  often  used  objectively, 
to  designate  the  whole  sum  of  doctrines  respecting 
God  and  his  will.  But  since  the  notions  of  men 
respecting  God,  and  accordingly  their  piety  to 
him,  are  very  different,  religion  frequently  sig- 
nifies in  common  language  the  manner  in  which 
God  is  regarded,  according  to  these  preconceived 
opinions.  Thus  we  speak  of  the  Christian, 
heathen,  and  Mahommedan  religion — i.  e.,  the 
manner  in  which  God  is  regarded  according  to 
the  ideas  of  Christians,  heathen,  and  Mahomme- 
dans.  We  also  speak  of  changing,  professing, 
denying,  embracing,  renouncing  one's  religion, 
using  religion  in  the  same  sense. 

Note. — The  Latin  word  religio  is  derived  from 
the  old  word  religere,  and  from  the  derivative  re- 
ligens,  synonymous  with  diligens,  careful,  strict. 
Cic.  De  Nat.  Deor.  II.  28,  and  Gell.  Noct.  Att. 
IV.  9.  It  signifies,  literally,  strictness,  punctual 
care,  conscientiousness.  Those  who  exhibited 
zeal  and  earnestness  in  the  service  of  God,  as  the 
most  important  concern,  were  therefore  called 
xii*1  «|o^^i/,  religiosi;  and  their  conduct  was 
called  religio  (the  name  of  the  Deity  being  fre- 
quently annexed)  dei,  or  erga  deum.  The  word 
religio,  however,  and  especially  the  plural  re.li- 
giones,  was  most  commonly  used  in  reference  to 
external  worship,  rites,  and  ceremonies.  Vide 
Jerusalem,  Betrachtungen  iiber  die  Wahrheiten 
der  Religion,  Th.  I.  Vide  especially,  die  achte 
Betrachtung. 

II.  Of  Theology. 

Theology  is  properly  7.0705  rtfpt  ®eov,  (like 
acr-r'poXoyta,)  and  this  is  either  narratio  de  de.o, 
or  doctrina  de  deo.  The  most  ancient  heathen 
Greeks  used  it  in  the  first  sense.  Those  who 
wrote  the  history  of  the  gods,  their  works  (e.  g., 
cosmogony)  and  exploits,  in  short,  the  mytho- 
logists,  were  called  ^oxoyta.  Pherecydes  of 
Scyros,  who  wrote  a  work  entitled  £so>,oy(,'a,  was 
C  25 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


the  first  who  was  so  called.  Homer  and  Hesiod, 
too,  were  theologians  in  this  sense.  Moses  is 
said  by  Philo  ^tohoyeiv,  when  he  gives  the  his- 
tory of  the  creation.  The  fathers  of  the  church 
use  the  same  word,  sometimes  in  reference  to 
the  doctrine  concerning  God  as  a  part  of  all  re- 
ligion, and  sometimes  in  reference  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  in  opposition 
to  oi,xovop.ia,  the  doctrine  of  his  human  nature. 
Whence  the  phrase,  ^fohoyuv  Xpttji'ov  or  ttvtv- 
pa  aywv — i.  e.,  to  acknowledge  Christ  or  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  God.  Vide  Suicer,  Thes.  Eccles. 
in  verb. 

But  in  the  twelfth  century,  Peter  Abelard 
began  to  employ  this  word  to  denote,  particu- 
larly learned  and  scientific  instruction  in  reli- 
gion. He  wrote  a  system  which  he  called  theo- 
logia; in  which  respect  he  was  followed  by 
most  of  the  schoolmen.  This  use  was  preserved 
by  most  of  the  succeeding  theologians.  In  the 
seventeenth  century,  many  in  the  protestant 
church  varied  from  it,  and  gave  the  name  theo- 
logia  to  any  knowledge  respecting  God  and 
divine  things,  using  the  word  in  its  etymologi- 
cal sense.  So  Musaeus,  Baier,  and  others.  But 
in  later  times,  Mosheim,  Semler,  and  others, 
have  endeavoured  to  revive  the  ancient  use  of 
the  schoolmen.  Accordingly,  when  theology 
is  taken  in  abstracto,  as  synonymous  with  divi- 
nity, we  understand  by  it  learned  or  scientific 
instruction  respecting  God,  subtilior  modus  dis- 
cendi  doctrinam  de  deo.  Moms,  p.  11. 

In  general,  therefore,  theology  is  the  know- 
ledge of  God  carried  to  the  highest  degree  of 
perfection  in  respect  to  correctness,  clearness, 
and  evidence  of  which  it  is  susceptible  in  this 
world.  And  a  theologian  or  divine  is  one  who 
not  only  understands  himself  the  doctrines  of 
religion,  but  is  able  thoroughly  to  explain,  prove, 
and  defend  them,  and  teach  them  to  others. 

There  is  nothing  in  itself  objectionable  in 
using  theology  and  divinity  (Gottesgelehrsam- 
keit)  as  synonymous.  But,  as  Morus  observes, 
p.  11,  s.  1,  it  is  inconvenient,  to  say  the  least,  to 
oppose  theology  to  religion,  and  to  understand 
by  the  latter,  as  many  modern  writers  do,  a 
knowledge  of  God  which  is  not  learned  and 
scientific.  Theology  is  employed  about  religion, 
and  has  the  truths  of  religion  for  its  object.  The- 
ology, then,  should  not  be  opposed  to  religion; 
but  theological  instruction  and  the  theological 
knowledge  of  religion,  to  the  popular  or  catecheti- 
cal instruction  and  knowledge  of  religion.  The 
latter  is  suited  to  men  at  large ;  the  former,  only 
to  the  learned,  or  those  wishing  to  become  so. 

What  we  call  divinity  was  frequently  called 
by  the  fathers  yvuGis,  who  accordingly  called 
divines  yvucctixoi,.  Morus,  p.  11,  n.  2.  Divinity 
is  also  called  theologia  scholastica,  because  it  is 
designed  for  the  school,  or  for  learned  instruc- 
tion ;  also,  theologia  acroamatica,  or  academica, 


in  opposition  to  popularis  and  catechetica,  reli- 
gious instruction  suited  to  the  comprehension 
of  common  people.  In  the  latter,  the  language 
of  the  school  and  of  the  science  must  be  avoided ; 
but  it  cannot  be  in  the  former  without  the  sacri- 
fice of  thoroughness  and  distinctness.  The 
terminology  of  this  science  and  the  mode  of 
treating  it  have  always  been  influenced  by  the 
prevailing  character  of  the  age,  and  the  current 
philosophy.  Vide  s.  9.  In  the  present  state  of 
the  church  a  systematic  knowledge  of  religion 
is  indispensable  even  to  the  popular  teacher. 
Morus,  p.  12,  s.  2,  and  Praef.  ad  Mori  Epit. 
especially  p.  xiv.  seq.  He  needs  it,  as  an  edu- 
cated man,  for  the  establishment  and  confirma- 
tion of  his  own  faith,  and  for  the  instruction  of 
others.  He  should  only  be  careful  to  avoid  the 
systematic  or  scientific  tone  in  the  instruction 
of  the  common  people  and  of  the  young,  and  to 
speak  in  an  intelligible,  catechetical,  and  popu- 
lar manner.  The  various  abuses  of  the  scien- 
tific language  of  theology  do  not  disprove  its 
utility,  or  decide  against  its  proper  use.  Vide 
Steinbart,  Griinde  fur  die  ganzliche  Abschaffung 
der  Schulsprache  in  der  Theologie,  1776,  8vo; 
and  the  answer,  Brackmann,  Apologie  der 
theologischen  Systemsprache ;  Braunschweig, 
1778,  8vo. 

Theological  or  4cientific  religion  consists,  as 
well  as  popular  religion,  of  two  principal  parts : 
viz.  (1)  The  theoretic  part,  or  theoretic  theology, 
(Glaubenslehre,)  because  it  proposes  dogmas, 
^Bupr^ata,  theses,  propositiones  de  religione, 
which  are  discovered  and  established  by  reflec- 
tion and  investigation.  Vide  Morus,  Praef.  p.  v. 
seq.  It  is  also  called  theologia  dogmatica,  (dog- 
matik.)  For  the  explanation  of  this  term,  let 
it  be  observed  that  6077*0,  has  various  significa- 
tions— viz.,  a  resolve,  decree,  determination,  or- 
dinance; then,  in  the  philosophic  sense,  (a)  an 
opinion  which  we  have  respecting  any  doctrine 
or  principle,  Col.  ii.  14;  (6)  the  principle  or  doc- 
trine (doctrina)  itself.  Hence  Pliny  expresses 
it  by  plac.itum,  and  Cicero  by  decretum;  as,  de- 
er eta  phi  losophorum,  Acad.  II.  9.  Many  of  the 
old  fathers,  as  Origen,  Basil,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
employed  Soy/jut  in  this  sense — viz.,  to  desig- 
nate not  merely  an  opinion  respecting  certain 
principles  and  theoretic  doctrines;  but  these 
principles  and  doctrines  themselves.  Used  in  the 
former  sense,  theologia  dogmatica  is  properly 
theologia  historica,  a  relation  or  exhibition  of  the 
opinions  of  theologians  respecting  particular 
doctrines.  So,  for  the  most  part,  it  was  used 
in  the  Romish  church.  Thus  we  have  Petavii 
opus  de  DOGMATIBUS  theologorum — i.  e.,  concern- 
ing the  opinions  of  the  fathers,  &c.  In  this 
sense,  too,  it  was  commonly  employed  by  pro- 
testants  until  the  commencement  of  the  eigh 
teenth  century.  Employed  in  the  latter  sense, 
theologia  dogmatica  is  the  same  as  theoretic,  in 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


27 


opposition  to  practical  or  moral  theology.  In 
the  same  way,  Seneca,  Ep.  95,  and  others  of  the 
ancient  stoics,  divided  philosophy  into  theoretic 
(dogmatica)  and  practical  (paraenetica).  This 
name  of  the  theoretic  part  of  theology  was  intro- 
duced into  the  protestant  church  principally  by 
Pfaffand  Buddeus,  who,  in  1721 — 23,  published 
their  manuals  under  the  title,  Theologia  dogma- 
tica et  moralis.  Vide  Stange,  Symmicta,  I.  156. 
(2)  The  practical  part,  morals,  ethics.  This  was 
formerly  always  united,  even  in  scientific  in- 
struction, with  the  theoretic  part  of  religion.  So 
it  was  in  Melancthon,  (Loc.  Theol.,)  in  Chem- 
nitz, and  in  all  the  systems  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  These  two  connected  sciences  were 
called  theologia  thetica,  and  the  doctrines  con- 
tained in  them,  theses,  in  opposition  to  theologia 
antithetical*  or polemica,  (critical  theology.)  Ca- 
lixtus  of  Helmstadt,  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
was  the  first  who  undertook  to  separate  doctrinal 
from  moral  theology  in  scientific  instruction. 
Since  his  time  this  division  has  remained. 

Cf.  Moms,  Epitome  Theologiae  Christianse, 
p.  1—3,  s.  1—4. 

SECTION  II. 

OF    RELIGION,    AS    THE    MEANS    OF   THE    MORAL 
IMPROVEMENT   AND    PERFECTION   OF   MEN. 

1.  IT  is  an  established  point  that  men  can 
become  morally  better  than  they  actually  are. 
Each  individual  must  acknowledge  that  he  him- 
self can  become  morally  better  than  he  actually 
is.  He  thus  confesses  that  there  is  a  possibility ', 
an  internal  capacity  (Anlage)  in  his  nature  for 
becoming  better  than  he  is.  Now  this  capacity 
of  human  nature  for  moral  advancement  is  an 
incontrovertible  proof  that  man  is  designed  for 
a  higher  moral  perfection  than  he  commonly 
possesses  or  attains;  for,  from  the  internal 
capacity  which  we  perceive  in  a  thing  we  al- 
ways must  determine  its  destination.  From  the 
nature  of  the  seed,  we  conclude  that  it  was  de- 
signed to  develope  the  germ ;  from  the  nature 
and  properties  of  the  foot,  that  it  was  designed 
for  walking,  &c.  It  is  exactly  the  same  in  re- 
spect to  the  whole  intellectual  constitution. 
Man  was  designed  for  all  that  for  which  he  has 
an  original  capacity,  and  God  can  require  of 
him  no  less  perfection  than  that  for  which  he 
has  designed  him. 

Note. — The  true  destination  of  man,  as  a  rea- 
sonable being,  is,  ever  progressive  moral  perfec- 
tion, (holiness,  as  the  Bible  calls  it,)  and  the 
happiness  proportionately  connected  with  it.  The 


*  Refutation  (antithetik)  is  called  in  the  Scrip- 
tures IK^XSS,  2  Tim.  iii.  16 ;  Tit.  i.  9.  Hence  the 
phrase  theologia  elenctica,  ixs^xTWH,  (elenktik,) 
which  Turretin  uses.  Friedmann  Bechmann,  a 
theologian  of  Jena,  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
first  used  the  phrase,  theoJogia  polemica,  and  wrote 
a  book  under  that  title.  Stange,  ubi  supra,  p.  161. 


moral  feeling  by  which  we  determine  what  is 
right  or  wrong,  morally  good  or  evil,  is  essen- 
tially founded  in  our  very  natures.  Every  thing 
which  opposes  the  great  end  of  man,  or  inter- 
feres with  his  higher  destination,  is  morally 
evil ;  and  every  thing  which  promotes  this  des- 
tination, or  leads  to  this  end,  is  morally  good. 
Vide  infra,  sec.  51.  II. 

2.  Many,  however,  do  not  attain  that  moral 
perfection  for  which  they  were  designed  by  God 
in  the  constitution  which  he  has  given  them. 
In  all  men,  without  exception,  in  their  natural 
state,  we  find  bodily  appetite  predominant,  and 
far  more  strong  than  moral  principle.     Men  are 
either  deficient  in  the  power  requisite  to  govern 
their  appetites,  and  to  perform  what  is  good,  or 
they  do  not  properly  employ  the  power  which 
they  possess.     In  either  case  the  result  is  the 
same;  for  if  the  powers  which  man  possesses 
sleep  unemployed,  a  new  power  is  necessary  to 
move,  animate,  and  strengthen  them. 

3.  But  man  must  be  able  to  attain  to  that  for 
which  God  has  designed  him.   His  destination, 
as  learned  from  his  constitution,  is  to  increase 
continually  in  moral  perfection.     He  must  then 
be  able  to  attain  to  this  end.     But  man  has  not 
the  power  in  himself  of  increasing  in   moral 
worth ;  he  must  consequently  obtain   it  else- 
where.    God  must  have  appointed  a  means,  the 
employment  of  which  has  an  efficacy  in  promot- 
ing the  moral  improvement  of  men,*  since  he 
cannot  be  supposed  to  have  designed  them  for 
an  end  which  is  absolutely  unattainable. 

4.  It  might  seem,  perhaps,  that  this  means 
should    be   sought  in   a   merely  philosophical 
knowledge  and  belief  of  the  duties  which  natu- 
ral law  prescribes,  or  in  the  clear  and  lively 
perception  of  moral  truths.     Many  have  held 
that  man  could  in  this  way  be  made  morally 
perfect  and  virtuous  without  religious  motives. 
When  men,  they  say,  are  convinced  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  obedience  to  the  precepts  of  natural 
law,  and  believe  that  rewards  and  happiness  are 
inseparably  connected  with  obedience,  they  will 
find  this  conviction,  and  this  hope  of  the  reward 
which  virtue  always  bestows,  sufficient  to  impel 
and  empower  them  to  the  practice  of  goodness. 

This  theory  might  be  true  in  application  to  a 
being  purely  rational,  such  as  man  is  not.  But 
it  is  wholly  untrue  in  application  to  a  being 
composed,  as  we  are,  of  reason  and  sense.  This 
philosophical  reward  of  virtue,  and  consequently, 
this  merely  philosophical  conviction,  are  insuf- 
ficient to  prompt  the  more  noble  virtues,  such 
as  the  sacrifice  of  one's  own  interest  to  the 
happiness  and  advantage  of  others. 

Experience,  too,  speaks  clearly  against  the 
sufficiency  of  this  means.  It  teaches  that  the 
fullest  conviction  of  duty  is  far  from  giving  men 
the  power  to  overcome  their  sinful  inclinations 
and  desires.  Let  every  one  question  himself  on 


28 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


this  particular.  Let  him  carefully  examine  one 
single  day  of  his  life.  Besides,  does  it  appear 
that  the  great  multitude  of  the  philosophical 
teachers  of  morals,  in  Christian  and  heathen 
lands,  at  present  and  formerly,  are  actually 
better  and  more  virtuous,  with  all  their  clear 
light  and  conviction,  than  the  great  mass  of 
other  men  1  Vide  Flatt,  Magazin  fur  Dogm.  und 
Moral.  St.  I.  s.  240.  f.  Tubing.  1796. 

As  this  means,  considered  separately,  is  in- 
sufficient, it  cannot  be  the  only  one  appointed 
by  God.  For  God  cannot  be  supposed  to  have 
indicated  to  men  an  insufficient  means.  The 
knowledge  and  belief  of  the  requisitions  of  na- 
tural law  and  of  moral  truths  are,  in  themselves, 
very  good  and  necessary.  But  from  what  has 
been  said,  it  follows  that  some  quickening  power 
is  needed  to  give  this  knowledge  an  influence 
upon  the  human  will,  and  a  power  to  overcome 
the  appetites  of  our  animal  nature. 

5.  This  power  to  overcome  moral  evil,  and  to 
perform  what  is  morally  good,  is  to  be  sought 
and  found  only  in  religion,  or  in  our  relation  to 
God,  or  in  belief  in  God  as  our  supreme  govern- 
or, lawgiver,  and  judge.  This  power  operates 
by  means  of  that  lively  conviction  and  assurance 
which  religion  imparts  respecting  the  will  of 
the  supreme  lawgiver,  and  the  reward  of  virtue 
and  punishment  of  vice,  depending  upon  him. 
We  neither  possess,  nor  are  acquainted  with, 
any  stronger  power  than  this  for  promoting  the 
moral  perfection  of  the  human  race.  This,  then, 
must  be  the  divinely  appointed  means,  in  the 
use  of  which  men  may  obtain  the  strength  which 
they  need. 

In  respect  to  religion,  we  find  that  the  whole 
human  race  proceed  in  one  and  the  same  path. 
Some,  indeed,  deviate  from  it  for  a  time,  but, 
in  adverse  circumstances,  in  those  hours  when 
they  need  consolation  for  themselves  and  others, 
they  soon  feel  the  necessity  of  returning.  It 
must,  then,  be  according  to  the  nature  of  man,  of 
which  God  is  the  author,  to  proceed  in  this  path. 

Let  not  the  great  variety  of  religions  which 
frequently  stand  in  opposition  to  one  another, 
be  objected  against  us.  Subtracting  from  all 
these  different  religions  whatever  in  them  is 
false  or  incidental,  there  will  always  be  left  the 
idea  of  piety  to  God,  and  of  a  righteous  retribu- 
tion to  be  expected  from  him,  as  supreme  law- 
giver and  judge.  This  idea  appears  among  all 
people  and  nations,  as  soon  as  they  begin  to 
exercise  their  reason.  It  is,  indeed,  very  differ- 
ently modified  and  developed,  according  to  the 
difference  of  the  circumstances  and  of  the  intel- 
lectual and  moral  capacity  of  each.  But,  as  to 
all  which  is  essential,  the  whole  human  race  are 
agreed.  And  it  is  just  this  essential  part  of  re- 
ligion which  is  the  very  best  spring  of  real  or 
supposed  virtues,  and  therefore  the  means  ap- 
pointed by  God  for  the  moral  improvement  of 


men.  And  since  religion  is  appointed  to  mar 
as  the  means  of  fulfilling  his  destiny,  it  mus1 
have  truth  for  its  foundation ;  for  it  cannot  be 
supposed  that  God  would  deceive  man  by  the 
appointment  of  a  false  and  unsuitable  means. 
Cf.  Moms,  s.  4,  et  passim. 

SECTION  III. 

OF   NATURAL   AND    REVEALED   RELIGION. 

THE  knowledge  of  God,  his  moral  govern- 
ment over  the  world,  and  his  will,  can  be  ob- 
tained in  two  ways.  Firnt,  by  means  of  nature, 
Vide  Morus,  p.  3,  4.  s.  5,  6.  This  is  a  source 
of  knowledge  which  even  the  heathen  possess. 
and  for  the  neglect  of  which  even  they  have  nc 
excuse,  Rom.  i.  20.  Secondly,  by  means  of  an 
immediate  or  direct  revelation  from  God.  Vide 
Morus,  p.  7,  seq.  In  reference  to  this  twofold 
source  of  knowledge,  religion  has  been  divided 
into  natural  and  revealed.  This  distinction  is 
made  by  Paul,  Rom.  ii.  12,  seq.,  coll.  i.  19,  seq. 
He  calls  the  direct  divine  revelation  vop.o$;  and 
those  who  do  not  enjoy  it,  and  know  God  mere- 
ly from  nature,  avopot  and  v6p.ov  pri  t%ovt£$.  Cf. 
Ps.xix.  1 — 6.  Here  belongs  Acts,  xiv.  16,  seq., 
coll.  xvii.  26,  seq. 

But  when  nature  is  spoken  of  as  a  source  of 
the  knowledge  of  God,  external  nature  alone  is 
not  meant,  as  is  often  supposed ;  but  also  oui 
internal,  moral  nature,  our  moral  consciousness. 
Every  man  capable  of  reflection  finds  (1)  one 
source  of  the  knowledge  of  God  in  surrounding 
nature,  which,  when  he  reflects  upon  it,  invites 
and  conducts  him  to  a  knowledge  of  its  author, 
Ps.  xix.  1 — 6;  Rom.  i.  20;  Acts,  xiv.  17;  coll. 
xvii.  24,  seq.  He  finds  (2)  another  source  of 
the  knowledge  of  God  in  himself,  in  his  own  con- 
science, which  distinctly  acquaints  him  with  a 
supreme  and  invisible  judge  of  his  thoughts  and 
actions,  Rom.  ii.  12 — 16;  Acts,  xvii.  27 — 31. 

The  following  remarks  may  serve  to  illustrate 
this  division: — 

1.  We  have  before  proved  that  the  strong 
belief  and  assurance  of  the  will  of  God,  the 
supreme  lawgiver,  and  of  a  retribution  to  be 
expected  from  him  as  governor  and  judge,  are 
the  means  of  our  moral  perfection.  Vide  s.  2, 
No.  5.  We  might  hence  conclude  that  God 
would  give  certainty  to  both  of  these  particu- 
lars by  a  direct  revelation.  The  results  to  which 
natural  religion  leads  the  few  who  have  oppor- 
tunity and  ability  to  understand  it  in  its  best 
state,  are  indeed  important,  in  themselves  con- 
sidered. Yet  even  the  natural  knowledge  of 
God  of  this  purer  kind,  leaves  men  in  perplexing 
doubt  on  many  very  important  points,  as  soon 
as  they  begin  rightly  to  feel  their  wants.  It 
cannot,  therefore,  afford  them  all  that  assistance 
which  they  need  for  their  moral  improvement 
and  perfection.  What  Pliny  said  (Hist.  Nat. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


29 


XXX.  1)  of  his  own  and  earlier  times  still  holds 
true — ad  religionem  maxime  etiamnum  caligat 
humanum  genus.  Gesneri  Chr.  Plin.  757.  5, 
cf.  760,  not.  We  should  therefore  naturally 
expect  that  God  would  supply  these  defects  in 
natural  religion  by  means  of  direct  revelation. 

We  must  not,  however,  found  our  belief  in  a 
direct  revelation  upon  and  priori  demonstration. 
The  simple  question  is,  Has  a  revelation  actually 
been  made?  This  is  a  question  of  fact,  the  an- 
swer to  which  must,  of  course,  be  sought  from 
history.  That  a  revelation  has  not  been  made, 
or  is  not  possible,  can  by  no  means  be  proved  d 
priori.  If  the  fact  can  be  historically  proved, 
all  reasoning  to  the  contrary  amounts  to  nothing. 
Now,  Christians  believe  that  the  holy  scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  the  records 
of  the  true  divine  revelation.  In  the  article  on 
the  holy  scriptures  we  shall  inquire  whether  this 
opinion  is  historically  true.  In  the  remarks 
which  here  follow  we  shall  discuss  some  sub- 
jects by  way  of  introduction  to  this  inquiry.  Cf. 
Jani,  Versuch  einer  Beantwortung  der  Frage : 
Ob  eine  allgemeine  reine  Vernunftreligion  in 
dieser  Welt  moglich,  und  von  der  Umschaffung 
oder  Abschaffung  der  christlichen  Religion  zu 
erwarten  seyl  Berlin,  1804,  8vo. 

2.  All  history  shows  that  men  have  deeply 
felt  the  necessity  of  a  direct  revelation.  Those 
institutors  of  religion  who  have  pretended  that 
their  whole  system  was  revealed  from  heaven 
and  positively  prescribed,  have  always  been  the 
besf  received,  and  have  succeeded  best  in  their 
object.  Some  pretended,  deceitfully,  that  they 
were  the  confidants  of  God;  others  doubtless 
believed  themselves  to  be  such,  and  supposed 
that  God  spake  and  taught  by  their  instrumen- 
tality. It  does  not  concern  our  present  purpose 
to  determine  whether  they  were  in  the  right  or 
wrong,  but  only  how  it  happened  that  their 
claims  were  so  readily  and  willingly  admitted 
by  their  hearers.  It  was  because  they  answered 
the  wishes  and  expectations,  and  satisfied  the 
wants,  of  the  multitude. 

Besides,  nothing  but  positive  injunction  and 
prohibition  produces  a  deep  and  lasting  impres- 
sion on  the  great  mass  of  mankind.  The  voice 
of  natural  law  alone  is  altogether  too  feeble  to 
control  the  most  numerous  class  of  society.  Na- 
tural law  does  not  sufficiently  compel  the  atten- 
tion of  men  when  left  to  themselves.  And  even 
if  they  should  reflect  upon  it,  they  would  find  it 
destitute,  in  many  cases,  of  that  evidence  and 
certainty  which  quiets  the  mind.  They  will  find, 
therefore,  positive  commands,  which  give  them 
this  certainty  after  which  they  long,  in  the 
highest  degree  welcome.  The  conviction  of 
having  the  authority  and  direct  command  of  God 
'  for  any  course  of  conduct  has  more  effect  than 
the  strongest  arguments  on  the  duty  and  end  of 
man  which  the  greatest  sage  could  offer.  For  but 


few  are  capable  of  understanding  the  grounds 
of  moral  reasoning ;  and  they  will  often  at  least 
suspect  that  the  truth  may  be  different  from 
their  system,  and  perhaps  will  discover  solid 
objections  to  their  own  views.  But  one  who  is 
firmly  convinced  that  God  has  directly  com- 
manded a  certain  course  of  conduct,  will  obey 
the  requisition,  although  he  may  not  understand 
the  reason  and  internal  necessity  of  it;  he  will 
comply  with  the  requisition  because  it  comes 
from  God,  and  therefore  must  be  right  and  good. 
Experience,  too,  teaches  that  a  merely  natural 
religion  is  not  suited  to  be  the  religion  of  the 
people  at  large.  It  has  far  too  little  evidence  and 
power,  and  soon  becomes  corrupt,  even  among 
civilized  nations.  Let  a  merely  natural  religion, 
independent  of  authority,  once  become  the  reli- 
gion of  the  great  mass  of  mankind,  and  social 
order  and  morality  are  at  an  end. 

Since  the  necessity  of  a  direct  revelation  is 
felt  so  universally,  the  bestowmentof  it  by  God, 
in  condescension  to  our  wants,  cannot  appear  to 
the  unprejudiced  inquirer  either  inconsistent  or 
incredible.  We  shall  hereafter  inquire  whether 
there  is  one,  among  all  the  pretended  revelations, 
which  is  really  of  divine  origin.  This  is  a 
question  of  fact.  In  the  mean  time,  so  much 
we  may  boldly  assert,  that  the  scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  have  a  decided  prefer- 
ence to  the  sacred  books  of  all  other  nations  and 
religions.  The  best  among  these  is  the  Koran, 
to  which  our  scriptures  are  certainly  superior. 
We  may  therefore  establish  this  as  an  axiom  : 
if  a  divine  revelation  has  ever  been  committed  to 
writing,  it  is  contained  in  our  holy  scriptures. 

3.  All  will  admit  that  God  has,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  made  use  of  the  doctrines  contained  in 
the  holy  scriptures,  and  of  the  holy  scriptures 
themselves,  in  the  benevolent  work  in  which  he 
is  engaged  of  extending  the  knowledge  of  truth, 
and  of  diffusing  over  the  earth  just  ideas  respect- 
ing his  character  and  our  destination.  Many  of 
the  truths  contained  in  these  books  are,  indeed, 
perfectly  discoverable  and  demonstrable  from 
nature.  But  these  same  truths  were  discovered 
sooner,  and  were  diffused  more  rapidly,  than 
they  would  otherwise  have  been,  by,means  of 
these  books,  possessing,  as  they  do,  the  autho- 
rity of  a  divine  revelation.  This  is  proved  by 
the  example  of  nations  unacquainted  with  these 
books  and  the  doctrines  contained  in  them. 
How  ignorant  and  unenlightened  on  religious 
subjects  were  the  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Ro- 
mans, in  the  midst  of  all  their  intellectual  cul- 
tivation !  The  peculiar  privilege  of  the  Israel- 
ites— that  which  made  them,  in  an  eminent 
sense,  the  people  of  God — is  represented  by 
Moses  and  the  prophets  to  be  this :  that  God  had 
taught  them  his  word,  his  statutes,  and  judg- 
ments, as  he  had  not  taught  any  other  people  at, 
that  time,  Deut.  iv.  7,  8;  Ps.  cxlvii.  19,  20. 
c2 


30 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


So  the  New  Testament  everywhere;  as  Rom. 
iii.  2;  coll.  ix.  4;  and  i.  19,  32;  which  show 
how  the  light  of  nature  given  to  the  heather 
had  been  misimproved  by  them. 

The  studious  and  learned  among  the  Greek 
and  Romans  retained  almost  the  sole  possession 
of  all  that  was  valuable  in  the  schools  and  in 
the  writings  of  the  enlightened  philosophers 
Resting,  as  their  doctrines  did,  upon  long,  arti 
ficial,  speculative,  and  abstruse  reasonings,  the1' 
accomplished  very  little  for  the  religious  am 
moral  improvement  of  the  most  numerous  class 
of  society;  though  this  class  stood  most  in  nee( 
of  instruction.  Add  to  this  the  observation,  tha 
it  is  easier  to  find  proofs  for  a  truth  when  once 
discovered  than  to  discover  the  truth  itself  in 
the  first  instance.  The  nations  of  Europe  and 
other  parts  of  the  world  were  destitute  of  jus 
ideas  of  religion  before  they  embraced  Christi- 
anity; but  no  sooner  had  they  learned  the  truths 
of  religion  from  Christianity  than  they  began  to 
prove  and  establish  them  by  reason,  which  they 
could  now  do  in  a  more  convincing  manner  than 
any  of  their  predecessors  could  have  done  with- 
out the  light  of  revelation.  Hume  said,  very 
justly,  that  the  true  philosophy  respecting  God 
was  only  eighteen  hundred  years  old.  Respect- 
ing the  partial  diffusion  of  divine  revelation, 
vide  s.  121.  Cf.  Morus,  s.  8,  seq.  p.  4 — 6. 
Vide  Reimarus,  Abhandlung  von  den  vornehm- 
sten  Wahrheiten  der  natiirlichen  Religion ;  Zieg- 
Jer,  Theol.  Abhand.  Num.  I.,  iiber  Naturalis- 
mus  und  positive  Religion,  Gb'tt.  1791,  8vo; 
and  Staudlin,  Ideenzueiner  Kritik  des  Systems 
der  christlichen  Religion,  Gott.  1791,  8vo. 

4.  But  although  natural  religion  must  appear, 
from  what  has  been  said,  to  be  defective  and 
imperfect,  it  should  not  be  despised  or  under- 
valued. Notwithstanding  all  its  imperfections, 
it  is,  in  itself  considered,  a  true  religion.  As 
Paul  teaches  us,  Rom.  i.  20,  we  acquire  even 
from  nature  a  knowledge  of  the  invisible  things 
of  God.  In  ver.  19  of  the  same  chapter,  he 
says,  God  has  revealed  him  self  even  in  nature — 
i.  e.,  in  the  wise  constitution  which  he,  as  Cre- 
ator, has  given  to  our  minds  and  to  the  external 
world.  Vide  supra,  No.  1.  Through  this  wise 
constitution,  according  to  the  express  testimony 
of  scripture,  God  addresses  himself  to  all  men, 
from  without  and  from  within.  He  is  not  far 
from  any  one  of  them,  and  leaves  himself  with- 
out a  witness  in  none,  Acts,  xvii.  27;  coll.xiv.17. 
Genuine  and  pure  natural  religion  can  there- 
fore never  contradict  revealed  religion.  Such  a 
contradiction  would  prove  clearly  that  the  reli- 
gion pretending  to  be  revealed  was  not  so  in 
reality.  God  cannot  contradict  himself,  nor 
exhibit  himself  in  one  light  in  nature,  and  in  an 
entirely  different  light  in  revelation.  The  know- 
ledge of  God  acquired  from  nature  is  recom- 
mended and  honourably  mentioned  in  the  Bible. 


Vide  Psalm  xix.,  where  ver.  1 — 6  treat  of  the 
knowledge  of  God  derived  from  nature;  ver. 
7 — 11,  of  that  derived  from  revelation.  Cf.  Acts, 
xiv.  17;  Rom.  i.  19,  seq.;  coll.  ii.  12,  seq. 

5.  It  pleased  God,  as  the  Bible  represents,  to 
give  men,  from  time  to  time,  such  direct  instruc- 
tion as  they  needed.  He  taught  them  in  this 
way  many  things  which  they  might  never  have 
discovered  of  themselves,  and  which  they  would 
not,  at  best,  have  discovered  for  a  long  time ;  and 
many  things  in  which,  perhaps,  they  had  already 
erred.  By  this  immediate  revelation  he  con- 
firmed, illustrated,  and  perfected  that  revelation 
of  himself,  as  the  invisible  creator,  preserver, 
and  judge,  which  he  had  already  made  in  the 
external  world,  and  in  the  conscience  of  man. 
By  this  immediate  revelation,  he  thus  causes 
the  revelation  of  himself  in  nature,  which  is 
commonly  too  little  regarded,  and  often  wholly- 
neglected,  (Rom.  i.  21;  Acts,  xiv.  16,)  to  be- 
come intelligible,  impressive,  useful,  and  wel- 
come to  man.  Ps.  xix.  7 — 14. 

Instruction  given  by  God  to  men  on  subjects 
of  which  they  are  ignorant  and  incapable  of  dis- 
covering the  truth  by  reasoning,  is  called  positive 
(arbitraria)  instruction;  by  which  is  meant  sim- 
ply, that  we  cannot  show  the  necessity  of  the 
truth  revealed  by  the  principles  of  our  own  rea- 
son, and  not  that  God  proceeds  capriciously  and 
unreasonably  in  this  case,  which  is  not  suppos- 
able.  Morus,  p.  7,  s.  1.  When  God  thus  im- 
parts to  men  the  knowledge  of  those  religious 
truths  of  which  they  are  and  must  remain  igno- 
rant if  left  to  their  own  reason,  he  is  said  in  the 
scriptures  to  reveal  the  mystery  of  his  will,  the 
deep  things  of  the  Deify.  Morus,  p.  8,  s.  3. 

But  revelation  ($aj>£po<jij,  cirtoxaa/u^tj)  is  used, 
even  in  the  Bible,  in  a  wider,  and  in  a  more 
imited  sense.  Morus,  p.  9,  s.  4.  (1)  In  the 
wider  sense  it  is  the  annunciation  of  such  truths 
as  were,  indeed,  unknown  to  men,  but  at  the 
same  time  within  the  reach  of  their  minds. 
Thus  fyavfpovv  is  used  in  respect  to  the  know- 
edge  of  God  derived  from  nature,  (Rom.  i.  19,) 
nd  artoxahvrftsiv,  Phil.  iii.  15.  (2)  In  the  nar- 
ower  sense,  it  is  instruction  respecting  things 
•vhich  are  not  only  unknown,  but  undiscover- 
.ble  by  the  human  mind.  (3)  In  the  narrow 
st  sense,  it  is  divine  instruction  on  the  truths 
f  religion  concerning  the  salvation  of  men, 
fhich  neither  have  been,  nor  can  be,  taught  by 
iatural  religion,  and  which  cannot  be  derived 
rom  reasoning  on  the  nature  of  things. 

Revealed  religion,  then,  is  not  opposed,  but 
dded,  to  natural  religion.  It  repeats,  confirms, 
nd  illustrates  many  of  the  precepts  of  natural 
eligion,  and  at  the  same  time  brings  to  light 
luch  that  was  before  unknown. 

All  this  admits  of  an  easy  application  to  the 
Christian  religion.  Although  the  doctrines  of 
the  Christian  religion  must  not  be  contradictory 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


31 


to  reason,  they  need  not  be  precisely  the  same 
as  the  doctrines  of  natural  religion,  as  many  at 
the  present  day  contend.  Although  the  Chris- 
tian religion  is  perfectly  reasonable,  it  is  still  a 
positive  religion,  because  it  rests  on  positive  in- 
struction. That  it  is  a  revealed  religion  cannot 
be  doubted,  as  long  as  the  yet  uninvalidated 
miracles  of  Jesus,  and  other  proofs,  are  sure 
evidence  of  his  immediate  divine  mission.  To 
exhibit  the  great  and  peculiar  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity as  constituting  a  system  of  revealed  truth, 
is  the  object  of  the  present  work. 

Note. — It  is  false  to  conclude,  that  because 
positive  religion  must  be  consistent  with  reason, 
it  can  contain  only  such  truths  as  are  deducible 
from  reason.  Positive  religion  must  indeed  em- 
brace such  doctrines,  and  such  only,  as  we  are 
capable  of  understanding,  and  as  correspond 
with  the  laws  of  our  minds.  But  from  this  it 
does  not  follow  that  it  can  embrace  only  such 
truths  as  unaided  reason  clearly  teaches.  The 
works  and  the  will  of  God  contain  mysteries 
which  men  are  incompetent,  of  themselves,  to 
explore.  Vide  Ernesti,  Opuscula,  Vindiciae 
arbitrii  divini  in  constituenda  religione. 

The  positive  part  of  religion  promotes  the 
moral  part  of  it,  as  much  as  religion  in  general 
promotes  morality. 

The  positive  part  of  religion  is  that  which 
contains  the  instructions  which  God  has  given 
us  respecting  those  subjects  in  religion  which 
are  not  demonstrable,  or  which  cannot  be  rea- 
soned out  and  made  evident  by  argument.  Posi- 
tive doctrines  require  belief  and  assent ;  but  they 
do  not  require  an  acknowledgment  or  proof  of 
their  essential  truth  from  principles  of  reason. 
The  doctrines  that  there  is  a  God,  and  that  he 
loves  men,  and  the  other  doctrines  of  natural 
religion,  are  not  positive ;  but  the  doctrine  that 
God  has  revealed  himself  to  us  through  Jesus 
Christ,  in  and  through  whom  he  will  bless  us, 
is  positive;  for  it  cannot  be  proved  from  the 
common  principles  of  reason. 

What  is  positive  (positivum,  $£>tix6v}  is  that 
quod  ponitur,  sive  docetur  sic  esse ;  non  quod  de- 
monstratur  geometrice.  The  following  is  the 
origin  of  this  term : — The  Greeks  say,  vopov$ 
fiQ'cva,i — i.  e.,  prscscribcre, prsecipere ;  for  a  law 
is  laid  down  and  imposed,  and  not  demonstrated. 
This  phraseology  was  transferred  to  doctrines 
(dogmata)  which  were  prescribed  or  established 
without  being  improved. 

6.  Any  one  who  would  attain  to  a  settled 
assurance  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian 
religion  must  begin  his  examination  with  the 
moral  system  of  Jesus.  He  will  find,  on  an 
unprejudiced  inquiry,  that  this  system  is  more 
exalted  and  reasonable,  and  more  decidedly  use- 
ful, than  any  other  system  of  morals.  But  when 
he  comes  to  put  it  into  practice,  he  will  soon 
find  that  he  is  no  more  able  to  obey  its  require- 


ments, although  he  acknowledges  their  excel- 
lence, than  he  is  to  obey  the  requirements  of  a 
merely  philosophical  system  of  morals.  Vide  s.  2, 
No.  4.  In  short,  he  will  experience  the  same 
difficulties  which  Paul  did ;  and  find  the  account, 
Romans,  vii.  7 — 25,  copied  as  it  were  from  his 
own  soul. 

How,  then,  can  we,  who  are  so  weak,  attain 
the  strength  which  is  requisite  for  the  practice 
of  virtue  1  Jesus  and  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  everywhere  answer,  By  believing  on 
the  person  and  whole  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
in  no  other  way.  But  those  only  really  believe 
on  him  who  are  convinced  that  he  is  the  very 
person  which  the  Bible  represents  him,  and 
which  he  himself  everywhere  claims  to  be. 
Now  the  Bible  represents  him  as  a  direct 
messenger  from  God  to  men;  as  the  greatest 
among  all  who  have  been  sent  by  heaven  to 
earth  ;  as  the  Saviour, — the  Christ.  If  we  are 
convinced  of  this,  we  shall  (a)  believe  that 
Christ  and  his  doctrines  are  the  means  appointed 
by  God  for  the  moral  improvement  and  happi- 
ness of  men ;  and  shall  (6)  make  use  of  these 
means  for  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  given, 
and  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  Christ.  Doing 
this,  we  shall  not  want  strength  to  practise  the 
moral  system  of  Jesus. 

We  see  here  what  an  intimate  and  necessary 
connection  there  is  between  Christian  morals 
and  Christian  doctrines,  or  theology,  and  what 
a  mistake  it  is  to  separate  them.  Christian 
morals  are  supported  by  Christian  doctrines. 
Christian  theology  teaches  us  where  we  can  ob- 
tain the  strength  which  we  need  in  order  to  obey 
the  moral  precepts  of  Christianity.  Whoever, 
then,  preaches  the  morals  without  the  doctrines 
of  Christianity,  preaches  not  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
and  preaches  Christ  in  vain.  When  any  are 
convinced  that  Christ  is  a  messenger  sent  from 
God,  and  their  moral  lawgiver  and  judge,  but 
are  at  the  same  time  conscious  that  they  are 
unable  to  obey  his  moral  requirements,  their 
duty  obviously  is  to  follow  the  directions  which 
he  has  given  them,  and  to  proceed  in  the  man- 
ner which  he  has  prescribed,  in  order  to  attain 
to  a  full  certainty  that  he  and  his  doctrine  are 
the  means  appointed  by  God  for  the  real  moral 
perfection  and  consequent  salvation  of  men. 
Vide  John,  vii.  17;  xiv.  6.  Now  these  direc- 
tions are  fully  exhibited  in  Christian  theology. 

Note. — The  division  of  religion  into  natural 
and  revealed  is  entirely  rejected  by  Socinus, 
Ferguson,  Gruner,  and  some  other  theologians. 
Vide  Gruner,  Theol.  Dogm.  p.  9,  and  Diss. 
censura  divisionis  religionis  et  theologiae  in  na- 
turalem  et  revelatam,  Hal.  1770.  These  main- 
tain that  we  owe  all  our  knowledge  of  God, 
originally,  to  divine  revelation,  such  as  our  first 
parents  received  in  paradise,  and  thence  trans- 
mitted to  their  descendants.  They  deny  that 


32 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


we  have  any  knowledge  of  God,  which,  as  to 
its  origin,  is  natural. 

The  scriptures  do  indeed  teach  that  God  re- 
vealed himself  to  men  even  in  the  earliest  ages 
of  the  world ;  and  much  of  this  original  revela- 
tion has  doubtless  been  transmitted  from  age  to 
age  until  the  present  time.  But  still  this  di- 
vision is  not  to  be  rejected.  For  (a)  many  reli- 
gious truths  which  have  been  revealed  are  dis- 
coverable, and  have  actually  been  discovered, 
by  reason  and  the  light  of  nature.  In  this  di- 
vision, then,  we  have  respect,  not  to  the  actual 
source  of  our  knowledge  of  these  truths,  but  to 
the  ground  on  which  we  rest  our  knowledge  of 
them.  (6J  The  elements  only  of  many  revealed 
truths  were  communicated  to  our  first  parents. 
Men  were  left  to  examine,  in  the  diligent  use 
of  their  powers,  the  grounds  of  the  revelation 
given  them ;  to  build  higher  upon  the  founda- 
tion already  laid  ;  and  to  deduce  the  proper 
consequences  from  what  had  been  already 
taught.  They  Obtained  this  additional  know- 
ledge by  the  study  and  contemplation  of  na- 
ture ;  and  why  may  not  this  religious  science, 
thus  derived  from  nature,  be  called  natural 
religion  ? 

SECTION  IV. 

IS   THE    KNOWLEDGE    OF   GOD    INNATE  ? 

THE  natural  knowledge  of  God  has  been  di- 
vided, especially  by  the  ancients,  into  innate 
(insita,  congenita,  fyt^nn'oj)  and  acquired,  (ac- 
quisita,  irftxfifrof.)  The  acquired  knowledge 
of  God  is  that  which  we  obtain  by  the  use  of 
reason  and  by  the  observation  and  study  of  the 
world.  By  the  innate  knowledge  of  God  the 
ancients  understood  an  idea  of  God  actually 
innate  in  all  men,  brought  directly  into  the 
world  with  them,  and  obtained  neither  by  in- 
struction nor  reflection.  Pythagoras,  the  Pla- 
tonists,  and  many  ancient  philosophers,  believed 
in  these  innate  ideas,  (anteceptse  animo  notiones.) 
Vide  Cic.  De  Nat.  Deor.  I.  11,  seq.;  Seneca, 
Epist.  117.  This  opinion  was  connected  by 
Plato  with  his  theory  respecting  the  existence 
of  the  human  soul  before  its  union  with  the 
body.  He  taught  that  all  our  ideas  previously 
existed  in  our  minds ;  and  that  learning  was 
only  the  recollection  of  what  belonged  to  our 
former  condition.  Des  Cartes  also  advocated 
this  innate  knowledge;  and  many  theologians 
considered  it  as  a  remnant  of  the  Divine  image 
in  man. 

This  opinion  doubtless  arose  from  the  known 
fact,  that  the  belief  of  the  Divine  existence  al- 
ways precedes  the  knowledge  of  any  theoretic 
proof  of  it.  The  conclusion  then  was,  that  be- 
cause men  do  not  derive  their  belief  in  God 
from  speculation,  the  idea  of  God  must  be  innate. 

But  the  mind  possesses  no  such  innate  ideas. 
It  obtains  all  its  ideas  by  the  use  of  its  natural 


faculties.  Vide  Locke,  Essay  on  Human  Un- 
derstanding. The  soul  may  be  compared  in 
this  respect,  according  to  Aristotle,  to  an  un- 
written leaf,  (tabula  rasa,)  upon  which  any 
thing  of  which  it  is  naturally  susceptible  may 
be  written.  The  mistake  on  this  subject  origi- 
nates in  this  way  :  The  belief  in  the  existence, 
nature,  and  attributes  of  God  does  not  depend 
upon  speculation,  of  which  but  few  men  are 
capable  ;  the  idea  of  God  is  not  admitted  to  be 
true,  because  it  is  proved  by  theoretic,  specula- 
tive reason,  but  rather  because  it  perfectly  agrees 
with  the  principles  of  moral  reason,  with  moral 
consciousness,  or  conscience  ,•  and  because  it  is 
demanded  by  these  principles,  as  has  been 
abundantly  shown  by  Kant,  Kritik  der  reinen 
Vernunft,  and  elsewhere.  This  is  the  reason 
that  the  belief  in  the  Divine  existence  always 
precedes  the  knowledge  of  any  theoretic  proof 
of  it.  Speculative  reasoning  must  be  awakened 
and  improved  before  we  shall  begin  to  inquire 
for  the  theoretic  proof  of  the  truths  already 
made  known  to  us  by  practical  reason,  or  con- 
science. 

Experience,  too,  stands  in  the  way  of  the  be- 
lief that  the  idea  of  God  is  innate.  The  most 
uncultivated  men,  those  in  whom  practical  rea- 
son has  not  yet  been  sufficiently  exercised  and 
developed,  have  no  idea  of  God  and  religion, 
and  of  course  no  words  standing  for  these  ideas. 
Vide  Robinson,  History  of  America;  Steller, 
Beschreibung  von  Kamtschatka,  s.  268 ;  Olden- 
dorp,  Geschichte  der  Mission  auf  den  Carai- 
bischen  Inseln,  s.  64.  The  same  has  been 
found  true  of  individuals  who  have  grown  up 
in  the  woods,  entirely  separated  from  the  society 
of  their  fellow-men. 

If  the  innate  knowledge  of  God  means  what 
Musaeus,  Buddeus,  and  others,  understood  by 
it,  a  natural  capacity  of  the  mind,  (potentia  pro- 
pinqua,)  by  means  of  which  the  knowledge  of 
God  is  easily  attained,  then,  indeed,  we  possess 
such  innate  knowledge.  This  natural  capacity 
consists  in  the  practical  reason,  which  begins  to 
act  before  the  other  powers  of  the  mind.  This 
natural  capacity,  however,  is  very  improperly 
called  cognitio  insita. 

Some  have  endeavoured  to  prove  this  innate 
knowledge  from  the  writings  of  Paul.  But 
they  mistake  his  meaning.  The  doctrine  of 
Paul,  contained  in  the  two  passages  referred  to, 
entirely  agrees  with  the  theory  just  stated. 

1.  Rom.  ii.  14,  15.  The  subject  of  this  pas- 
sage is  the  moral  sense  or  feeling  which  appears 
in  all  men,  even  in  childhood,  as  soon  indeed 
as  the  practical  reason  is  developed.  This 
feeling  renders  it  impossible  for  men,  whether 
extremely  barbarous  or  highly  cultivated,  when 
free  from  prejudice  and  passion,  to  withhold 
approbation  of  right  and  admiration  of  virtue. 
But  this  moral  feeling,  as  was  remarked  above, 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


33 


stands  in  close  connection  with  the  idea  of  God, 
and  leads  directly  to  it.  Paul  says  that  even 
the  heathen  (fivj  vo^iov  t%ovt£$)  have  this  feeling 
They,  indeed,  have  no  direct  revelation  (vofwv}  ; 
but  they  know  from  their  own  nature  ($v<sti) 
that  the  same  things  are  right  and  wrong  which 
revelation  declares  to  be  so,  and  they  act  accord- 
ingly. In  ver.  27  he  presents  the  same  con- 
trast, and  in  ver.  15  he  explains  his  meaning. 
They  show  (sv&sutvwta*)  by  their  judgments 
and  actions  that  the  precepts  of  the  law  (to  tpyov 
tov  vofiov,  what  the  moral  law  commands  to  be 
done  or  avoided)  are  written  upon  their  hearts. 

This  last  expression  is  frequently  cited  in 
proof  of  innate  knowledge;  but  it  denotes 
merely  an  acquaintance  with  a  subject  so  fixed 
and  thorough  that  it  cannot  be  obscured  or  ob- 
literated from  the  mind.  So,  Heb.  viii.  10,  God 
wrote  his  commands  in  the  hearts  of  the  Israel- 
ites; and  Cic.  Acad.  IV.  I,  Res  in  animo  suo 
insculptas  habere.  Vide  Wetstein,  ad  h.  1. 
"Their  conscience  condemns  them  when  they 
do  wrong,  and  acquits  them  when  they  do  right. 
They  cannot,  therefore,  be  destitute  of  the  cer- 
tain knowledge  of  right  and  wrong." 

2.  Rom.  i.  19,  20.  The  doctrine  advanced  is, 
that  the  heathen  are  as  liable  to  punishment, 
when  they  transgress  the  law  of  nature,  as  the 
Jews  when  they  transgress  the  precepts  of  re- 
velation :  for  the  knowledge  of  God  (to  yi/wcrtov 
tov  ®tov  for  yvw<jK  &IQV)  is  attainable  even  by 
the  heathen.  It  is  evident  even  to  them,  (<j>a- 
vtpov  sat  iv  fv  artotj  for  cn;tot$;)  for  God  has  re- 
vealed it  to  them — i.  e.,  has  given  them  the 
means  of  attaining  it  in  the  natural  world.  So 
that  even  they  (passing  to  the  last  clause  in 
ver.  20)  cannot  excuse  themselves  with  the  plea 
of  ignorance,  (stj  to  elvai  awto-vs  dvaTtoXoy^touj.) 
The  words  ta  yap —  Jtetotj^are  paren- 
thetical, and  explanatory  of  the  declaration  that 
God  had  revealed  himself  to  the  heathen,  ver. 
19.  They  show  in  what  manner  this  revelation 
was  made.  The  attributes  of  God,  in  them- 
selves invisible  and  inscrutable,  (dopata  avtoi,) 
his  omnipotence  and  other  divine  perfections 
(^ftotjys),  can  be  discovered,  since  the  creation 
of  the  world,  (ajtoxtide^xoa^ov,  while  the  world 
stands,  cf.  Luke,  xi.  50,)  by  the  observation  of 
the  things  that  are  made,  (rtotj^uacrt,  by  reflection 
upon  the  works  of  God.)  The  knowledge  here 
spoken  of  is,  therefore,  acquired  knowledge,  (cog- 
nitio  acquisita.) 

The  first  of  these  passages  treats,  then,  of  the 
moral  sense  which  the  heathen,  the  civilized, 
and  the  savage,  alike  possess.  The  second  treats 
of  the  knowledge  of  God  acquired  from  the  crea- 
tion; such  knowledge  as  the  enlightened  hea- 
then philosophers  had  obtained  by  the  study  of 
the  natural  world ;  for  with  these  had  Paul,  and 
his  readers  at  Rome,  at  that  time,  to  deal,  and  of 
these,  therefore,  he  here  principally  speaks. 
5 


SECTION  V. 

OF  THE  ARTICLES  OF  FAITH  ;  AND  THE  ANALOGY 
OF  FAITH. 

1 .  Of  the  Divisions  of  the  Doctrines. 

THE  particular  parts  which  compose  the  sys- 
tem of  theoretic  religion  are  called  doctrines  of 
faith,  (articuli  fidei,  capita  fidei  Christianas :) 
also,  loci,  from  the  sections  and  rubrics  into 
which  they  are  collected  ;  whence  the  phrase 
loci  theologici.  The  whole  sum  of  the  truths 
of  theoretic  or  doctrinal  religion,  exhibited  in 
their  proper  order  and  connection,  constitutes  a 
system  of  doctrines,  or  a  system  of  theoretic 
theology.  The  articles  of  faith  are  divided — 

1.  Into  pure  and   mixed,  in  respect  to  the 
ground  upon  which  our  knowledge  of  them  rests. 
Pure,  are  those  truths  which  we  learn  wholly 
from  the  holy  scriptures  ;  mixed,  are  those  which 
we  not  only  learn  from  the  scriptures,  but  which 
we  can  discover  and   demonstrate   by  reason. 
Morus,  p.  10,  ad  finem. 

2.  Into  fundamental  or  essential,  and  unessential 
or  less  essential,  in  respect  to  their  internal  im- 
portance, and  their  connection  with  the  whole 
system  of  Christian  truth.     Vide  Morus,  p.  12, 
s.  3,  4.     This  division  has  been  rendered  more 
accurate  by  the  controversies  which  have  arisen 
in  relation  to  the  different  doctrines  of  theology. 
The  fundamental  doctrines  are  those   without 
which  the  system  taught  in  the  Bible  is   un- 
founded, and  with  which  it  must  stand  or  fall. 
Such  are  the  doctrines  enumerated  by  Morus, 
p.  8.     They  may  also  be  defined  to  be   those 
which  cannot  be  denied  or  contested  without 
subverting  the  ground  of  Christian  faith  and 
hope.    The  unessential  doctrines  are  those  which 
do  not  concern  the  vitals  of  religion,  and  which 
we  are  not  required  to  believe  in  order  to  sal- 
vation.    Vide  s.  4.     The  fundamental  doctrines 
are  subdivided  into  primary  and  secondary. 

We  subjoin  the  following  remarks  to  this  im- 
portant division  of  the  doctrines  into  essential 
and  unessential : — 

(a)  This  division  was  first  distinctly  stated 
in  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  by 
Nic.  Hunnius.  It  was  afterwards  adopted  by 
Calovius,  Musaeus,  Baier,  and  others. 

(6)  The  term  fundamental  is  taken  from 
1  Cor.  iii.  10,  11.  Paul  here  compares  himself 
and  other  Christian  teachers  to  architects  ;  the 
Christian  community  to  a  building;  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity  to  the  materials  for  build- 
ing. The  elementary  truths  of  Christianity, 
which  Paul  and  other  teachers  preached  at  the 
establishment  of  churches,  are  here  called  the 
foundation,  in  opposition  to  the  superstructure, 
which  some  other  one  at  Corinth  had  built  upon 
this  foundation,  (trtotxoSo^t,  and  ver.  6,  7.)  Cf. 
Eph.  ii.  20,  where  the  same  comparison  is  foMn^. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Paul  calls  the  instruction  which  he  had  given 
in  the  elements  of  Christianity,  ycaa,  1  Cor. 
iii.  2 ;  Heb.  v.  12  ;  also,  716705  *jjj  <WJ?  tov 
XpttfT'oii,  Heb.  vi.  1.  Fundamental  doctrines, 
then,  in  the  sense  of  Paul,  are  those  elementary 
truths  which  should  be  communicated  to  such 
as  wish  to  understand  and  embrace  the  Christian 
religion.  These  elementary  doctrines,  as  well 
as  the  higher  truths  suited  to  those  who  are 
more  advanced,  should  all  be  related  and  never 
opposed  to  the  great  doctrines  respecting  Christ 
as  the  saviour  of  the  world.  1  Cor.  iii.  11. 

It  is  not,  in  reality,  a  difficult  thing  to  deter- 
mine what  doctrines  the  apostles  regarded  as 
essential  to  Christianity,  since  they  themselves 
have  so  often  and  so  distinctly  informed  us. 
We  only  need  to  pursue  the  historical  method ; 
and  to  follow  the  same  principles  as  when  we 
inquire  what  doctrines  were  considered  essential 
by  the  founder  and  first  teachers  of  the  Mahom- 
medan  or  any  other  positive  religion.  The  the- 
ologians of  different  sects  have,  however,  been 
always  at  variance  on  this  subject.  They  look 
at  the  doctrines  of  religion  from  points  of  view 
entirely  different  from  that  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian teachers,  and,  of  course,  differ  widely  from 
the  latter  in  their  estimate  of  these  doctrines. 
How,  for  example,  can  a  theologian  who  denies 
that  Christ  is,  what  he  is  declared  to  be  in 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament,  a  messenger 
sent  from  God,  agree  in  opinion  with  the  first 
Christian  teachers  respecting  him,  his  doctrine, 
and  the  essentials  of  his  religion!  Now  the 
theologian  whose  belief  on  this  point  does  not 
accord  with  that  of  the  apostles,  is  bound  in 
honour  to  say  so.  He  ought  not  to  pervert  their 
language  in  order  to  adapt  it  to  his  own  system. 
Many  decide  on  philosophical  principles  what 
the  religion  of  Christ  and  the  object  of  his  mis- 
sion should  be,  and  then  interpret  the  scriptures 
according  to  their  preconceived  opinions. 

If  we  would  determine  what  doctrines  were 
regarded  by  the  apostles  as  essential  to  Chris- 
tianity, and  were  preached  by  them  as  such  to 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  we  must  consult  those  pas- 
sages in  which  Christ  and  his  disciples  inten- 
tionally introduce  the  elementary  truths  in  which 
all  were  instructed.  Such  passages  are  those 
in  Acts,  which  describe  the  founding  of  new 
churches  by  the  apostles,  that  in  Matt,  xxviii., 
which  contains  the  commission  given  by  Christ 
to  his  disciples;  and  those  in  which  the  writers 
distinctly  profess  to  give  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  Christianity.  Cf.  1  Cor. ;  iii.  1  Thess. 
i.  8 — 10 ;  Heb.  vi.  I,  seq.  The  following  doc- 
trines are  in  this  way  ascertained  to  be  funda- 
mental. 

1.  The  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  polytheism,  and  other  connected 
errors  of  the  heathen  world.  This  one  God, 
revealed  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  was 


represented  by  the  apostles  as  the  author,  pre- 
server, and  governor  of  all  things. 

2.  The  doctrine  respecting  Jesus,     (a)  He  is 
the  MESSIAH,  the  SAVIOUR,  (Swr^p)  the  SON  OF 
GOD,  predicted  by  the  prophets,  and  attested  by 
miracles.     In  this  character  he  possesses  an 
authority  to  which  no  other  prophet  could  pre- 
tend.    This  is  a  point  upon  which  Christ  and 
the  apostles  always  insist,  as  the  peculiar  and 
distinctive  doctrine  of  Christianity,  1  Cor.  iii.  11. 
And  no  teacher  of  religion  who  sets  aside  this 
authority  of  Christ  can  be  called  a   Christian 
teacher,  however  true  and  useful  his  instructions 
may  be  in  other  respects.     This  doctrine,  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is,  as  Paul  says,  the  founda- 
tion upon  which  all  the  other  great  truths  of 
Christianity  are  built.     Vide  Storr,  Ueber  den 
Geist  des  Christenthums,  in  Flatt's  Magazin  fur 
Dogmatik  und  Moral,  St.  I.  s.  103,  f.  Tub.  1796. 
(  6)  He  became  man,  died,  and  rose  again.     He 
is  now  gone  into  the  heavens,  where  he  is  ex- 
alted over  all,  and  enjoys  that  divine  glory  which 
is  his  due,  and  whence  he  will  come  on  a  future 
day  to  be  our  judge.     (  c).  He  not  only  gave  us 
ample  instruction  respecting  our  duty,  but  pro- 
cured us  forgiveness  with  God,  and  freedom  from 
the  punishment  of  sin  through  his  sufferings  and 
death  (al/ia),  the  remembrance  of  which  is  so- 
lemnly renewed  in  the  Lord's  supper.     These 
truths  respecting  Christ  are  always  represented 
as  fundamental. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  the  depravity  and  moral 
degeneracy  of  man  is  always  presupposed  and 
frequently  stated  in  the  strongest  terms. 

4.  The  doctrine  of  a  special  divine  instruc- 
tion   and    guidance,  (rtvfv/j.a>   aytov,  ^aptcfftata 
rtvev[jiato$.)     These  were   afforded   in  various 
ways,  naturally  and  supernaturally,  to  Chris- 
tians of  that  period,  and  promised  to  those  who 
should  follow. 

5.  The  doctrines  of  the  immortality  of  the 
soul,  of  future  retribution,  and  of  the  resurrec- 
tion  of   the  dead.     The  latter  doctrine   was 
taught  in  opposition  to  the  heathen  and  to  the 
Sadducees. 

6.  The  doctrine  of  the  destination  of  man. 
This  is  holiness,  and  the  happiness  proportion- 
ately connected  with  it.     He  only  who  has  ex- 
perienced a  true  change  of  heart,  and  who  lives 
according  to  the  precepts  of  Christ,  can  share 
in  the  rights  and  blessings  which  belong  to 
Christians  in  this  life,  and  the  life  to  come. 

7.  The  doctrine  of  gratuitous  forgiveness. 
Men  cannot  merit  forgiveness  and  salvation  by 
obedience,  either  to  the  civil  or  ecclesiastical 
law  of  Moses,  or  to  the  universal  moral  law, 
although  obedience  to  the  latter  is  their  indis- 
pensable duty.     Paul  argues  this  point  against 
the  Jews,  who  held  the  opposite  opinion ;  he 
also  shows  that  the  law  of  Moses  is  no  longer 
obligatory  upon  Christians. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


35 


8.  The  doctrine  of  baptism.  By  this  ordi- 
nance Christian  rights  are  imparted  and  assured 
to  all  who  are  'admitted  into  the  Christian 
church. 

These  are  the  fundamental  doctrines  which 
were  taught  by  the  apostles. 

Note.  —  The  whole  Mosaic  dispensation,  as  all 
will  admit,  rested  on  the  principles  of  theocracy. 
But  it  is  equally  clear  from  the  New  Testament, 
that  the  new  or  Christian  dispensation  rests 
on  principles  of  theocracy  and  Christocracy. 
Christ  is  not  merely  a  teacher,  now  deceased, 
like  Socrates  and  Plato,  and  other  sages  of  an- 
tiquity, who  live  indeed  in  remembrance,  but 
who  now  no  longer  exert  a  personal  influence 
upon  men.  He  is  now,  as  he  was  formerly, 
and  will  always  continue  to  be,  a  true  and  living 
king  (sevpK>$)  and  judge,  (x$rtri$  £uvtuv  xai 


Christianity,  then,  in  the  purely  scriptural 
view  of  it,  is  no  more  an  institute  for  mere  in- 
struction than  the  ancient  Mosaic  dispensation. 
It  does  not  rest  its  precepts  upon  the  weight  of 
the  reasons  by  which  they  might  be  supported. 
It  is  a  divinely  constituted  government,  in  which 
Christ  is  king,  legislator,  and  judge.  To  his 
will,  in  furtherance  of  their  improvement  and 
blessedness  in  time  and  in  eternity,  the  hearts 
of  men  should  be  united.  To  his  authority,  as 
lawgiver  and  king,  God  has  given  abundant  tes- 
timony. His  will  and  command  are  therefore 
the  only  ground  which  the  Bible  offers  for  the 
unconditional  obedience  to  him  which  it  requires 
of  all  the  subjects  of  his  rule.  Christ  does  not 
indeed  omit,  as  our  teacher,  to  give  us  reasons 
for  his  precepts;  but,  at  the  same  time,  as  our 
Lord  and  judge,  he  requires  obedience  to  his 
Dimple  authority.  These  views  might  be  proved 
from  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and  the  dis- 
jourses  of  Jesus.  Vide  Matt,  v.,  seq. 

II.  Of  the  Analogy  of  Faith  and  of  Scripture. 

The  analogy  of  faith  is  the  connection  which 
subsists  between  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
religion  and  the  relation,  arising  from  this  con- 
nection, of  these  doctrines  to  one  another  and 
to  the  whole  system.  Intimately  connected 
with  this  is  the  analogy  of  Scripture,  which  is 
the  connection  and  agreement  which  subsists 
between  all  the  truths  contained  in  the  holy 
scriptures.  The  analogy  of  scripture  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  analogy  of  faith,  since  the 
scriptures  are  the  ground  of  the  doctrines  of 
faith.  This  agreement  should  subsist  in  every 
system  ;  the  parts  should  conspire  harmoniously 
to  one  end.  The  propositions  should  be  con- 
nected together  into  a  complete  whole,  without 
chasms;  and  follow,  one  after  another,  in  natu- 
ral order,  without  contradiction.  But  this  is 
eminently  important  in  the  Christian  system. 

The  phrase  analogy  of  faith  is  borrowed  from 


Rom.  xii.  6.  But  there  dvcttoyu*  *»??  TttWfwj  is 
the  proportion  or  degree  of  theoretical  and  prac- 
tical faith  or  Christianity ;  like  /^Vpov  TttWtwj, 
ver.  3.  The  meaning  is,  Christians  should  de- 
vote the  different  degiees  of  knowledge  and 
experience  in  religion  which  they  may  possess 
to  the  general  good  of  the  church.  Those,  for 
example,  possessing  the  gift  of  prophecy,  should 
be  content  with  this  gift,  and  employ  it,  accord- 
ing to  the  best  of  their  ability,  for  the  good  of 
others. 

But  although  this  term,  as  used  in  this  pas- 
sage, has  a  different  sense  from  that  attached  to 
it  by  theological  writers,  the  thing  itself  which 
they  mean  to  designate  by  it  is  just  and  import- 
ant. •  The  analogy  of  faith,  as  they  use  it, 
implies, 

1 .  That  no  one  doctrine  of  faith  may  contra- 
dict the  other  doctrines  of  the  system ;  and  that 
all  must  conspire  to  promote  the  one  great  end 
— the  moral  improvement  and  perfection  of  men. 
The  doctrine  of  the  divine  justice,  for  example, 
must  be  explained  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  con- 
sistent with  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  goodness, 
and  as  to  be  promotive,  and  not  destructive,  of 
the  improvement  of  men.     Vide  Morus,  s.  6. 

2.  That  the  doctrines  of  faith  should  mutually 
explain  and  illustrate  each  other,  and  be  drawn 
from  one  another  by  fair  conclusion.     Any  doc- 
trines may  belong  to  the  system  of  faith  which 
may  be  derived,  by  just  consequence,  from  the 
holy  scriptures,  although  not  contained  in  them 
in  so  many  words  ;    and  all  the  doctrines  should 
be  carefully  preserved   in  the  relations  which 
they  bear  to  each  other.     When  isolated  and 
viewed  by  itself,  alone,  a  doctrine  is  apt  to  ap- 
pear in  a  false  light.     This  is  the  case  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  attributes,  and  with  much 
of  the  doctrine  respecting  Christ. 

3.  That  the  particular  doctrines  of  the  system 
should  be  exhibited  in  a  natural  connection,  in 
a  proper  place,  and  a  regular  order.     No  one 
determinate  method  can  be  prescribed  ;  and  yet 
some   fixed    plan  should   be  followed  through 
the  whole,  and  into  all  the  particulars.     The 
doctrines  in  which  other  doctrines  are  presup- 
posed should  not  hold  the  first  place.     It  would 
be  absurd,  for  example,  to  begin  a  system  with 
the  doctrine  respecting  death,  the  Lord's  supper, 
or  baptism,  since  these  doctrines  presuppose 
others,  without  which  they  cannot  be  understood 
and  thoroughly  explained.  Cf.  Morus,  p. 14,  s.  5 

SECTION   VI. 

OF    THE    MYSTERIES   OF    RELIGION. 

1.  THE  Greek  juuff-r^ptov  is  commonly  rendered 
mystery.  It  answers  to  the  Hebrew  "inpp,  and 
signifies  in  general  anything  concealed,  hidden, 
unknown.  In  the  New  Testament  it  generally 
signifies  doctrines  which  arc  concealed  from  men, 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY 


either  because  they  were  never  before  published, 
(in  which  sense  every  unknown  doctrine  is 
mysterious,)  or  because  they  surpass  human 
comprehension.  Some  doctrines  are  said  to  be 
mysterious  for  both  of  these  reasons,  but  more 
frequently  doctrines  which  are  simply  unknown 
are  called  by  this  name.  Mvatr^iov  signifies, 
therefore,  in  its  biblical  use,  (1)  Christianity  in 
its  whole  extent,  because  it  was  unknown  before 
its  publication — e.  g.  p-vstr^ov  *iWfw$,-l  Tim. 
iii.  9;  (2)  Particular  truths  of  the  Christian 
revelation— e.  g.  1  Cor.  iv.  1 ;  xv.  51,  and  espe- 
cially in  the  writings  of  Paul ;  (3)  The  doctrine 
that  the  divine  grace  in  Christ  extends,  without 
distinction,  to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  because 
this  doctrine  was  so  new  to  the  Jews,  and  so 
foreign  to  their  feelings — e.  g.  Eph.  i.  9 ;  iii.  3 ; 
Coll.  v.  6,  seq.  &c. 

2.  The  word  mystery  is  now  commonly  used 
in  theology  in  a  more  limited  sense.  Here  it 
signifies  a  doctrine  revealed  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, the  mode  of  which  is  inscrutable  to  the 
human  understanding.  A  doctrine,  in  order  to 
be  a  mystery  in  the  theological  sense,  must  be 
shown  to  be  (a)  a  doctrine  really  contained  in 
the  holy  scriptures;  and  (/>)  a  doctrine  of  such 
a  nature  as  to  transcend  though  not  contradict 
the  powers  of  the  human  understanding.  Of 
this  nature  are  the  doctrines  respecting  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost — the  union  of  two  natures 
in  Christ — the  atonement,  &c. 

To  the  above  definitions  we  subjoin  the  fol- 
lowing observations  : — 

(1)  Whether  such   religious  mysteries  are 
really  contained  in  the  holy  scriptures  can  be 
determined  only  by  the  principles  of  hermeneu- 
tics.     The  mysteries  which,  through  ignorance 
of  the  original  languages  of  the  Bible,  were 
supposed  to  be  contained  in  many  texts,  disap- 
pear on  a  fair  interpretation.    They  were  greatly 
multiplied  by  the  fathers  of  the  church,  since 
mysteries  were  in  great  request  in  their  day, 
and  in  high  esteem  even  among  the  heathen ; 
they  were  accordingly  attributed  in  great  abun- 
dance to  the  Christian  system.    There  is  ground, 
therefore,  for  the  caution  given  by  Morus,  p.  41, 
s.  32,  n.  3,  not  to  seek  to  increase  the  number 
of  mysteries.     But  this  caution  is  unnecessary 
at  the  present  day,  when  many  theologians,  in 
consequence  of  their  philosophical  objections 
against   mysteries,   banish   them  wholly  from 
their  theories  ;  and,  not  content  with  this,  seem 
bent  to  exclude  them,  by  a  violent  interpretation, 
even  from  the  holy  scriptures. 

(2)  Since  we  are  unable  to  decide,  before- 
hand, what  a  divine  revelation  will  contain,  we 
should  not  undertake  to  say  that  it  must  neces- 
sarily contain  mysteries.     Mystery  is   not,  in 
itself  considered,  an  essential  mark  and  requisite 
of  revelation.   But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  should 


not  undertake  to  say  beforehand  that  a  revelation 
cannot  contain  mysteries.  Whether  the  reve- 
lation which  God  has  given  us  contains  myste- 
ries or  not  is  a  question  of  fact;  and  in  such 
questions,  demonstrations  dpriori  have  no  place. 

(3)  The  great  object  of  divine  revelation  is 
the  promotion  of  the  moral  improvement  of  men. 
Those  dark  and  unintelligible  doctrines,  which 
are  either  themselves  subversive  of  this  end,  or 
are  wholly  disconnected  with  the  practical  truths 
which  tend  to  promote  it,  do  not  belong,  we  may 
be  sure,  to  the  system  of  revealed  religion.  But 
of  such  a  character  are  not  the  mysteries  of  the 
Christian  religion  !    They  stand  throughout  in 
so  close  a  connection  with  the  most  clear  and 
practical  truths,  that  removing  them  would  ren- 
der these  truths  very  different  from  what  they 
are  exhibited  to  be  in  the  holy  scriptures.     The 
mystery  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  for  ex- 
ample, stands  in  close  connection  with  what  we 
are  taught  respecting  Christ,  and  respecting  our 
duties  and  relations  to  God  ;  and  to  remove  this 
mystery  would  render  our  duties  and  relations 
to  God  essentially  different  from  what  they  are 
represented  in  the  New  Testament.     This  sug- 
gests the  important  rule:  to  consider  the  myste- 
ries of  the  Christian  religion  not  as  solitary  and 
isolated,  but  fas  connected  with  the  other  truths  re- 
vealed in  the  holy  scriptures. 

(4)  The  reason  of  the  mystery  and  obscurity 
which  covers  many  of  the  doctrines  revealed  in 
the  Bible  is,  that  the  great  first  principles  upon 
which  these  doctrines  rest  lie  beyond  the  circle 
of  our  vision,  in  the  sphere  of  spirit,  with  which 
we  have  only  a  very  imperfect  acquaintance. 
This  is  the  case  with  the  mysteries  of  the  work 
of  redemption, — God  and  man  united   in   one 
person, — God  reconciled  with  man  through  the 
innocent  death  of  his  own  Son,  &c.     Could  we 
rise  above  the  sphere  of  sense,  and  understand 
the  great  principles  upon  which  these  doctrines 
rest,  we  should  doubtless  find  them  clear,  con- 
sistent, and  connected,  and  lose  all  our  suspi- 
cions concerning  them.  Even  among  the  objects 
of  our  senses  there  are  many  things  of  which  we 
cannot  see  the  reason,  and  yet  cannot  doubt  the 
reality.     How  many  more,  then,  in  the  world  of 
spirits,  which  is  almost  inaccessible  to  us  in  our 
present  state  ! 

(5)  Since  these  objects  lie  so  wholly  beyond 
the  conceptions  of  our  minds,  confined  as  they 
are  within  the  horizon  of  sense;  the  human  un- 
derstanding, in  its  present  circumstances,  should 
abstain  from  anxious  inquiry  after  their  internal 
and  essential  nature.     On  these  subjects  it  be- 
comes us  to  be  modest,  and  to  remain  contented 
with  the  information  which  the  holy  scriptures 
have  given  us.     A  proud  and  inquisitive  spirit, 
on  subjects  like  these,  always  leads  to  hurtful 
results.     We  are  taught  by  the  Bible,  that  we 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


can  never  fully  comprehend  the  objects  which  ' 
lie  beyond  the  circle  of  our  bodily  vision,  and 
that  yet  we  must  believe  in  them,  notwithstand- 
ing all  objections,  as  far  as  they  are  found  by  j 
experience  to  be  effectual  means  of  promoting  oar 
holiness  or  moral  improvement.     We  must  be- 
lieve in  Christ,  as  Redeemer  and  Saviour;  in 
God,  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit;  and  we 
must  make  a  practical  use  of  these  doctrines  for  i 
the  end  and  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  Christ, 
however  unable  we  may  be  to  understand  their 
grounds  and  internal  connection. 

(6)  Religion,  as  we  may  conclude  from  all 
that  lias  been  said,  is  a  necessary  result  from  the 
principles  of  human  reason.  It  therefore  rests 
upon  a  faith,  which  is  grounded  on  these  prin- 
ciples of  reason;  otherwise  it  would  be  super- 
stition. The  great  inquiry,  then,  on  this  subject, 
is,  whether  this  faith  is  rational,  conformed  to 
the  laws  of  our  thinking  nature,  and  such  that 
we  can  justify  it  to  ourselves  and  others.  And 
this  faith  will  be  rational,  if  it  is  not  contradic- 
tory to  reason  and  morals.  If  it  be  contradic- 
tory to  either  of  these,  we  can  neither  justify  it 
to  ourselves  nor  find  grounds  on  which  to  com- 
mend it  to  others.  This  faith,  then,  may  be  ra- 
tional, whether  the  doctrines  to  be  believed  are 
comprehensible  or  not.  This  is  a  point  not  at  all 
essential  to  the  reasonableness  of  faith  ;  because 
the  objects  of  this  religious  faith  belong  to  the 
spiritual  world,  and  are,  therefore,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  incomprehensible  to  man. 
The  cnmprehensibleness  of  the  doctrines  of  reli- 
gion cannot  therefore  be  made  the  criterion  by 
which  their  truth  is  to  be  determined,  as  has  been 
done  erroneously  by  many  modern  philosophers 
and  theologians.  Proceeding  on  the  principle, 
that  every  thing  in  the  doctrines  of  religion  which 
was  incomprehensible  must  be  explained  away  or 
rejected,  they  came  at  last,  in  order  to  be  con- 
sistent with  themselves,  to  renounce  all  religion, 
natural  as  well  as  revealed  ;  or,  at  best,  to  leave 
only  the  name  of  it  behind.  The  nature  of  God 
is,  and  must  ever  remain,  wholly  incomprehen- 
sible. We  know  not  what  he  is  in  himself,  nor 
the  manner  in  which  he  acts.  And  we  may  say 
the  same  even  with  respect  to  our  own  souls.  If 
we  consider  this,  we  shall  easily  see  that  we 
must  either  give  up  the  comprehensibleness  of  the 
doctrines  of  religion  as  the  criterion  of  their  truth, 
or  wholly  renounce  religion.  As  we  have  in- 
timated above,  religion  is  a  product  of  our  moral 
nature.  It  is  eminently  a  concern  of  the  heart ; 
and  we  believe  in  its  truths  because  they  influ- 
ence our  hearts.  If  we  withheld  our  assent  to 
the  truths  of  religion  till  we  could  comprehend 
them,  we  should  never  believe;  but,  as  human 
nature  is  constituted,  we  firmly  believe,  not  be- 
cause we  fully  understand,  but  because  we  deep- 
ly feel. 
Cf.  Morus,  p.  41,  42  ;  s.  32,  33. 


SECTION  VII. 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  USE  OF  THE 
SCRIPTURES,  REASON,  AND  TRADITION,  AS 
SOURCES  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES. 

I.  Of  the  Use  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

THE  Bible  is  the  proper  source  of  our  know- 
ledge of  those  truths  of  religion  which  Christians 
receive  as  revealed.  The  New  Testament  is  the 
more  immediate  source  of  the  Christian  system  ; 
not  exclusively,  however,  of  the  Old  Testament, 
to  which  constant  reference  is  made,  and  which 
is  always  presupposed,  in  the  New. 

If  any  teacher  who  lived  before  our  own  times 
left  written  monuments  behind,  these  are  the 
surest  sources  from  which  we  can  learn  what  his 
opinions  and  doctrines  were.  If  he  himself 
wrote  nothing,  the  writings  of  his  disciples  and 
familiar  friends  are  our  best  authority.  Our 
knowledge  will  be  more  easy  and  sure,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  number  and  completeness  of  these 
written  records.  The  writings  of  disciples  who 
were  contemporary  with  their  teacher,  and  his 
personal  friends,  are  far  more  important  in  ascer- 
taining his  principles  than  the  writings  of  later 
followers,  who  are  apt  to  introduce  opinions 
foreign  to  the  system  which  they  undertake  to 
exhibit.  Socrates  wrote  nothing  himself;  but 
Plato,  Xenophon,  and  others  of  his  early  dis- 
ciples, wrote  abundantly  respecting  him  and  his 
doctrine.  The  disciples  of  these  men  styled 
themselves,  still,  the  followers  of  Socrates,  and 
continued  to  expound  his  system,  but  they  as- 
cribed to  him  many  opinions  which  he  did  not 
profess.  All  this  is  applicable  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Jesus  wrote  nothing  himself:  but 
many  of  his  early  disciples  left  records  respect- 
ing him  which  are  collected  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. If  these  records  are  truly  the  produc- 
tions of  those  disciples  of  Jesus  whose  names 
they  bear  (the  proof  of  which  will  be  given  in 
the  Article  on  the  holy  scriptures),  they  furnish, 
doubtless,  the  most  authentic  information  which 
we  can  possess  respecting  the  doctrines  which 
Jesus  himself  taught,  and  wished  his  disciples 
to  teach.  The  writings  of  the  apostolical  fa- 
thers, the  followers  of  the  first  disciples  of 
Christ,  are  of  inferior  authority  ;  and  still  less 
authentic  are  the  traditions  transmitted  orally 
in^the  church. 

If  it  is  true  that  Jesus  is,  what  these  writings 
affirm  him  to  be,  a  teacher  divinely  commis- 
sioned, and  the  greatest  among  all  whom  God 
has  sent  into  the  world ;  and  if  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were  composed  under  that  pe- 
culiar divine  guidance,  called  inspiration,  then 
we  must  admit  that  the  doctrines  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles  contained  in  them  are  true  and 
divine.  These  two  suppositions  are  the  ground 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  symbols  of  the  protestant 
D 


38 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


church,  that  the  holy  scriptures,  and  especially 
the  New  Testament,  are  the  only  sure  source  of 
Christian  truth,  and,  consequently,  the  only  rule 
of  Christian  faith  and  practice,  exclusively  of 
all  commandments  and  traditions  of  merely 
human  origin. 

Our  system  of  faith  and  morals  depends, 
therefore,  solely  upon  the  authority  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  regarded  as  teachers  commis- 
sioned by  God.  If  any  one  does  not  regard 
them  as  such,  he  cannot  hold  himself  bound  to 
believe  their  doctrines  solely  on  their  authority ; 
he  must  demand  that  his  reason  should  be  con- 
vinced by  rational  proofs.  He  may,  indeed, 
hold  the  memory  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  as 
he  does  of  Socrates  and  Epictetus,  in  high  re- 
spect, as  worthy  teachers;  but  he  cannot  feel 
himself  obliged  to  believe  on  their  word.  We 
here  see  the  cause  of  the  real  importance  of  the 
controversy  which  has  existed  on  the  question, 
Whether,  in  matters  of  faith,  the  Bible  or  reason 
is  the  true  principium  cognoscendi. 

II.  Of  the  Use  of  Reason. 

The  frequent  abuses  of  reason,  when  applied 
to  matters  of  faith,  led  Luther  and  many  of  the 
older  theologians  to  express  themselves  severely 
respecting  the  use  of  reason  on  these  subjects. 
Their  objections,  however,  were  directed  only 
against  the  arrogance  and  perversion  of  reason, 
and  especially  against  the  Aristotelian  philoso- 
phy, then  prevalent  in  the  schools.  Paul  object- 
ed in  the  same  way  to  ^txocro^ta,  (Col.  ii.  8;) 
or  yvM$i$  4/fvSwvDiuoj,  1  Tim.  vi.  20.  All  these 
writers  have,  in  other  passages,  done  full  justice 
to  reason  in  itself,  as  the  noblest  gift  of  God. 

Reason  ( Vernunft)  is  that  power  which  guides 
and  regulates,  by  its  spontaneous  action,  the 
other  faculties  of  our  minds  in  the  acquisition 
of  knowledge;  it  constitutes  the  peculiar  cha- 
racteristic of  humanity,  and  is  that  by  which 
alone  we  are  capable  of  religion.  Reason  alone 
can  acknowledge  and  receive  the  truths  of  either 
natural  or  revealed  religion,  and  give  them  an 
influence  upon  the  human  will.  Vide  s.  6,  No.  6. 
It  is  therefore  always  mentioned  with  respect  in 
the  Bible ;  and  the  use  of  it,  in  the  study  and 
examination  of  religious  truth,  always  recom- 
mended. Cf.  Rom.  i.  20;  Psalm  xix. ;  Isaiah, 
xl.  xli.  Indeed,  the  use  of  reason  is  presup- 
posed in  a  revelation;  since  without  the  use  of 
reason  we  should  be  incapable  of  enjoying  a 
revelation.  It  is  the  object  of  revelation  to  sup- 
ply the  deficiencies  of  the  knowledge  which  we 
acquire  in  the  use  of  unaided  reason ;  and  this 
very  revelation  cautions  us  against  the  two  ex- 
tremes, of  relying  wholly  upon  reason  for  our 
knowledge,  and  of  neglecting  the  use  of  it  alto- 
gether. 

Human  reason,  as  the  Bible  teaches,  is  not 


the  only  source  of  the  truths  of  religion ;  which 
are  not,  therefore,  to  be  deduced  from  nature 
alone.  None  but  the  rationalist  would  pretend, 
that  the  only  sources  of  our  religious  knowledge 
were  the  nature  of  our  own  minds,  and  of  the 
external  world.  The  Bible  teaches  us  that,  in 
respect  to  objects  of  the  spiritual  world,  which 
lie  beyond  the  sphere  of  sense,  and  which 
could  not  be  known  except  from  revelation  or 
history ;  reason  is  merely  the  instrument  of  our 
knowledge.  But  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  neglect 
to  use  reason  as  the  instrument  of  o.ur  know- 
ledge of  the  objects  of  revelation.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  are  sacredly  bound  to  employ  out 
reason  in  examining  the  credibility  of  the  his- 
tory of  revelation,  and  the  correctness  of  the 
facts  gathered  by  experience,  and  in  discovering 
and  estimating  the  suitableness  and  sacred  ness 
of  the  duties  imposed  upon  us. 

Reason  may  properly  be  used,  as  the  instru- 
ment of  our  knowledge  of  revealed  truth,  in  the 
following  particulars  : — viz., 

1.  In  the  discovery  and  arrangement  of  argu- 
ments in  support  of  these  truths,  and  of  results 
flowing  from  them,     (a)  The  proof  of  many 
doctrines  which  are  clearly  revealed  is  not  dis- 
tinctly stated  in  the  Bible,  but  thrown  upon 
reason.     The  proof  of  the  divine  existence,  foi 
example,  is  not  drawn  out  in  the  Bible,  but  is 
presupposed.      (6)   Proofs,  auxiliary  to  those 
given  in  the  scriptures,  may  be  suggested  by 
reason  in  favour  of  the  articuli  mixti ;  the  pro- 
vidence of  God,  &c.     (c)  Without  the  use  of 
reason  we  cannot  ascertain  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  credibility  of  the  history  of  the  sa- 
cred books,  their  divine  authority,  or  the  rules 
by  which  they  should  be  interpreted,    (rf)  We 
must  employ   our  reason  in  developing  such 
doctrines  as  are  not  distinctly  expressed,   but 
only  implied,  in  the  holy  scriptures.     Reason 
may  be  further  employed. 

2.  In  the  exhibition  and  statement  of  the  truths 
of  revelation.     We  find  the  truths  of  religion 
brought  together  in  the  Bible  in  a  loose  and  dis- 
connected manner,  and  must  therefore  make  a 
diligent  use  of  our  reason  in  collecting,  arrang- 
ing, and   uniting  them  into  such  a  system  a? 
shall  suit  our  own  convenience  or  the  advantage 
of  others.     We  must  also  illustrate  the  truth, 
excellence,  and  fitness  of  the  particular  parts  of 
the  system  of  revealed  religion,  by  analogies 
drawn  from  human  things,  by  the  observation 
of  human  nature,  by  historical  illustrations,  and 
in  many  other  ways  which  call  reason  into 
exercise. 

3.  In  the  defence  of  revealed  religion,  and  of 
the  particular  doctrines  which  it  embraces  (usus 
rationis   humanae   apolegeticus).     How   much 
reason  is  needed  in  this  particular  must  appear 
sufficiently  from  the  preceding  remarks. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


39 


III.  Of  the  use  of  Tradition. 
The  words  7tapa§o<H$  and  traditio  are  used  by 
the  older  ecclesiastical  fathers,  to  denote  any 
instruction  which  one  gives  to  another,  whether 
oral  or  written.  In  the  New  Testament  also,  and 
in  the  classical  writers,  rfapaSowac  and  tradere 
signify,  in  general,  to  teach,  to  instruct.  Tradi- 
tion in  this  wider  sense  was  divided  into  scripta, 
and  non  scripta  sive  oralis.  The  latter,  traditio 
oralis,  was,  however,  frequently  called  traditio 
by  way  of  eminence.  This  oral  tradition  was 
often  appealed  to  by  Ireneeus,  Clemens  of  Alex- 
andria, Tertullian,  (De  Praeser.  cap.  7,)  and 
others  of  the  ancient  fathers,  as  a  test  by  which 
to  try  the  doctrines  of  contemporary  teachers, 
and  by  which  to  confute  the  errors  of  the  here- 
tics. They  describe  it  as  being  instruction  re- 
ceived from  the  mouth  of  the  apostles  by  the  first 
Christian  churches,  transmitted  from  the  apos- 
tolical age,  and  preserved  in  purity  until  their 
own  times.  Tertullian,  in  the  passage  above 
referred  to,  says,  that  an  appeal  to  tradition  is 
the  most  direct  way  of  confuting  heretics,  who 
will  ofter  evade  the  force  of  an  appeal  to  texts 
of  scripture  by  misinterpreting  them.  This 
tradition  is  called  by  Origen  xr^vy^a  txxty- 
oiao-tixov,  and  by  the  Latin  Fathers  regulafidei 
(i.  e.  doctrinae  Christianas)  sive  veritatis.  The 
latter  title  was  given  by  them,  more  specifically, 
to  the  ancient  symbols,  which  contained  the  in- 
struction received  from  the  apostles,  and  trans- 
mitted and  preserved  in  the  church. 

Oral  tradition  is  still  regarded  by  the  Romish 
church  as  a  principium  cognoscendi  in  theology. 

"  Sacrosancta  cecumenica  synodus hoc 

sibi  perpetuo  ante  oculos  proponens,  ut,  sublatis 
erroribus,  puritas  ipsa  evangelii  in  ecclesia  con- 
servetur,  ....  perspiciensque  hanc  veritatem 
et  disciplinam  contineri  in  libris  scriptis  et  sine 
scripto  traditionibus,  quae  ex  ipsius  Christi  ore  ob 
apostolis  acceptsc,  ab  ipsius  apostolis,  spiritu  sancto 
dictante,  quasi  per  manus  traditse,  ad  nos  usque 
pervenerunt:  orthodoxorum  patrum  exempla 
secuta,  omnes  libros  tarn  veteris  quam  novi  tes- 
tamenti,  cum  unus  Deus  sit  auctor,  nee  non 
traditiones  ipsas,  turn  adfidem  turn  ad  mores  per- 
tinentes,  tamquam  vel  oretenus  a  Christo  vel  a 
spiritu  sancto  dictatas  et  continua  successinne  in 
ecclesia  catholica  conservatas,  part  pietatis  affectu 

etc  reverentia,  suscipit  ac  veneratur Si 

quisautem traditiones  praedictas  sciens 

etprudens  contemserit,  anathema  sit."  Concil. 
Trident.  Sess.  IV.  Deer.  1. 

Note. — The  ancient  Latin  writers  use  the  word 
traditio  in  the  sense  of  delivery  or  surrender — 
e.  g.  of  a  person  or  thing  into  the   hands  of 
another.     What  we  mean  by  tradition,  in  the  j 
ecclesiastical  sense,  Livy  or  Sallust  would  ex-  i 
I  press  by  the  phrase  res,  doctrina,  or  historiaper 
manus  tradita, — voce,  if  the  tradition  were  oral, 
scripto  or  literis,  if  it  were  written. 


OBSERVATIONS  on  the  merits  of  the  question 
respecting  doctrinal  tradition  (traditio  oralis 
dogmatica).  In  coming  to  a  decision  on  this 
subject,  every  thing  depends  upon  making  the 
proper  distinctions  with  regard  to  time. 

1.  In  the  first  period  of  Christianity,  the  au- 
thority of  the  apostles  was  so  great  that  all  their 
doctrines    and   ordinances    were    strictly   and 
punctually  observed  by  the  churches  which  they 
had  planted.     And  the  doctrine  and  discipline 
which  prevailed  in  these  apostolical  churches 
were,  at  that  time,  justly  considered  by  others 
to  be  purely  such  as  the  apostles  themselves  had 
taught  and  established.     This  was  the  more 
common,  as  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
had  not,  as  yet,  come  into  general  use  among 
Christians.     Nor  was  it,  in  that  early  period, 
attended  with  any  special  liability  to  mistake. 
In  this  way  we  can  account  for  it,  that  the  Chris- 
tian teachers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries 
appeal  so  frequently  to  oral  tradition. 

2.  But  in  later  periods  of  the  church,  the  cir- 
cumstances were  far  different.     After  the  com- 
mencement of  the  third  century,  when  the  first 
teachers  of  the  apostolical  churches  and  their 
immediate   successors  had   passed  away,  and 
another  race  came  on,  other  doctrines  and  forms 
were  gradually  introduced,   which  differed    in 
many  respects  from  apostolical  simplicity.    And 
now  these  innovators  appealed,  more  frequently 
than   had    ever  been  done  before,  to  aposto- 
lical tradition,  in  order  to  give  currency  to  their 
own  opinions  and  regulations.     Many  at  this 
time  did  not  hesitate,  as  we  find,  to  plead  apos- 
tolical tradition  for  many  things,  at  variance  not 
only  with  other  traditions,  but  with  the  very 
writings  of  the  apostles,  which  they  had  in  their 
hands.     From  this  time  forward,  tradition  be- 
came, naturally,  more  and  more  uncertain  and 
suspicious.    And  especially  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  fourth  century,  the  more  judicious 
and  conscientious  teachers  referred  more  to  the 
Bible,  and  less  to  tradition.     Augustine  estab- 
lished the  maxim,  that  tradition  could  not  be 
relied  upon,  in  the  ever-increasing  distance  from 
the  age  of  the  apostles,  except  when  it  was  uni- 
versal and  perfectly  consistent  with  itself.    And 
long  before  him,  Irenaeus  had  remarked,  that  no 
tradition  should  be  received  as  apostolical,  un- 
less founded  in  the  holy  scriptures,  and  confor- 
mable to  them.   Adv.  Haer.  IV.  36. 

3.  From  these  remarks,  we  can  easily  deter- 
mine the  value  of  doctrinal  tradition  in  our  own 
times.     We  have  but  little  credible  information 
respecting  the  first  Christian  churches,  of  as 
early  a  date  as  the  first  or  second  century,  beside 
that  which  the  New  Testament  gives  us.     And 
the  information  respecting  them  of  a  later  origin 
is  so  intermingled  with  rumours  and  fables  as 
to  be  quite  uncertain.     We  cannot  hope,  there- 
fore, to  obtain  by  oral  tradition  any  information 


40 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


respecting  the  doctrines  held  in  the  first  Chris- 
tian churches,  beyond  what  we  obtain  from  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  the  only  genuine 
records  of  the  early  period  of  Christianity.  Les- 
sing  affirmed,  indeed,  that  the  Christian  religion 
would  have  been  handed  down  from  age  to  age, 
even  if  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  had 
never  existed.  And  true  it  is,  that  by  oral  tra- 
dition, by  writings  of  a  later  origin,  by  baptism, 
the  Lord's  supper,  and  other  Christian  rites, 
much  of  Christianity  might  have  been  preserved 
to  our  own  times,  without  the  aid  of  the  sacred 
books  of  our  religion.  But  it  is  equally  true, 
that  without  the  New  Testament  any  certainty 
with  regard  to  the  doctrines  of  Christianity 
would  be  impossible;  the  sure,  historical  basis 
of  the  system  would  be  removed,  and  Chris- 
tianity soon  become  greatly  disfigured ;  as  may 
be  learned  from  the  example  of  the  Romish 
church,  where  the  use  of  the  Bible  was  limited. 
Christianity  did,  indeed,  exist  for  some  time 
before  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
written.  And  during  that  early  period,  while 
the  apostles  and  their  immediate  successors  still 
lived  and  taught,  these  books  might  be  dispensed 
with  by  Christians  without  serious  injury.  But 
not  so  in  after  times. 

The  reformers,  therefore,  justly  held,  that  tra- 
dition is  not  (certainly  for  us)  a  sure  source  of 
knowledge  respecting  the  doctrines  of  theology ; 
and  that  the  holy  scriptures  are  to  be  received 
as  the  only  principium  cognoscendi.  Cf.  Walch, 
Untersuchung  vom  Gebrauche  der  heiligen 
Schrift  unter  den  Christen  in  den  vier  ersten 
Jahrhunderten,  Leipzig,  1779,  8vo;  a  work 
which  appeared  on  occasion  of  the  controversy 
with  Lessing. 

Note. — On  all  the  subjects  which  have  been 
thus  far  introduced  and  briefly  considered,  the 
student  will  find  very  full,  thorough,  and  in- 
structive discussions  in  Miiller,  Theophil,  oder 
Unterhaltungen  iiber  die  christliche  Religion 
mit  Jiinglingen  von  reiferem  Alter, Th.  I.  Ziirch, 
1801,  8vo;  a  work  which  deserves  to  be  highly 
recommended  to  the  student  in  theology. 

SECTION  VIII. 

OF  THE  OBJECT,  DIFFERENT  DEGREES,  PRINCIPAL 
PERIODS,  AND  BIBLICAL  APPELLATIONS  OF  THE 
DIVINE  REVELATIONS. 

I.  Of  the  Object  of  Revelation. 

WHEN  man  is  in  the  savage  state,  and  left  en- 
tirely to  himself,  he  follows  his  appetites  and 
passions,  and  leaves  his  moral  powers  unexer- 
cised.  Instead  of  allowing  his  will  to  be  go- 
verned by  the  moral  law,  he  chooses  animal 
propensity  (das  sinnliche  princip)  as  its  de- 
termining motive.  He  thus  constantly  re- 
cedes from  that  holiness  and  happiness  for 
which  he  was  made.  Now  to  show  man  the 


I  true  way  of  fulfilling  his  destination,  from  which 
•  he  is  thus  wandering,  is  the  chief  object  of  all 
direct  revelations.     Cf.  sec.  2,  3.     So  even  rea- 
son decides.     Vide  Fich  te,  Versuch  einer  Kritik 
aller  Offenbarung,  Konigsberg,  1793. 

To  enable  man  to  attain  his  destination,  it  was 
requisite  (1)  that  he  should  be  instructed  by 
God  respecting  the  means  to  be  employed  by  a 
divine  revelation,  or  in  some  superhuman  way; 
since  left  to  himself,  he  could  never  have  disco- 
vered these  means ;  and  (2)  that  his  moral  power 
should  be  so  strengthened  and  supported  as  to 
enable  him  to  control  his  stronger  animal  pro- 
pensities. These  two  things  are  absolutely  and 
equally  requisite.  For  the  mere  knowledge  of 
the  divine  will  does'not  impart  to  man  the  power 
which  he  needs  in  order  to  obey  it,  his  bodily 
desires  having  already  the  preponderance  over 
his  moral  faculties.  Cf.  sec.  2,  3.  Now  to 
these  two  points — to  show  man  his  destination, 
and  to  enable  him  to  attain  it — we  may  reduce 
all  the  objects  which  the  scriptures  ascribe  to 
God  in  the  revelations  he  has  made  to  man. 

II.  Of  the  different  Degrees  of  Revelation. 

Although  the  plan  of  God  in  leading  men  to 
their  destination  was  always  the  same,  yet  the 
manner  in  which  he  imparted  instruction  through 
direct  revelation,  and  the  whole  method  which 
he  pursued  in  the  education  of  the  human  race, 
were  very  different.  We  are  led  by  reason  to 
this  result,  which  is  confirmed  by  the  history  of 
revelation  contained  in  the  holy  scriptures. 
The  instruction  given  to  men  must,  of  course, 
be  adapted  to  their  wants  and  capacities,  which 
differ  at  different  times.  Hence  Paul  remarks, 
very  justly,  (Heb.  i.  1,)  that  God  revealed  him- 
self to  men  in  ancient  times  in  various  ways 
(fttftufporias).  Nor  did  this  difference  concern 
solely  the  form  and  costume  of  the  divine  in- 
structions; it  extended  even  to  the  doctrines 
which  were  taught.  Vide  Gal.  iii.  20,  seq.  et 
alibi. 

God  treated  the  human  race  as  human  instruct- 
ors treat  their  pupils.  There  is  a  great  deal  of 
knowledge  which  is  useful,  and  indeed  indispen- 
sable to  a  person  of  mature  age,  which  would  be 
altogether  useless,  unintelligible,  and  perhaps 
hurtful,  to  one  in  childhood.  Now  the  wise 
teacher  will  withhold  this  knowledge  from  the 
child,  or  communicate  it  to  him  only  so  far  as  it 
will  be  serviceable  to  him,  and  in  such  a  way  as 
will  be  most  intelligible,  proceeding  from  the 
known  to  the  unknown,  and  from  the  easy  to  the 
difficult.  And  this  is  the  manner  in  which  God 
proceeds  in  the  instruction  and  education  of  men. 
He  cannot,  therefore,  at  any  time  have  revealed 
such  thing-s  as  were  unnecessary,  or  would  have 
I  been  useWss,  to  the  people  to  whom  the  revelation 
!  was  given.  He  must  also  have  so  planned  the 
I  instruction  to  be  communicated  by  direct  revela- 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


41 


tion  as  to  produce  a  growing  conviction  in  the 
minds  of  men  of  the  necessity  of  a  more  perfect 
instruction  and  a  more  effectual  assistance  before 
they  could  hope  to  succeed  in  controlling  their 
natural  desires.  Such  a  course  is  the  only  one 
adapted  to  the  nature  of  the  human  mind,  of 
which  God  is  the  author.  Accordingly,  God  so 
regulated  his  instructions  from  the  beginning  as 
to  make  men  sensible  of  their  wants,  and  then 
to  supply  them  ;  for  until  men  have  been  brought, 
by  some  elementary  instruction,  to  be  deeply 
conscious  of  their  need  of  something  further, 
they  will  never  inquire  with  earnestness  for  a 
more  perfect  instruction. 

III.  Of  the  Principal  Periods  of  Revelation. 

The  sacred  records  contain  a  history  of  the 
divine  revelations.  This  history  will  be  found 
to  confirm  the  general  remarks  which  have  just 
been  made. 

1.  The  great  doctrine  which  we  find  exhibited 
in  the  earliest  revelations  recorded  in  the  holy 
scriptures  is  this  :  those  who  obey  the  laws  which 
God  has  revealed  shall  be  rewarded,  those  who 
disobey  shall  be  punished.   This  assurance  from 
God,  sometimes  expressed  in  plain  language, 
sometimes  represented  by  images,  ceremonies, 
and  examples,  and  in  various  other  ways,  was 
calculated  to  strengthen  and  encourage  men  to 
obtain  their  mastery  over  their  passions  with 
which  the  divine  favour,  guidance,  and  support 
were  connected. 

This  first  period  of  revealed  religion,  the  ac- 
count of  which  is  given  by  Moses,  is  called  the 
patriarchal  period  (ceconomia  patriarchalis),  and 
is  divided  into  antediluvian  and  postdiluvian. 
Revealed  religion  was  at  that  time  extremely 
simple,  suited  to  the  wants  of  the  infancy  of  the 
world,  and  highly  practical.  All  the  institutions 
of  religion  had  the  benevolent  end  of  preserving 
among  men  the  knowledge  of  the  one  living  and 
true  God,  and  of  leading  them  to  exercise  to- 
wards him  that  love  and  confidence  upon  which 
the  scriptures  everywhere  set  so  high  a  value. 
The  more  to  exercise  and  strengthen  this  pious 
confidence  they  were  made  acquainted  from  time 
to  time  with  their  own  future  destiny  ano1  that  of 
their  descendants,  and  with  the  great  divine  eco- 
nomy for  the  welfare  of  the  human  race  at  some 
distant  time;  as  yet,  however,  as  Paul  expresses 
;t,  (Heb.  xi.  13,)  they  only  saw  the  promised 
olessings/rora  afar  (rtofifatiev  idovtsi). 

2.  Next  followed  the  civil  and  religious  institute 
ff  Moses  ;  and  here  again  the  same  divine  assur- 
ance was  at  the  foundation  of  the  whole.  But  in 
this  infancy  of  the  world  God  found  it  necessary 
to  confine  his  promises  for  the  most  part  to  tem- 
y?ora/good,  and  his  threatenings  to  temporalevi] ; 
because  such  promises  and  threatenings  were 
best  adapted  to  influence  a  people  who  were  as 
yet  extremely  rude,  and  who  derived  their  pains 

6 


and  pleasures  from  the  objects  of  the  present  life. 
Intimations,  however,  of  the  destiny  of  man  be- 
yond the  grave  were  by  no  means  withheld  from 
those  who  were  cultivated  to  such  a  degree  as  to 
be  able  to  understand  them.  But  in  general,  so 
much  only  of  these  higher  truths  could  at  that 
time  be  made  known  as  would  be  intelligible  to 
the  people  at  large.  And  even  this  small  portion 
of  spiritual  truth  needed  to  be  imbodied,as  far  as 
possible,  in  sensible  representations,  before  it 
could  gain  access  to  the  uncultivated  mind. 

In  accordance  with  these  principles,  the  New 
Testament  teaches  that  the  Mosaic  institute  was 
indeed  (a)  of  divine  origin,  (Moses  being  always 
regarded  by  Christ  and  the  apostles  as  a  prophet 
sent  by  God,)  but  that  still  this  institute,  in  com- 
parison with  the  Christian,  was  (&)  very  imper- 
fect, and  indeed  could  not  well  have  been  other- 
wise, considering  the  times  and  the  men  it  was 
designed  for,  Gal.  iv.  3,  9  (ffi'oi/^ta) ;  Col.  ii. 
8,  20,  et  alibi ;  and  therefore  it  was  (c)  only  a 
temporary  religion,  designed  by  God  to  continue 
only  for  a  time,  and  then  to  give  place  to  a 
higher  and  more  perfect  scheme,  2  Cor.  iii.  11, 
seq.;  Gal.  iv.  1 — 5  ;  Heb.  viii.  6,  et  alibi. 

But  God  excited  in  the  minds  of  the  very 
people  who  enjoyed  this  preparatory  revelation, 
a  sense  of  their  need  of  one  more  full  and  perfect. 
And  in  various  ways  he  deepened  this  impres- 
sion: (1)  by  such  instruction  respecting  the  de- 
sign of  the  sacrifices  and  rites  of  the  Mosaic  in- 
stitute as  should  turn  their  attention  from  the 
mere  external  ceremonies  of  religion,  and  lead 
them  gradually  to  a  more  pure  and  spiritual  wor- 
ship. Vide  Ps.  1.  Isaiah,  lviii.,lx.,  seq.  (2)  By 
prophecy  respecting  that  great  economy  for  the 
moral  perfection  and  welfare  of  the  human  race 
which  God  would  at  some  future  time  establish. 
These  prophecies  were  at  first  only  distant  and 
obscure  intimations,  but  they  became  gradually 
more  clear  and  intelligible  as  men  became  more 
convinced,  by  a  long  trial  and  experience,  that 
such  a  new  economy  was  absolutely  necessary. 
And  this  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  some  new 
economy  became  stronger  the  more  men  learned 
by  experience  that  the  mere  knowledge  of  the 
divine  will,  connected  though  it  might  be  with 
the  certainty  of  rewards  and  punishments,  was 
insufficient  to  enable  them  to  lead  a  life  of  virtue 
and  self-government.  Accordingly,  the  prophe- 
cies respecting  the  Messiah,  and  the  new  econo- 
my which  he  would  introduce,  became  more  and 
more  clear  and  distinct,  especially  from  the  time 
of  David  until  shortly  after  the  Babylonian  exile. 
The  prophets  now  plainly  predicted  that  the 
economy  under  which  they  lived  would  come  to 
an  end,  and  that  a  new  economy  would  com- 
mence, which  would  bring  relief  to  the  wants  of 
men,  Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 36,  coll.  Heb.  viii.  7,  seq. 

Note. — A  revelation  of  the  truths  of  religion, 
in  order  to  convince  men  that  it  actually  pro- 


42 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


ceeds  from  God  and  should  be  obeyed  as  his 
will,  must  be  attended  with  such  events  as  prove 
its  author  to  be  their  lord  and  creator,  and  the 
creator,  proprietor,  and  governor  of  the  world. 
Accordingly,  the  divine  revelations  have  always 
been  attended  with  events  in  the  natural  world 
of  such  a  miraculous  kind,  as  could  seem  to  the 
most  savage  and  unlettered  mind  to  proceed  from 
none  other  than  the  author  and  governor  of  na- 
ture. But  the  Bible  claims  not  only  that  its 
doctrines  should  be  received  as  divine,  but  that 
the  teachers  by  whom  they  are  published  should 
be  acknowledged  to  be  sent  by  God,  as  is  im- 
plied in  the  word  prophet — the  title  commonly 
given  them.  Now  in  order  to  establish  this  ex- 
traordinary claim,  it  is  natural  that  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  should  narrate  extraordinary 
events.  And'these  narrations,  when  given,  must 
not  be  explained  away,  but  taken  as  they  stand, 
according  to  the  obvious  intention  of  the  narra- 
tor; for  the  extraordinary  mission  which  the 
Bible  claims  for  Moses,  Christ,  and  otherteach- 
ers,  could  be  confirmed  in  no  other  way  than  by 
extraordinary  events.  Those,  therefore,  who, 
like  Eck,  ift  his  Inquiry,  explain  away  the  mira- 
cles of  the  Bible  by  a  violent  and  arbitrary  in- 
terpretation, counteract  their  own  purpose.  In- 
stead of  vindicating  the  Bible  in  this  way  from 
objection  and  reproach,  they  render  it  a  very  in- 
consistent book. 

3.  After  all  these  preparatory  revelations,  cal- 
culated to  produce  in  the  mincls  of  men  a  sense 
of  their  need  of  more  complete  instruction,  God 
founded  a  new  institute,  which,  without  in- 
fringing the  liberty  of  man,  exerted  a  more 
powerful  influence  than  any  which  had  pre- 
ceded, and  imbodied,  in  the  most  perfect  man- 
ner, every  means  of  holiness  and  happiness. 
This  was  the  Christian  institute.  Its  object  suf- 
ficiently appears  from  its  nature  and  influence; 
its  authority,  like  that  of  the  ancient  economy, 
was  abundantly  confirmed.  We  shall  hereafter 
treat  of  its  divine  origin,  its  internal  excellence, 
&c.  In  this  connection  we  shall  notice  only  two 
of  its  principal  advantages,  which  are  often  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament. 

(a)  Its  universality.  By  this  we  mean  that 
the  Christian  religion  is  adapted,  in  its  whole 
constitution,  to  be  the  religion  of  all  men.  Its 
precepts  are  not  confined  to  any  one  nation  or 
country,  but  are  applicable  to  all  people,  in  what- 
ever climate  and  under  whatever  form  of  go- 
vernment they  may  live.  Accordingly,  Christ 
commands  (Mark,  xvi.  15)  that  his  religion 
should  be  preached  to  all  men  without  distinc- 
tion, (rtday  ty  xtiau ;)  for  he  is  the  Saviour  of 
all  men,  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  of  the  world, 
(Swr^p  -tov  xoa/jt-ov-^  Vide  John,  x.  16;  Rom. 
i.  16,  seq.;  Ephes.  ii.  11 — 18,  et  al.  And  ex- 
perience has  shown,  both  in  ancient  and  modern 
times,  that  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  when  exhi- 


bited in  the  native  simplicity  in  which  they  ap- 
pear in  the  New  Testament,  produce  the  same 
effects  in  all  ages  and  upon  all  classes  of  men. 
They  have  thus  proved  themselves  to  be  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  all  those  who  be- 
lieve in  them,  Rom.  i.  16 ;  1  Cor.  i.  But  Christ 
and  his  apostles  never  laboured  to  make  converts 
in  great  multitudes,  or  to  bring  whole  tuitions  to 
an  external  profession  of  Christianity ;  nor  has  a 
whole  people,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  been  ever  tho- 
roughly reformed  by  the  Christian  religion.  Ma- 
ny thousand  individuals,  however,  in  different 
nations,  have  been  reformed  by  it,  and  have  by 
their  example  exhibited  to  others  the  advantages 
of  obedience  to  the  precepts  of  Christ;  and  so 
it  will  always  be  in  Christian  communities. 
The  tares  and  the  wheat  will  always  grow  to- 
gether, though  in  different  proportions  at  differ- 
ent times,  according  to  the  prediction  of  Christ, 
Matt.  xiii. 

(6)  Its  perpetuity,  (perennitas.)  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  assure  us  that  we  can  expect  no 
farther  revelations  of  religious  truth  after  the 
full  disclosures  which  Christ  has  made.  Vide 
Matt.  xvi.  18;  1  Cor.  xv.  24.  The  institute 
founded  by  Christ,  unlike  other  religions,  and 
unlike  the  schools  of  philosophy,  which  soon 
pass  away,  will  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
Hence  the  Christian  ministry  is  called  I'D  ftsvov, 
in  opposition  to  the  Jewish  ministry,  which  is 
called  to  xatapyovfievov,  2  Cor.  iii.  11;  cf.  Heb. 
xii.  27.  This  contradicts  the  opinion  of  some 
ancient  and  modern  writers,  that  a  still  more 
perfect  religion  will  hereafter  arise,  to  which 
Christianity  in  its  turn  will  give  place.  Mon- 
tanus  in  the  second  century,  and  many  fanatics 
in  succeeding  ages,  adopted  the  notion  that  this 
more  perfect  religion  would  be  founded  in  a  new 
revelation;  but  some  modern  philosophers  and 
theologians  suppose  that  the  religion  of  reason 
is  the  only  perfect  religion,  and  is  destined  to 
become  universal,  after  gradually  abolishing  all 
positive  religions,  and  the  Christian  among  the 
rest.  This  is  a  favourite  idea  of  Lessing,  Er- 
ziehungdesMenschengeschlechts,  and  ofKrug, 
Briefe  iiber  die  Perfectibilitat  der  geoffenbarten 
Religion,  Jena,  1795.  Vide  Meyer's  prize  es- 
say, Beytrag  zur  endlichen  Entscheidung  der 
Frage :  In  wie  fern  haben  die  Lehren  und  Vor- 
schriften  des  N.  T.  bloss  eine  locale  und  tempo- 
relle  Bestimmung,  und  in  wie  fern  sind  diesel- 
ben  von  einem  allgemeinen  und  stets  gviltigen 
Ansehen?  Hanover,  1806,  8vo. 

Note. — Biblical  names  of  revealed  religion 
and  of  a  religious  institute.  Some  of  the  most 
important  are  the  following: — viz. 

rrvin,  vo^noj.  This  name  is  frequently  given, 
by  way  of  eminence,  to  the  Mosaic  religion,  in 
opposition  to  the  Christian.  Sometimes,  how- 
ever, it  denotes  the  precepts  of  revealed  religion 
in  general,  as  Rom.  ii.  14,  vopov  py  Z%uv. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


43 


rvna,  Sia^xy.  When  God  made  a  law,  or 
published  his  will,  he  was  said  to  enter  into  a 
covenant  or  league  with  men.  He  promised,  on 
his  part,  to  bestow  blessings  upon  men  if  they 
were  obedient  to  his  law  ;  and  they  promised,  on 
their  part,  to  do  his  will.  Accordingly,  8ia£rjxq 
signifies  a  law  with  a  promise,  and  also  the  whole 
economy  founded  on  the  law  and  promise.  It  is 
applied  sometimes  to  the  ancient  Jewish  econo- 
my and  sometimes  to  the  new  Christian  econo- 
my, and  sometimes  to  both  without  distinction. 
Vide  Gal.  iv.  24;  2  Cor.  iii.  6. 

The  Christian  economy  is  called  rtiatis  Xpw- 
fov,  v6(jio$  XptcfT'O'iJ,  vo^uoj  TtKTT'Fcof,  jtvevpa,  (in 
reference  to  its  divine  origin  and  perfection,)  and 
especially  cvayy^ov.  The  last  term  was  origi- 
nally the  name  of  the  joyful  promises  which 
Christianity  contains ;  but  it  is  frequently  used 
in  the  New  Testament  in  a  wider  sense,  to  de- 
note the  whole  Christian  economy,  as  containing 
riot  only  promises  but  precepts  as  conditions  of 
those  promises.  In  this  sense  it  may  be  applied 
to  the  whole  of  Christ's  sermon  on  the  mount, 
which  is  for  the  most  part  of  a  preceptive  nature. 
It  is  also  adapted  to  particular  doctrines  of 
Christianity. 

SECTION  IX. 

OF  THE  SCIENTIFIC  TREATMENT  OF  CHRISTIAN 
THEOLOGY. 

1.  In  the  apostolical  church  the  Christian  re- 
ligion was  not  taught  in  a  scientific  manner. 
All  Christian  instruction,  as  we  may  see  from 
the  Acts  of  the  apostles,  and  the  epistles,  was 
then   popular,  practical,  and   hortatory.     This 
appears  from  the  terms  rtapaxtyus,  rtapaxatelv, 
rtapajit&u^cu,  which  are  used  in  reference  to 
the  teaching  of  Christianity,  (xrfivypa.)     Nei- 
ther in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  nor  shortly 
after,  did  Christianity  need  the  aid  of  science 
and  learning;  and  among  the  first  Christians 
there  were  no  learned  men,  except  Paul,  Apollos, 
and  a  few  others,  who  were  versed  in  the  Jewish 
law. 

2.  In  the  third  century,  many  heathen  who 
were  versed  in  science  and  philosophy  became 
members  of  the  Christian  church.     At  the  same 
time  learned  men  arose  among  the  heathen  in 
opposition  to  Christianity,  and  heretics,  among 
Christians  themselves,  in  opposition  to  the  ori- 
ginal principles  and  doctrines  of  the  apostolical 
churches,  from  which  they  wished  to  advance  to 
something  more  elevated  and  perfect.     In  order 
to  this,  they  misinterpreted  the  writings  of  the 
apostles,  parts  of  which,  at  this  distance  of  time, 
had  become  obscure.     In  consequence  of  these 
circumstances,  learning  was  soon  needed  in  the 
statement  and  defence  of  Christianity.     The 
learned  men  who  had  been  converted  from  hea- 
thenism now  applied  the  doctrines  and  terms  of 


their  philosophy  to  the  truths  of  the  Christian 
religion.  This  they  did  partly  from  the  influence 
of  habit,  and  partly  from  the  desire  of  rendering 

hristianity  in  this  way  more  popular.  They 
iad  also  the  example  of  the  Grecian  Jews,  who 
frequently  at  that  time  treated  the  Jewish  reli- 
gion in  the  same  way.  This  was  done  by  Justin 
the  Martyr;  and  also  by  Pantaenus,  Clemens,  and 
Origen,  the  teachers  of  the  catechetical  school 
at  Alexandria.  They  supposed  that  this  was 
the  best  way  to  defend  Christianity,  not  only 
against  their  learned  heathen  opponents,  but  also 
against  the  heretics.  For  the  interpretation  of 
the  New  Testament,  also,  literary  knowledge 
was  now  becoming  more  requisite  than  formerly, 
since  the  language,  customs,  and  whole  mode  of 
thinking,  had  gradually  changed  since  it  was 
written.  This  department  of  learning  was  cul- 
tivated with  great  success,  in  the  third  century, 
by  Origen,  who  gave  the  tone  to  the  scientific 
interpretation  of  the  scriptures. 

3.  From  that  time  forward  the  reigning  philo- 
sophy of  every  successive  age  has  been  con- 
nected, and  indeed  wholly  incorporated  by  the 
learned  with  Christian  theology  and  morals. 
The  theology,  of  course,  of  each  successive 
period  has,  with  few  exceptions,  received  the 
form  and  colour  of  the  contemporary  philosophy. 
The  Grecian  church,  after  the  second  century, 
began  with  the  Platonic  philosophy ;  it  next 
adopted  the  Aristotelian,  in  which  it  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  western  church.  Through  the 
influence  of  the  schoolmen,  the  Aristotelian 
philosophy,  after  the  eleventh  century,  became 
universal  in  the  western  church.  This  philo- 
sophy had  the  longest  reign.  The  reformers  of 
the  sixteenth  century  did  indeed  banish  it  from 
the  theology  of  the  protestant  church  ;  but  the 
theologians  of  the  latter  part  of  the  sixteenth, 
and  of  the  seventeenth  century,  readmitted  it. 
Then  followed  the  systems  of  Des  Cartes,  Tho- 
masius,  Leibnitz,  Wolf,  Crusius,  Kant,  Fichte, 
Schelling,  and  others,  which  first  supplanted  the 
school  of  Aristotle,  and  have  since  kept  up  a 
constant  warfare  among  themselves.  In  this 
contest  the  theologians  have  ever  taken  a  lively 
interest;  and,  what  is  worthy  of  remark,  they 
have  always  been  able,  however  opposite  their 
theological  systems  might  be,  to  find  argu- 
ments for  their  own  support,  and  for  the  refuta- 
tion of  their  opponents,  by  a  peculiar  and  subtle 
application  of  the  very  same  principles  of  the 
contemporary  schools  of  philosophy.  Thus 
both  Clemens  of  Alexandria  and  Porphyry  drew 
arguments  from  the  philosophy  of  Plato;  and 
thus,  in  every  succeeding  age,  the  friends  and 
enemies  of  Christianity — the  advocates  and  op- 
ponents of  particular  doctrines  of  Christianity 
j  — have  alike  furnished  themselves  with  weapons 
from  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle,  Leibnitz,  Kant, 
and  others,  down  to  our  own  times. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


From  these  facts  we  should  learn  that  philo- 
sophy can  never  afford  a  permanent  basis  for 
theology,  and  should  never  be  relied  upon  as  a 
sure  pillar  of  a  theological  system.  Those  who 
found  their  belief  upon  philosophy  never  have 
any  thing  firm  and  abiding.  As  soon  as  the 
system  which  they  had  adopted  gives  place  to 
another,  the  opinions  which  they  before  regarded 
as  true  have  no  longer  any  evidence,  and  their 
faith  founders  like  a  ship  which  the  storm  has 
torn  from  its  anchor.  The  belief  which  rested 
upon  the  philosophy  of  Wolf  till  the  year  seven- 
teen hundred  and  eighty  was  undermined  when 
Kant  prevailed;  and  the  belief  which  rested 
upon  the  philosophy  of  Kant  till  the  year  eigh- 
teen hundred, was  undermined  when  Fichte  and 
Schelling  prevailed.  The  same  fate  will,  doubt- 
less, hereafter  attend  every  belief  which  rests 
upon  a  merely  philosophical  basis. 

4.  Particular  portions  of  theology  had  been 
discussed  in  a  scientific  manner,  from  time  to 
time,  ever  since  the  second  century;    so  that 
abundant  materials  were  soon  furnished  for  the 
composition  of  a  complete  system  of  theology: 
they  only  needed  to  be  collected,  arranged,  and 
brought  into  a  perfect  whole.     This  was  first 
attempted,  in  the  sixth  century,  by  Isidorus  of 
Sevilla,  in  his  work,  Libri  tres  Sententiarum. 
It  was  accomplished  much  more  successfully,  in 
the  eighth  century,  by  John  of  Damascus,  in  his 
txSocns  axpifirtf  tys  6p^o8o|ov  rti<rtfa$.    We  do  not 
mention  the  books  of  Origen,  jtfpi  op^wv,  in  this 
connection,  because  they  contain  a  scientific 
statement  of  only  some  particular  doctrines  in 
theology.     After  the  twelfth  century,  many  such 
systems  were  published  by  the  schoolmen  in  the 
western  church.     The  principal  among  these 
were,  Theologia   Christiana,  by  Abelard,  and 
Libri  quatuor  Sententiarum,  by  Peter  of  Lom- 
bardy.     The  doctrines  (sententiae)  of  these  sys- 
tems  were  taken   from   Augustine   and   other 
fathers  of  the  church,  and  connected  and  illus- 
trated in  the  method  and  phraseology  of  Aris- 
totle. 

5.  The  application  of  learning  to  religion  is 
so  far  from  being  objectionable  in  itself  consi- 
dered, that  it  has  become  absolutely  indispen- 
sable to  the  teachers  of  religion.     But  they  have 
been  at  variance  on  this  subject  from  the  first; 
since  there  were  always  some  to  whom  this  ne- 
cessity was  not  very  obvious,  and  who  perceived, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  learning  was  often  and 
greatly  abused  in  religious  instruction. 

(a)  There  always  were  learned  theologians 
who  treated  the  truths  of  religion  as  if  they  were 
given  for  no  other  purpose  than  speculation,  and 
who,  directly  or  indirectly,  turned  away  the  at- 
tention of  their  pupils  from  the  great  object  to 
which  it  should  have  been  directed — the  prac- 
tical influence  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 
They  taught  their  pupils  to  acquire  knowledge, 


as  Seneca  says,  not  for  life,  but  for  the  school; 
and,  consequently,  many  even  of  those  who  were 
designed  to  teach  the  common  people  and  the 
young  in  the  duties  of  religion  acquired  an  aver- 
sion to  every  thing  practical.  That  such  should 
be  the  result  of  this  course  must  appear  almost 
inevitable,  if  we  consider  how  common  a  fault  it 
is  with  young  men  of  liberal  education  to  feel  a 
distaste  for  whatever  is  merely  practical,  and  a 
strong  inclination  to  speculation.  If  academical 
teachers  live  in  mere  speculation,  as  too  many 
of  them  do,  they  will  infuse  this  disposition  into 
their  hearers  and  readers,  who  will  again  infuse 
it  into  others,  to  the  great  disadvantage  of  the 
common  people.  It  was  common  for  those,  who 
had  been  educated  in  this  way  to  assume  an  ex- 
tremely authoritative  and  dogmatical  tone ;  for 
there  is  no  other  pride  which  can  compare  with 
the  pedant's  pride  of  reason.  These  theological 
teachers,  in  their  devotion  to  the  philosophy  to 
which  they  had  once  pledged  themselves,  either 
wholly  neglected  the  scriptures,  or  so  inter- 
preted them  as  to  render  them  consistent,  if  pos- 
sible, with  their  own  preconceived  philosophical 
opinions.  This  fault  is  chargeable  upon  the 
schoolmen  of  former  times,  and  upon  too  many 
teachers  of  religion  at  the  present  day. 

(6)  In  opposition  to  such  theologians,  who 
composed  what  may  be  called  the  scholastic  party, 
there  always  were  others,  who  composed  what 
may  be  called  the  ascetic  party.  They  insisted 
upon  the  personal  application  of  known  truths  for 
the  purposes  of  piety,  rejected  every  thing  which 
interfered  with  practical  religion,  and  regarded 
theological  study  as  important  only  so  far  as  it 
contributed  to  this  end.  But  some  among  them 
fell  into  extravagant  and  fanatical  notions,  and 
pronounced  an  unconditional  sentence  against 
all  learning  of  whatever  kind.  Such  were  some 
of  the  mystics,  as  they  are  called,  who  appeared, 
even  in  the  western  church,  especially  after  the 
eleventh  century,  in  opposition  to  the  schoolmen. 
The  mystics  have  been  divided,  in  consequence 
of  this  difference  of  opinion  among  them,  into 
puri  and  mixti.  The  mystici  puri,  as  the  more 
moderate  and  unprejudiced  of  the  ascetic  party 
were  called,  blamed  only  the  abuse  of  philosophy 
and  learning,  and  wished  to  have  them  regarded, 
not  as  an  end  in  themselves,  but  as  the  means  of 
a  more  important  end.  To  this  class  belonged 
the  Waldenses,  Wickliffites,  and  the  Bohemian 
and  Moravian  Brethren;  and,  in  more  modern 
times,  the  German  and  Swiss  reformers  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  and  in  the  protestant  church, 
at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  and  commencement 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  Spener,  and  the  first 
theologians  of  Halle,  who  were  of  his  school. 

The  state  of  theology  during  particular  pe- 
riods, and  especially  in  modern  times,  is  exhi- 
bited in  ecclesiastical  history. 

6.  The  course  of  theological  study  to  be  pur- 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


45 


sued  by  the  student,  with  special  reference  to 
the  circumstances  of  our  own  times. 

(1)  Since  the  holy  scriptures  are  the   true 
ground  of  our  knowledge  of  the  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity, so  far  as  they  are  of  a  positive  nature, 
(vide  s.  7,)  the  study  of  theology  must  com- 
mence with  the  Bible.    The  truth  of  the  maxim, 
theologus  in  scripturis  nascitur-,  cannot  be  contro- 
verted.    The  first  business  of  the  theologian  is, 
to  search  and  discover,  in  the  use  of  his  exege- 
tical  helps,  the  sense  of  the   passages  upon 
which  the  proof  of  any  doctrine  depends.     He 
should  then  faithfully  exhibit  the  doctrine  itself, 
as  drawn  from  these  texts,  without  any  addition 
or  diminution.    He  should  entirely  forget,  while 
thus  engaged,  what  ancient  and  modern  teachers 
have  said  respecting  the  doctrine  in  question, 
and  endeavour  to  come  to  a  result  which  shall  be 
purely  scriptural. 

(2)  When  he  has  done  this,  he  may  arrange 
the  doctrines  which  he  has  thus  discovered  in 
such  an  order  as  shall  suit  his  main  design,  and 
defend,  confirm,  and  illustrate  them  by  what- 
ever he  can  draw  for  this  purpose  from  philo- 
sophy, history,  or  other  departments  of  learning. 
Proceeding  in  this  way,  the  theologian  will  al- 
ways be  able  to  ascertain  how  much  of  any  doc- 
trine is  expressly  taught  in  the  holy  scriptures, 
and  how  much  of  it  is  merely  derived  from  them 
by  inference,  or  added  by  men  for  the  purposes 
of  defence  or  illustration. 

(3)  The  theologian  should  always  be  careful 
to  notice  the  practical  influence  of  the  several 
doctrines  of  theology,  and  of  the  particular  pro- 
positions of  which  they  are  composed.     He 
should  also,  as  far  as  possible,  suggest  advice, 
in  passing,  respecting  the  proper  manner  of  ex- 
hibiting the  truths  of  religion  before  a  popular 
assembly  ;  for  those  who  are  to  be  the  religious 
teachers  of  the  people  need  to  be  taught  how 
they  may  enter  into  the  views  and  understand 
the  wants  of  hearers  of  a  far  different  intellec- 
tual culture  from  their  own.     A  modern  theolo- 
gian has  well  remarked,  that  most  of  the  stu- 
dents of  theology  know  no  better  than  to  address 
a  promiscuous  audience  on  the  various  subjects 
of  religion  in  the  same  way  in  which  they  them- 
selves, as  educated  men,  have  been  addressed 
for  their  own  conviction  by  their  theological  in- 
structor.    The  necessity  of  such  advice  to  po- 
pular teachers  of  religion  is  apparent,  from  con- 
sidering that  they  are  often  wholly  destitute  of 
a  deep  internal  conviction  and  personal  experi- 
ence of  the  truths  which  they  are  expected  to 
teach  to  others.     It  cannot  be  said  with  respect 
to  them,  pectus  est  quod  disertosfacit.     The  want 
of  this  personal  experience  cannot  he  made  good 
by  any  thing  else;  the  teacher  of  religion  can 
never  be  qualified  for  his  office  if  he  has  not  felt, 
with  joy  in  his  own  heart,  the  truth  of  the  doc- 
trines to  which  his  understanding  has  assented. 


(4)  It  is  now  very  generally  admitted,  that 
the  circumstances  of  our  age  require  that  the 
history  of  doctrines  should  be  connected  with  the 
study  of  theology.  Many  attempts  have  accord- 
ingly been  made  to  produce  a  complete  history 
of  doctrines,  which,  however,  must  prove  un- 
successful until  the  particular  portions  of  which 
such  a  history  is  composed  have  been  more  tho- 
roughly studied.  The  latest  works  in  this  de- 
partment are  those  of  Lange,  Miinscher,  Miinter, 
and  Augusti.  The  historical  method  of  treating 
the  subject  of  theology  has  indeed  been  abused  ; 
but  when  properly  employed,  it  possesses  great 
advantages.  It  is  useful  in  the  following  re- 
spects : — 

(a)  It  presents  us  with  different  views  of  these 
most  important  subjects  of  knowledge,  makes 
us  acquainted  with  the  opinions  of  others  re- 
specting them,  and  shows  us  briefly  the  causes 
which  led  to  these  different  views,  and  the  ar- 
guments for  and  against  them.  In  this  way  it 
serves  to  quicken  the  judgment  of  the  teacher 
of  religion,  to  confirm  and  settle  his  own  con- 
victions, and  to  preserve  him  from  illiberally  in 
his  estimate  of  others.  He  is  often  enabled  by 
a  simple  historical  view  to  decide  upon  the  va- 
lidity or  invalidity  of  the  different  arguments  by 
which  a  doctrine  may  be  supported. 

(6)  In  the  established  system  of  our  churches, 
of  which  no  teacher  of  the  church  should  remain 
ignorant,  there  are  many  philosophical  and  tech- 
nical phrases,  which  have  been  introduced  in 
consequence  of  the  various  errors  and  contro- 
versies which  have  existed.  These  phrases 
cannot  be  understood  and  properly  estimated 
unless  we  are  acquainted  with  the  time  and  man- 
ner in  which  they  originated.  And  this  we  learn 
from  the  history  of  doctrines. 

'c)  There  is  another  very  important  point  of 
view  with  respect  to  the  history  of  doctrines, 
which  is  too  often  overlooked. 

There  is  a  certain  universal  analogy  in  the 
knowledge  and  opinions  of  men  on  the  subject 
of  religion;  like  the  analogy  existing,  for  ex- 
ample, among  human  languages.  This  analogy 
may  be  often  used  by  the  theologian  to  greater 
effect  than  many  logical  demonstrations.  The 
opinions  and  conceptions  of  men  respecting  God 
and  divine  things  are  indeed  very  different;  and 
so  are  their  languages.  But  in  the  midst  of  all 
this  variety,  both  of  religion  and  language,  we 
find  a  striking  similarity  in  some  principal 
points;  and  this  similarity  leads  us  at  last  to 
the  result,  that  even  on  the  subject  of  religion 
men  proceed  everywhere  on  certain  universal 
principles,  which  must  have  their  ground  in  the 
original  constitution  which  God  himself  has 
given  us.  Cf.  s.  2,  3.  The  thousand  different 
modifications  of  these  principles  and  modes  of 
conception  are  owing  to  the  different  degrees  of 
intellectual  and  moral  culture,  and  to  other  ex- 


46 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


ternal  circumstances  by  which  men  are  affected. 
And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  the  analogy  of 
human  opinions  on  the  subject  of  religion  is 
most  visible  and  striking  in  the  infancy  of 
society. 

Knowing  now  these  universal  ideas,  and 
modes  of  conception  and  expression  on  the  sub- 
ject of  religion,  we  may  safely  presume,  that  if 
God  has  actually  given  a  direct  revelation  to 
men,  he  has  adapted  it  to  these  ideas  and  con- 
ceptions, founded  as  they  are  in  the  original 
constitution  of  the  human  mind.  This  is  de- 
manded by  the  nature  of  man ;  and  this  is  found 
to  be  actually  the  case  in  the  divine  revelations 
which  we  enjoy. 

These  ideas  and  conceptions,  which  belong 
essentially  to  the  nature  of  man,  give  us  the 
thread,  as  it  were,  by  which  we  may  traverse 
the  labyrinth  of  religious  opinions,  and  ascend 
up  to  their  very  origin.  They  illustrate  the 
doctrine  of  divine  revelation,  and  render  the 
wisdom  of  the  divine  plan  in  the  different  de- 
grees of  revelation  (vide  s.  8)  everywhere  con- 
spicuous. 

The  theologian,  therefore,  who  would  cast  the 
light  of  history  upon  the  doctrines  of  revelation, 
must  acquire,  from  all  the  sources  of  informa- 
tion within  his  reach,  both  of  ancient  and  mo- 
dern date,  a  comprehensive  knowledge  of  the 
religious  opinions  and  conceptions  of  different 
nations,  especially  in  the  infancy  of  their  exist- 
ence, and  from  all  these  various  sentiments  de- 
duce some  universal  results.  In  this  inquiry, 
he  will  find  the  careful  study  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment peculiarly  important  and  instructive.  For 
here  he  will  discover  the  germs  which  were 
afterwards  developed  in  the  religions  of  the 
Jews,  Christians,  and  other  nations.  With  the 
sacred  books  of  the  Jews  he  should  compare  the 
writings  of  other  nations,  especially  those  which 
belong  to  their  early  history.  Among  all  the 
writings  of  the  people  of  the  ancient  world,  none 
are  so  important  as  those  of  the  Greeks,  parti- 
cularly the  poems  of  Homer.  They  contain 
those  fundamental  ideas  which,  in  all  their  va- 
rious modifications  among  the  later  Greeks, 
(disclose  their  common  origin  in  the  essential 
nature  of  man.  The  passages  which  exhibit 
these  fundamental  ideas  should  therefore  be  fre- 
quently cited,  in  order  to  render  this  analogy  of 
principles  obvious,  in  cases  where  important 
results  are  depending  upon  it. 

Note. — In  the  study  of  theology,  the  follow- 
ing works  may  be  read  with  profit,  and  used  as 
manuals.  (1)  Morus,  CommentariusExegetico- 
historicus,  in  suam  Theologiae  Christianas  Epi- 
tomen,  Tom.  2,  edited  by  M.  Hempel,  Halle, 
1797—98, 8vo.  (2)  Reinhard,  Vorlesungen  uber 
die  Dogmatik,  edited  with  literary  additions  by 
Berger,  Amberg,  and  Sultzbach,  1801,  8vo. 
(3)  Storr,  Doctrinse  Christianae  pars  theoretica 


e  s.  literis  repetita,  ed.  2,  ex  MS.  auctoris  emen- 
data,  1808.  (4)  Storr,  Lehrbuch  der  christlichen 
Dogmatik,  with  additions  by  Flatt,  Stuttgard, 
1803,  8vo. 

The  manuals  of  Ammon,  Schmidt,  Staudlin, 
and  others,  may  be  recommended,  in  many  re- 
spects, to  the  more  advanced  student,  who  can 
examine  for  himself.  The  work  of  Storr  de- 
serves special  recommendation,  as  a  very  tho- 
rough system  of  biblical  theology.  The  works 
which  give  a  merely  historical  view  of  the  vari- 
ous theological  opinions  are  less  suitable  for  b--- 
ginners.  One  of  the  best  among  the  works  of 
this  kind  is  Beck,  Commentarii  historici  decreto- 
rum  religionis  Christianae  et  formulae  Lutherice, 
Lips.  1801,  8vo.  The  work  of  Augusti,  above 
mentioned,  gives  a  briefer  sketch.  Another 
work  of  the  same  author,  System  der  christ- 
lichen Dogmatik,  nach  den  Grundsatzen  der 
lutherischen  Kirche,  im  Grundrisse  dargestellt, 
Leipzig,  1809,  8vo,  contains  much  that  is 
valuable. 


ARTICLE  I. 

OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES  AS  THE  SOURCE  OF 
OUR  KNOWLEDGE  IN  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


SECTION  I. 

NAMES  AND    DIVISIONS  OF  THE    BOOKS  BELONGING 
TO   THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

THE  holy  scriptures  are  a  collection  of  the 
productions  of  the  prophets,  evangelists,  and 
apostles,  containing  the  doctrines  and  the  his- 
tory of  revealed  religion.  They  are  the  archives 
of  the  records  of  revealed  religion,  and  of  its 
history.  They  consist  of  two  principal  parts  : 
the  Old  Testament,  or  the  sacred  national  books 
of  the  Israelites  ;  and  the  New  Testament,  or 
the  sacred  books  of  Christians.  Aio^'x??  and 
rp-Q  denote  laws,  religion,  and  religious  writ- 
ings ;  also  the  books,  or  the  collection  of  the  books, 
which  embody  all  the  precepts  of  religion.  Btj8- 
?a'oj>  8ia^rtxrjf  is  used  in  the  latter  sense,  1  Mac. 
i.  57,  and  TtaXcu'a  8ta^rtxrj,  2  Cor.  iii.  14.  The 
sacred  books  of  Christians  are  called,  in  distinc- 


tion, 

The  books  of  the  New  Testament  have  been 
differently  divided.  At  a  very  early  period  they 
were  divided  into  to  s^oyycjuw  and  o  ajtoa-totos, 
of  which  we  shall  speak  hereafter.  They  have 
also  been  divided  into  the  historical  part,  con- 
taining the  gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  apostles  ; 
the  doctrinal  part  containing  the  epistles,  and 
the  prophetical  part,  the  Apocalypse.  The  his- 
tory of  the  remarkable  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
stands  first  in  the  collection  ;  because  the  divine 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


47 


revelation  contained  in  the  New  Testament  de- 
pends upon  events,  and  upon  the  divine  autho- 
rity of  Jesus,  which  was  confirmed  by  these 
events.  For  the  same  reason,  the  history  of  the 
remarkable  events  of  the  life  of  Moses,  and  of 
his  times,  stands  first  in  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Old  Testament  was  divided  by  the  Jews 
into  three  parts:  (1)  mm,  the  /aw;,  containing 
the  five  books  of  Moses  (rtevtartevzos)  ;  (2) 
the  prophets;  subdivided  into  avo 
ores,  containing  the  books  of  Joshua,  Judges, 
Samuel,  and  Kings,  and  o^i'-rN  onoaj,  posteriores, 
containing  the  prophets,  properly  so  called  ; 
(3)  DOi.n-j,  Hagiographa,  containing  Job,  Psalms, 
Proverbs,  and  the  remaining  books. 

This  division  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, at  least  the  division  into  vojuo$  xai  rtpofyq- 
T-oit,  occurs  in  the  prologue  of  Jesus  Sirach,  and 
in  the  New  Testament,  Luke  xvi.  16;  and  vo- 
fio$  rtpo^T'at,  xai  -^a^oi  (libri  poetici),  in  Luke, 
xxiv.  44,  in  Josephus,  and  very  frequently  in 
the  Talmud.  All  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  sometimes  designated  in  the  New  by 
the  word  vop,o$.  They  are  also  called  Ispa  ypc^u.- 
/iai'a,  ypa<J>afc  ay«u,  and  simply  ypa«J>^.  They 
are  sometimes  called  by  the  Jews  npanw.  o^?» 
the  four  and  twenty  books. 

The  holy  scriptures  are  frequently  called  the 
Word  of  God,-  especially  since  the  time  of 
Hutter,  who  gave  them  this  name.  Tollner, 
Semler,  and  others,  object  to  this  phrase,  as  in- 
convenient and  liable  to  mistake.  It  may  be 
allowed,  however,  if  it  is  properly  explained. 
This  phrase,  as  used  in  the  Bible,  does  not  de- 
note the  sacred  books;  but  (1)  oracles,  predic- 
tions, and  other  divine  declarations  ;  and  (2)  the 
doctrines  and  precepts  of  religion.  So  Rom. 
iii.  2  ;  Acts  vii.  38.  The  Word  of  God  may 
therefore  be  distinguished  from  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, of  which,  strictly  speaking,  it  composes 
only  a  part.  It  cannot,  therefore,  in  strict  pro- 
priety of  language,  be  used  to  signify  the  books 
belonging  to  the  Bible. 

Cf.  Morus,  p.  16,8.  1. 

SECTION  II. 

OF  THE  AUTHENTICITY  OR  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 
BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


THE  word  aw&vtia  properly  denotes  the  cre- 
dibility (a|fcortiffi'ia,  Gloss.  Vet.)  of  a  work  in 
respect  to  its  author.  In  investigating  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  books  of  the  Bible,  we  inquire, 
therefore,  whether  the  opinion  that  they  are  the 
productions  of  the  authors  to  whom  they  are 
ascribed  is  worthy  of  credit. 

We  shall  first  exhibit  the  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  after  which  the  genuineness  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  can  be  more  easily  and 
satisfactorily  proved.  The  proofs  for  the  genu- 


ineness of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  may 
be  divided  into  internal  and  external. 

I.  Internal  proofs  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Books 
of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  Their  contents.     They  contain  nothing  to 
awaken  the  suspicion  that  they  were  composed 
in  another  age,  or  by  other  authors,  than  are 
commonly  supposed.     They  agree  in  every  re- 
spect with  what  we  know  from  other  sources  of 
the  history  and  circumstances  of  the  age  in 
which  they  are  supposed  to  be  written,  and  ex- 
hibit no  traces  of  a  later  composition ;    facts 
which,  considering  the  variety  of  subjects  in- 
troduced, are  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  sup- 
position that  they  are  spurious. 

2.  Their  dialect.     It  is  clear  from  the  dialect 
in  which  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  are 
written,  that  they  are  the  productions  of  native 
Jews  of  the  first  century;   for  all  the  Jewish 
writers  of  the  first  century  who  made  use  of  the 
Greek  language  employed  exactly  that  Hebra- 
istic Greek  in  which  the  New  Testament  is 
written ;  but  after  the  second  century,  this  dia- 
lect was   no  longer  employed    by   Christian 
writers,  who  then  wrote  in  an  entirely  different 
manner.    Now  if  these  books  are  supposititious, 
they  must  have  been  forged  during  the  second 
century,  when  the  dialect  in  which  they  are 
written  was  fallen  into  disuse  among  Christian 
writers.     Besides,  a  very  extraordinary  and  in- 
credible skill  would  have  been  requisite  to  in- 
vent for  each  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment such  a  peculiarity  of  style  as  appears  in 
the  writings  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John, 
Peter,  Paul  and  the  rest;    and  still  more,  to 
carry  through  successfully  a  fiction  like  this. 

II.  External  proofs  of  the  Authenticity  of  the  Books 

of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  The  testimony  of  Christian  writers  of  the 
first  three  centuries.  We  necessarily  derive  our 
earliest  evidences  of  the  existence  of  these  books 
from  those  who  read  and  used  them — from  Chri-s- 
tian  writers.  Now  we  know  that  the  fathers  of 
the  first  three  centuries  possessed  these  books, 
and  considered  them  to  be  the  genuine  produc- 
tions of  those  whose  names  they  bear.  The  tes- 
timony of  the  early  Christain  fathers  on  this 
subject  has  been  carefully  collected  by  Euse- 
bius,  Hist.  Eccles.  III.  25;  VI.  25;  and  De- 
monstratio  Evangelica.  This  whole  subject  has 
been  ably  and  accurately  investigated  in  modern- 
times  by  Lardner,  Credibility  of  the  Gospel 
History.  A  more  brief  survey  is  taken  by 
Storr,  Doctrines  Christianas  pars  theoretica  e 
sacris  literis  repetita,  Stuttgard,  1795, 8vo.  He 
has  executed  the  article,  De  sacrarum  litera- 
rum  auctoritate,  pages  1 — 82,  with  great  dili- 
gence, acuteness,  and  accuracy.  Cf.  the  Intro- 
ductions of  Michaelis,  Hug,  and  others. 


•18 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


2.  The  assent  of  the  heretics  of  the  first  cen- 
turies.    The  Gnostics,  who  were  the  heretics 
of  the  first  period  of  the  church,  never  ques- 
tioned the  credibility  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament,.     They  even  received  some  books 
as  genuine  which,  from  regard  to  their  philo- 
sophical views,  they  could    not  admit  to   be 
inspired.     From  this  quarter,  therefore,  no  rea- 
sonable doubt  can  arise  with  respect   to  the 
authenticity  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    Vide  Storr,  ubi  supra,  p.  1 — 4. 

3.  The  evidence  from  heathen  writers.     Cel- 
sus,  Porphyry,  Lucian,  Julian,  and  other  hea- 
then writers,  who  attacked  the  doctrines  con- 
tained in  these  books,  confirm  their  genuine- 
ness.    Vide  Storr,  ubi  supra,  p.  1 — 4. 

4.  The  evidence  from   the  ancient  versions. 
The  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  trans- 
lated as  early  as  the  second  century  into  Syriac 
and  Latin,  and  during  the  third  and  fourth  cen- 
turies into  jEthiopic  and  Gothic. 

Note. — From  the  foregoing  remarks  we  may 
conclude  that  since  no  important  objection  can 
be  urged  against  the  authenticity  of  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  they  are 
therefore  genuine;  and  even  intelligent  deists 
will  now  universally  admit  that  no  valid  his- 
torical arguments  can  be  urged  against  the  au- 
thenticity of  most  of  these  books. 

The  genuineness  of  some  of  the  books  which 
belong  to  this  collection  was  indeed  doubted  in 
ancient  times  by  some  Christians.  This,  how- 
ever, so  far  from  disproving  the  genuineness  of 
the  rest,  is  a  strong  argument  in  its  favour.  It 
shews  how  cautiously  the  early  Christians  pro- 
ceeded in  distinguishing  the  true  from  the  false. 
Besides,  their  doubts  respecting  the  authenticity 
of  the  Apocalypse,  the  general  epistles,  and  some 
other  books,  arose  very  obviously  from  the  doc- 
trines contained  in  them,  and  not  from  any  defi- 
ciency in  the  historical  evidence  by  which  they 
were  supported. 

The  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  divided 
in  consequence  of  the  doubts  respecting  their 
authenticity,  into  (1)  o^okoyoi^tfm,  the  books 
whose  authenticity  was  never  doubted  by  the 
orthodox  or  catholic  church,  Morus,  p.  28;  (2) 
avr iteyops va,  the  books  whose  authenticity  was 
doubted  by  some,  although,  according  to  Euse- 
bius,  it  was  admitted  by  most — viz.,  James, 
Jude,  the  second  epistle  of  Peter,  and  the  se- 
cond and  third  epistles  of  John;  (3)  ro^a,  the 
books  which,  although  received  by  the  unin- 
formed as  genuine,  were  doubtless  spurious — 
viz.,  the  epistle  of  Barnabas,  the  Shepherd  of 
Hermas,  &c.  This  division  occurs  first  in  Ori- 
gen,  and  afterwards  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles. 
III.  25.  It  has  been  adopted  in  part  by  some 
modern  theologians,  who,  however,  have  altered 
the  terms,  calling  the  0^0X0701^?  va,  protoca- 
nonici,  and  the  avtiteyoptva,  deuterocanonici. 


SECTION  III. 

OF   THE    AUTHENTICITY    OF   THE    BOOKS    OF    THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT. 

THE  proof  of  the  authenticity  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  attended,  indeed,  with 
some  difficulty,  and  is  destitute  of  that  degree 
of  evidence,  with  respect  to  particular  parts, 
which  belongs  to  the  proof  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  reasons  of  this  are 
very  easily  understood.  We  are  wholly  igno- 
rant of  the  authors  of  many  of  these  books,  and 
of  the  age  in  which  they  were  composed  ;  and 
in  general,  so  high  is  their  antiquity,  and  so 
few  are  the  written  accounts  transmitted  from 
that  early  age,  that  we  are  very  deficient  in  sure, 
historical  information  concerning  them,  and  are, 
of  course,  unable  to  decide  correctly  in  every 
case  on  the  question  of  their  authenticity.  How- 
ever, it  can  be  shewn,  from  many  combined 
reasons,  that  with  respect  to  most  of  these  books, 
either  the  whole  of  them  or  their  most  important 
parts  were  composed  in  the  ages  to  which  they 
are  assigned. 

I.  Internal  Proofs  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Books 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

1.  The   language,  style,  costume,  and   the 
whole  mode  of  representation  in  the  Hebrew 
scriptures,  are  in  the  spirit  of  the  times  in  which 
they  were  written.     In  the  earlier  books,  the 
ideas,   expressions,   and    in   short    everything 
about  them,  is  such  as  it  naturally  would  be  in 
the  infancy  of  the  world.     Now,  if  Ezra,  or  any 
number  of  Jews  living  at  the  time  of  the  exile, 
or  afterwards,  had  composed  these  books,  as 
some  have  supposed,  they  could  hardly  have 
avoided  allusions  to  the  language,  manners,  or 
history  of  their  own  age,  by  which  the  decep- 
tion would  have  been  betrayed.     Consider,  too, 
that  notwithstanding  the  general  agreement  of 
the  sacred  writers  of  the  Hebrews  in  language, 
style,  and  the  mode  of  thought  and  representa- 
tion, each  has  some  peculiarity  which  plainly 
distinguishes  him  from  all  the  rest.     Vide  the 
Notes  of  Michaelis  to  his  Bible  ;  also  the  Intro- 
ductions of  Eichhorn  and  Michaelis. 

2.  The   accounts  which   the  sacred  writers 
give  us  of  the  history,  polity,  customs,  and  in- 
stitutions of  the  oldest  nations  of  the  world 
agree  exactly  with  those  which  we  obtain  from 
other  sources.   The  accounts  which  Moses  gives 
us   of  Egypt,  for  example,  agree  with  those 
which  we   obtain  from   oriental  and    Grecian 
writers.   And  it  is  quite  incredible  that  impostors 
of  a  late  age  should  have  given  a  description 
like  this,  which  is  true  even  to  the  slightest 
characteristic  shades.     They  must  have  com- 
mitted anachronisms  and  historical  mistakes; 
especially  considering  how  much  the  critical 
study  of  antiquity  and  of  general  history  was 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


49 


neglected  by  the  ancients.  Jerusalem,  Briefe 
iiber  die  Mosaischen  Schriften  und  Philosophic, 
Braunschweig,  1762,  8vo.  C.  Gottlob  Lang, 
Versuch  einer  Harmonic  der  heiligen  und  Pro- 
fanschreibenten,  1775. 

II.  External  Proofs  of  the  Authenticity  of  the  Books 
oftlie  Old  Testament. 

1.  These  books  are  full  of  allusions  to  each 
other.     Not  only  are  the  events  which  are  re- 
corded in  the  earlier  writings  often  mentioned 
in  the  later  books,  as  Psalms  Ixxviii.,  cv.,  cvi. ; 
1  Samuel,  xii.  8 — 12;  but  the  earlier  writers 
themselves  are  often  afterwards  cited  by  name 
— David,  e.  g.,  in  2  Chron.  xxiii.  18;  Moses, 
Josh.  viii.  31 ;  and  Jeremiah,  Dan.  ix.  2.     That 
the  authenticity  of  these  books  cannot  be  proved 
from  a  large  number  of  contemporary  witnesses 
is  nothing  strange  ;  the  case  is  the  same  with  all 
the  writings  of  the  ancient  world.   In  those  early 
times  little  was  written,  and  still  less  is  pre- 
served.    All  the  evidence  which  we  can  rea- 
sonably ask  of  the  authenticity  of  such  ancient 
works  is,  that  they  possess  internal  marks  of 
truth,  which  are  not  invalidated  by  any  external 
testimony  to  the  contrary.    There  is  no  contem- 
porary testimony  for  the  poems  of  Homer  or  the 
history  of  Herodotus  ;  but  since  they  possess 
sufficient  internal  credibility,  and  there  is  no 
external  testimony  against  them,  their  antiquity 
and  genuineness  are  universally  admitted. 

2.  The  written  records  of  the  Jewish  nation 
were  preserved  from  the  earliest  times  with  the 
greatest  care.     The  law  of  Moses  was  depo- 
sited among  the  sacred  things  in  the  temple 
(Deut.  xxxi.),  and  with  it,  from  time  to  time, 
other  public  documents  which  the  Jews  wished 
to  preserve  with  special  care,  or  to  which  they 
wished  to  give  a  solemn  sanction,  Josh.  xxiv. 
26  ;  1  Sam.  x.  25.    Thus  a  kind  of  sacred  libra- 
ry was  gradually  formed  in  the  temple,  from 
which  our  present  collection  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  was  taken.    Josephus  mentions, 
Antiq.  V.  1,  avaxtipfva  iv  •?$>  tsp^  ypajtiiuai'a. 

3.  The  Greek  translation,  called  the  Septua- 
gint  or  Alexandrine  version,  is  a  proof  that  the 
Jews,  at  a  very  early  period,  acknowledged  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  to  be  genuine.   This 
translation  was  commenced,  beginning  with  the 
Pentateuch,  in  the  reign  of  the  Egyptian  king 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  and  completed  a  consi- 
derable time,  certainly  a  century,  before   the 
birth  of  Christ. 

4.  The  Jews  who  lived  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  in  the  centuries  immediately  preceding  and 
following,  were  all  united  in  the  opinion  that 
these  books  were  authentic  and  credible.     The 
Grecian  Jews  agreed  with  those  of  Palestine  on 
this  point.     Vide  the  catalogue  of  the  wise  and 
distinguished  men  of  the  Jewish  nation,  Sirach, 
xliv. — xlix.    The  testimony  of  Philo  on  this 

7 


subject  is  very  important ;  and  also  that  of  Jo- 
sephus, (Contra  Apionem,  I.  8,)  whose  opi- 
nions were  always  remarkably  candid.  The 
old  Jewish  rabbins,  whose  testimony  is  collect- 
ed in  the  Talmud,  agree  with  the  writers  above 
mentioned  in  supporting  the  authenticity  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

5.  The  testimony  of  Christ  and  his  apostles 
confirms  that  which  has  already  been  adduced. 
They  frequently  quote  passages  from  Moses,  the 
prophets,  and  the  historical  books,  thus  admit- 
ting their  authenticity,  Morus,  p.  23,  s.  13,  and 
Storr,  p.  61 — 70.  Even  Paul,  who  was  so  in- 
tent on  the  subversion  of  Judaism,  and  who 
always  gave  his  opinion  against  it  without  any 
reserve,  never  expressed  the  most  distant  doubt 
respecting  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Jews,  or  the  credibility  of  the  Jewish 
history.  Jesus,  Paul,  and  the  other  apostles 
did  not  indeed  themselves  institute  critical  ex- 
aminations and  inquiries  respecti  ng  these  books ; 
nor  was  it  necessary  that  they  should.  On  sup- 
position that  they  were  inspired  teachers,  their 
mere  word  is  sufficient  security  for  the  truth  of 
what  they  uttered  ;  and  since  the  authenticity 
of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  was  admitted 
by  them,  it  must  also  be  admitted  by  all  who 
consider  them  to  be  inspired.  This  considera- 
tion alone  is  sufficient  to  support  the  faith  of  the 
Christian,  when  attacked  with  specious  objec- 
tions which  he  is  unable  to  answer. 

Note. — Some  additions  have  indeed  been 
made  in  later  times  to  the  oldest  writings  of  the 
Israelites  ;  but  these  interpolations  can  gene- 
rally be  distinguished  from  the  original.  Nor 
have  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  fared 
worse  in  this  respect  than  the  writings  of  Ho- 
mer, and  indeed  most  of  the  written  records 
composed  at  an  early  period.  These  additions 
inserted  in  the  books  of  Moses  consist  of  names 
of  towns  and  countries,  which  were  not  given 
to  them  till  after  his  time — the  account  of  his 
death  and  burial,  Deut.  xxxiv.,  &c.  Here  the 
nature  of  the  case  and  the  alteration  of  style 
sufficiently  indicate  another  hand. 

Note  2. — At  this  distance  of  time  it  cannot  be 
determined  with  entire  accuracy  whether  the 
authors  to  whom  the  several  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  ascribed,  gave  them  the  very 
form  which  they  now  have,  or  only  furnished 
the  material,  which  others  have  brought  into 
the  shape  in  which  they  now  appear.  But  even 
on  the  latter  supposition,  the  credibility  of  these 
books  is  not  at  all  diminished.  Rhapsodies  and 
disconnected  compositions  are  frequently  col- 
lected and  arranged,  for  the  first  time,  by  some 
compiler  living  a  long  time  after  the  original 
author.  Many  of  the  prophetical  books — for 
example,  the  book  of  Isaiah,  and  most  of  the 
historical  books,  and  perhaps  even  those  of 
Moses — were  composed  in  this  way.  But  al- 
E 


50 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


though  Moses,  for  example,  may  not  have  writ- 
ten his  books  exactly  in  the  manner  in  which 
they  appear  at  present,  he  may  still  be  said  to 
have  written  them;  and  Jesus  properly  speaks 
of  what  Moses  wrote.  The  books  which  bear 
his  name  are  undoubtedly  composed  from  very 
ancient,  credible,  and  authentic  narratives, 
which  breathe  everywhere  the  very  spirit  of  the 
ancient  world.  They  are  his  writings,  although 
they  may  have  been  "arranged,  and  sometimes 
perhaps  newly  modelled,  by  another  hand.  The 
same  may  be  said  with  respect  to  the  writings 
of  Homer,  and  many  others.  They  were  col- 
lected and  modelled  anew,  some  time  after  they 
were  originally  composed,  and  yet  their  authen- 
ticity as  a  whole  remains  unimpaired.  Vide 
Wolf,  Prolegg.  ad  Homerum. 

SECTION  IV. 

OF  THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  OR  THE 
COLLECTION  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT INTO  A  WHOLE. 

Introductory  Remarks. 

THIS  section  and  the  following  comprise  all 
the  topics  which  are  usually  introduced  under 
the  title  of  the  canon  of  the  holy  scriptures.  The 
word  canon,  which  is  often  misunderstood, 
means  anything  determined  according  to  a  fixed 
measure,  rule,  or  law  ;  hence,  a  list  or  catalogue 
made  by  a  law — e.  g.,  canon  martyrum. 

But  the  phrase  canonical  books  has  not  always 
been  used  in  the  same  sense  in  the  Christian 
church.  (1)  The  canonical  books  were  origin- 
ally those  which  Christians  commonly  used, 
according  to  the  appointment  of  the  church,  in 
their  public  assemblies  for  divine  worship  ;  so 
that,  under  this  name,  many  books  were  for- 
merly included  which  did  not  belong  to  the 
authorized  collection  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament scriptures,  while  many  books  whose 
divine  authority  was  undoubted  were  not  re- 
garded as  canonical — that  is,  were  not  read  in 
the  churches.  (2)  But  after  the  fourth  century 
the  phrase  libri  c.annnici  was  taken  in  a  more 
limited  sense,  and  became  synonymous  with  the 
term  ivoid^rjxoii  which  was  common  among  the 
ancient  Greek  fathers.  Libri  canonici,  in  this 
sense,  were  the  books  belonging  to  the  author- 
ized collection  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
scriptures,  and  containing,  as  such,  the  rules  of 
our  faith  and  practice.  In  this  sense  the  word 
canonical  was  formerly  used  by  Augustine,  and 
is  still  used  by  theological  writers  at  the  pre- 
sent day. 

In  contradistinction  to  the  canonical  are  the 
apocryphal  books.  And  the  latter  term,  as  well 
as  the  former,  has  been  used  in  a  wider  and  a 
more  limited  sense,  (a)  The  apocryphal  writ- 
ings were  originally  those  books  which  were 


not  publicly  used  in  the  Christian  assemblies, 
which  were  laid  aside,  or  shut  up,  the  public 
use  of  which  was  forbidden,  (^tjSxt'a  aTtoxpr^a, 
an-uj.)  A  book  therefore  of  the  Old  or  New 
Testament,  whose  divine  original  and  authority 
were  undoubted,  might  be  apocryphal  in  this 
sense.  But  (5)  after  the  fourth  century  the 
apocryphal  books  were  understood  to  be  those 
which  did  not  in  reality  belong  to  the  collection 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  scriptures,  al- 
though frequently  placed  in  it  by  the  uninformed, 
and  esteemed  by  them  of  equal  authority  with 
the  inspired  books.  This  is  the  sense  in  which 
the  word  apocryphal  is  now  used  by  theological 
writers. 

The  history  of  the  canon  of  the  Old-Testament 
scriptures  is  obscure,  from  the  deficiency  in  an- 
cient records.  Still  there  are  some  historical 
fragments  and  data  from  which  it  may  be  com- 
posed ;  though,  after  all,  it  must  remain  imper- 
fect. 

I.  The  Origin  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
before  the  Babylonian  Exile. 

Most  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
composed,  and  some  of  them  (a  considerable 
number  of  the  Psalms,  to  say  the  least)  collected 
and  arranged,  before  the  time  of  Ezra,  or  the 
Babylonian  exile.  The  books  of  Moses  had 
been  collected  and  arranged  in  the  order  in 
which  they  now  stand  before  the  ten  tribes  were 
carried  captive  by  the  Assyrians.  They  were 
therefore  adopted  by  the  Samaritans.  The  book 
of  the  law  was  kept  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  tem- 
ple, in  order  (1)  to  secure  it  more  effectually 
from  injury,  and  (2)  to  give  it  a  more  solemn 
sanction.  Vide  s.  3,  II.  2.  The  oracles,  sacred 
songs,  and  various  other  compositions  of  Isaiah, 
Hosea,  and  other  prophets  and  teachers  of  reli- 
gion, were  afterwards  preserved  in  the  same 
manner,  and  doubtless  with  the  same  intention. 
But  it  does  not  appear  that  before  the  exile  any 
complete  and  perfect  collections  were  made  of 
all  the  oracles  of  any  one  prophet,  or  of  all  the 
Psalms  or  Proverbs.  And  even  supposing  such 
collections  to  have  been  made,  they  did  not  agree 
throughout  with  the  collections  which  we  now 
possess,  which  were  made  and  introduced  soon 
after  the  exile.  The  original  collection  of  the 
Psalms,  for  example,  has  been  enriched  by  the 
addition  of  many,  which  were  not  composed  till 
after  the  captivity.  The  other  original  collec- 
tions have  been  altered  and  improved  in  a  simi- 
lar manner. 

Note. — It  is  usually  the  case,  that  as  soon  as 
a  nation  comes  to  the  possession  of  many  works 
which  have  different  degrees  of  merit,  or  which 
are  in  danger  of  being  corrupted  or  neglected,  or 
which  perhaps  have  already  experienced  this 
fate,  persons  appear  who  are  versed  in  literature, 
and  who  interest  themselves  in  these  works. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


51 


They  take  pains  to  preserve  their  text,  or  to  re- 
store it  when  it  has  become  corrupt;  they  shew 
the  distinction  between  genuine  and  spurious 
writings,  and  they  make  collections,  or  lists, 
comprising  only  those  which  are  genuine,  and 
among  these  only  the  more  eminent  and  distin- 
guished. Such  persons  appeared  anciently 
among  the  Israelites,  and  afterwards  among 
Christians.  And  such  among  the  Greeks  were 
the  grammarians  of  Alexandria,  under  the  Ptole- 
mies. They  distinguished  between  the  genuine 
and  spurious  works  of  Grecian  literature,  and 
composed  catalogues  (canones)  of  the  best 
among  the  former.  The  books  admitted  into 
their  canon  were  called  eyxpwofjievot,  (classici), 
and  the  books  excluded,  ixxpivopwoi.  The  ex- 
cluded writings  were  of  course  less  used,  arid 
have  since  mostly  perished.  Vide  Ruhnken, 
Historia  Oratorum  Groecorum  critica,  p.  xcvi. 
Quintillian,  (I.  0.)  I.  4,  s.  3,  and  Spalding,  ad 
h.  1.  Jhese  remarks  illustrate  the  origin  of  the 
collection  of  the  holy  scriptures. 

II.  The  Completion  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment after  the  Babylonian  Exile. 
It  is  a  current  tradition  among  the  Jews  that 
the  complete  collection  of  their  sacred  books  was 
made  by  Ezra.  Another  tradition,  however, 
ascribes  the  establishment  of  the  canon  to  Nehe- 
miah,  2  Mace.  ii.  13.  But  neither  of  these  tra- 
ditions is  supported  by  sure  historical  evidence. 
It  cannot  be  doubted,  however,  that  in  so  im- 
portant a  work  as  the  collection  and  arrange- 
ment of  their  sacred  books,  the  priests,  and 
lawyers,  and  all  the  leading  men  of  the  nation, 
must  have  been  unitedly  engaged,  as  the  gram- 
marians of  Alexandria  were,  in  determining  the 
Greek  classics.  And  it  is  very  probable  that 
both  of  the  distinguished  men  above  mentioned 
may  have  had  a  principal  share  in  this  under- 
taking. 

Our  collection  of  the  Old-Testament  scrip- 
tures appears  to  have  originated  somewhat  in 
the  following  manner : — When  the  Jews  return- 
ed from  captivity,  and  re-established  divine 
worship,  they  collected  the  sacred  books  which 
they  still  possessed,  and  commenced  with  them 
a  sacred  library,  as  they  had  done  before  with 
the  book  of  the  law.  To  this  collection  they 
afterwards  added  the  writings  of  Zachariah,  Ma- 
lachi,  and  other  distinguished  prophets  and 
•priests,  who  wrote  during  the  captivity,  or 
shortly  after ;  and  also  the  books  of  Kings, 
Chronicles,  and  other  historical  writings,  which 
had  been  compiled  from  the  ancient  records  of 
the  nation. 

The  collection  thus  made  was  ever  after  con- 
sidered complete;  and  the  books  composing  it 
were  called  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES,  THE  LAW 
AND  THE  PROPHETS,  &c.  It  was  now  circulated 
by  means  of  transcripts,  and  came  gradually  into 


common  use.  The  canon  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  closed  as  soon,  certainly,  as  the  reign  of  the 
Syrian  king,  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  proba- 
bly somewhat  before.  After  this  time  the  spirit 
of  prophecy  ceased,  and  no  new  writings  were 
added  to  the  approved  collection.  What  was 
done  by  the  Grecian  grammarians  under  Ptole- 
my, towards  securing  the  existence  and  literary 
authority  of  Grecian  works,  by  the  establish- 
ment of  the  canon  of  the  Greek  classics,  was 
done  by  the  Jews,  after  their  return  from  exile, 
towards  securing  the  existence  and  religious 
authority  of  Hebrew  books,  by  the  establish- 
ment of  the  canon  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures. 

The  books  belonging  to  this  collection  were 
the  only  ones  translated  as  sacred  national  books 
by  the  first  translators  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
authors  of  the  Septuagint.  But  to  some  manu- 
scripts of  this  version,  other  books,  apocryphal, 
as  they  are  called,  were  found  appended.  From 
this  circumstance  some  have  supposed  that  the 
Egyptian  Jews  had  a  different  canon  from  those 
of  Palestine,  and  included  in  it  the  apocryphal 
books,  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  rest.  This 
was  the  opinion  of  Semler;  but  it  cannot  be 
shewn  from  Josephus  or  Philo  that  the  Egyptian 
Jews,  though  they  held  the  apocryphal  books  in 
high  esteem,  both  before  and  after  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Christian  era,  ever  thought 
them  of  equal  authority  with  the  canonical 
books.  Philo,  in  the  first  century,  does  not 
once  mention  them,  although  Sirach  wrote  about 
237  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  They  can- 
not, therefore,  have  been  counted,  even  by  the 
Egyptian  Jews  of  the  first  century,  among  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Besides,  they 
were  never  cited  by  the  apostles,  who,  however, 
always  follow  the  Septuagint.  During  the  se- 
cond century,  Sirach  was  held  in  high  esteem 
among  the  fathers ;  and  gradually  he  and  the 
other  apocryphal  writers  obtained  great  autho- 
rity in  the  churches.  At  a  still  later  period  they 
were  admitted  into  the  canon  by  Christian 
writers,  who  mistook  their  high  reputation  for 
divine  authority.  Vide  No.  III.  Cf.  Eichhorn, 
Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.  Th.  I.,  and  also  in  die 
apokryphischen  Schriften  des  A.  T.  Leipzig 
1795;  Storr,  in  the  work  above  mentioned,  p 
71,  ff. ;  especially  Jahn,  Einleitung  in  die 
gottlichen  Schriften  des  alien  Bundes,  W7ien, 
1802.  The  latter  work  contains  a  full  examina- 
tion of  the  latest  objections. 

Can  it  be  shewn  by  historical  evidence  that 
all  the  books  which  now  stand  in  this  collection 
belonged  to  it  originally]  Of  most  of  these 
books  this  can  be  satisfactorily  shewn;  but  re- 
specting some  particular  books  it  cannot  be 
ascertained  from  historical  records,  either  that 
they  belonged  to  the  collection  originally,  or  at 
what  time  they  were  received  as  canonical ;  for 
ji"  .fcjupU te  lisjt  ff  ;ilj  cjjr  rrtn'Mtirvil  books  can 


52 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


be  gathered  from  the  works  of  the  oldest  Jewish 
writers. 

The  following  observations,  however,  may 
enable  us  to  come  to  some  conclusion: — (I) 
We  see  from  Sirach,  xlv.— xlix.,  that  most  of 
these  books  belonged  to  his  canon.  (2)  The 
citations  which  Philo,  in  the  first  century,  makes 
from  the  Old  Testament,  shew  that  most  of  these 
books  belonged  also  to  his  collection.  (3)  But 
Josephus  has  left  a  list  of  the  books,  of  which, 
at  his  time,  the  collection  was  composed ;  but 
there  is  some  obscurity  attending  the  passage, 
Contra  Apionem,  I.  8,  in  which  this  catalogue 
is  contained.  We  cannot  be  certain  from  this 
passage  that  Josephus  intended  to  include  the 
books  of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Esther,  and  Nehe- 
miah,  in  his  catalogue;  though  the  probability 
is  that  he  did.  Vide  Eichhorn,  Einleitung,  Th. 
I.  s.  113.  (4)  The  frequent  citations  which 
the  evangelists  and  prophets  made  from  these 
books  render  it  certain  that  most  of  them  be- 
.  longed  to  the  canon  at  the  time  of  Christ.  The 
passage,  Matt,  xxiii.  35,  coll.  Luke,  xi.  51,  de- 
serves to  be  specially  noticed.  Christ  here  de- 
clares that  the  Jews  should  be  punished  for  the 
murder  of  all  the  just  men  who  had  been  slain 
from  Abel  (Gen.  iv.  8)  to  Zachariah,  2  Chron. 
xxiv.  21,  22.  From  this  passage  we  are  led  to 
conclude  that  the  disputed  book  of  Chronicles 
not  only  belonged  to  the  canon  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament at  the  time  of  Christ,  but  that  it  was 
then,  as  it  is  now,  placed  last  in  the  collection. 
(5)  Add  to  this,  that  these  disputed  books  are 
contained,  as  belonging  to  the  canon,  in  the 
Alexandrine  version. 

Note. — Since  the  free  inquiry  respecting  some 
of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  Oeder 
published  at  Halle,  1771,  many  protestant  theo- 
logians have  employed  themselves  in  suggest- 
ing doubts  respecting  the  genuineness  of  some 
of  the  canonical  Hebrew  scriptures,  and  in  at- 
tempting to  prove  them  to  be  either  spurious, 
uncertain,  or  adulterated.  Among  these  theolo- 
gians, De  Wette  is  the  latest.  They  commenced 
the  attack  upon  the  books  of  Esther,  Chroni- 
cles, Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  ;  proceeded  to  Isaiah 
(xl. — Ix.)  and  other  prophets,  and  then  to  the 
books  of  Moses;  against  the  genuineness  of  all 
of  which  they  arrayed  specious  objections,  and 
finally  endeavoured  to  subvert  the  foundation  of 
the  whole  canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
student  can  become  acquainted  with  the  princi- 
pal modern  writers  who  have  either  assailed  or 
advocated  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
with  the  principal  arguments  used  on  both  sides, 
from  Jahn's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  theological  work  of  Storr  and  Flatt, 
which  notice  all,  except  perhaps  a  few  of  the 
very  latest  objections. 

To  all  these  objections  but  few  Christians  are 
able  to  give  a  satisfactory  answer.  But  if  they 


allow  to  Christ  the  authority  which  he  claimed 
for  himself,  and  which  the  apostles  ascribed  to 
him,  they  can  relieve  their  minds  from  doubts 
by  the  considerations  already  suggested  in  s.  3, 
II.  5,  and  by  those  which  here  follow. 

III.  The  Reception  of  this  Canon  by  Christians. 

Since  the  primitive  Christians  received  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  Israelites, 
they  may  naturally  be  supposed  to  have  admit- 
ted into  their  collection  all  the  books  which  be- 
longed to  the  canon  of  the  contemporary  Jews. 
It  has  been  always  said,  from  the  earliest  times 
of  the  church,  that  Christians  received  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  on  the  simple  testimony 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles  ;  and  whatever  some 
Christians  may  think  of  the  authority  of  this 
testimony,  they  must  allow  that  it  is  at  least 
important  in  ascertaining  the  canon  of  the  He- 
brew scriptures.  But  to  this  testimony  it  has 
been  objected,  especially  in  modern  times,  (a) 
that  it  did  not  extend  to  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament;  for  example,  to  the  books  of  Esther, 
Nehemiah,  &c. ;  and  (6)  that  it  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  decisive,  because  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles made  it  no  part  of  their  object  to  examine 
critically  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures; 
and  made  the  Old  Testament  the  basis  of  their 
own  instructions  only  because  it  was  regarded 
as  the  source  of  religious  knowledge  by  the 
Jews  among  whom  they  taught. 

But  it  appears  from  No.  II.  that  the  whole 
collection  existed  at  the  time  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  and  indeed  for  some  time  previous, 
and  that  it  was  approved  by  them.  Whoever, 
therefore,  acknowledges  them  to  be  divine  teach- 
ers, must  receive  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment on  their  authority.  If  he  refuses  to  do 
this,  he  is  either  inconsistent  in  rejecting  the 
authority  of  those  whom  he  acknowledges  to  be 
divine  teachers,  or  dishonest  in  acknowledging 
Christ  and  his  apostles  to  be  divine  teachers, 
while  he  really  does  not  believe  them  to  be 
such. 

After  the  times  of  the  apostles,  the  fathers  of 
the  church  disagreed  with  respect  to  the  books 
belonging  to  the  canon  of  the  Old-Testament 
scriptures.  (1)  The  fathers  of  Palestine,  their 
disciples,  and  others  who  were  acquainted  with 
the  original  Hebrew,  or  the  tradition  of  the  Jews, 
composed  catalogues  containing  all  the  books 
which  belong  to  our  Bible.  This  was  done  in 
the  second  century,  by  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis, 
cited  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  IV.  26;  by 
Origen,  cited  VI.  25  of  the  same  history;  by 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Catech.  IV. ;  by  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Athanasius,  and  Epiphanius.  (2) 
But  some  of  the  fathers  included  the  apocryphal 
writings,  which  are  usually  appended  to  the 
Alexand  rine  version,  among  the  canonical  books. 
They,  at  least,  ascribed  to  these  writings  a  great 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


53 


authority,  and  called  them  ^ttof  although  they 
were  never  considered  as  divine  by  the  Jews, 
who  lived  either  before  or  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  were  never  quoted  by  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  or  by  Philo.  Vide  No.  II. 
These  fathers  believed  the  fable  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Septuagint;  and  finding  the  apocry- 
phal books  appended  to  this  version,  and  in 
high  repute  among  the  Egyptian  Jews  of  the 
second  century,  they  considered  them,  at  length, 
as  divine^  and  placed  them  on  a  level  with  the 
canonical  books.  The  Egyptian  fathers,  Cle- 
mens of  Alexandria  and  Irenaeus,  first  adopted 
this  opinion,  in  which,  as  in  many  other  things, 
they  were  followed  by  the  Latin  fathers.  At 
the  council  at  Hippo,  in  the  year  393,  in  can. 
36,  and  at  the  third  council  at  Carthage,  in  the 
year  397,  can.  47,  the  apocryphal  books  were, 
for  the  first  time,  expressly  included  inter  scrip- 
turas  canonicus.  This  decision  was  then  re- 
ceived by  the  African  fathers,  and  generally  in 
the  western  church. 

But  there  were  some  of  the  fathers  of  the 
Latin  church  who  carefully  distinguished  the 
apocryphal  from  the  canonical  books.  Hiero- 
nymus,  in  his  Prologus  Galeatus,  says  respect- 
ing the  Book  of  Wisdom,  &c.,  non  sunt  in  ca- 
none.  In  his  Praef.  in  libros  Salomonis,  he  says, 
"  Haec  duo  volumina  (ecclesiasticum  et  sapien- 
tiam)  legat  ecclesia  ad  aedificationem  plebis, 
non  ad  auctoritatem  ecclesiasticorum  dogmatum 
confirrnandam."  Hence  the  books  properly 
belonging  to  the  Old  Testament  were  called 
libri  canonici,  and  the  apocryphal  books,  libri 
ecclesiastici.  Rufinus,  ExpositioSymboli  Apost., 
after  enumerating  the  canonical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  says,  »  Hajc  sunt  quae  patres 
intra  canonem  concluserunt,  et  ex  quibus  fidei 
nostrae  assertiones  constare  voluerunt :  sciendum 
tarnen  est,  quod  et  alii  libri  sunt,  qui  non  sunt 
canonic/,  sed  ecclesiastici  a  majorihus  appellati." 
He  then  enumerates  them,  and  adds,  "  Qua? 
omnia  legi  quidem  in  ecclesia  voluerunt,  non 
tamen  proferri  ad  auctoritattm  ex  his  fidei  con- 
firmandam" 

But  after  all,  the  Romish  church,  through  ig- 
norance of  the  subject,  placed  the  apocryphal 
books  on  a  level  with  the  canonical,  and  even 
appealed  to  them  as  authority  on  the  doctrines 
the  Bible.  They  were  induced  to  do  this 
the  more,  from  the  consideration  that  some  of 
the  peculiar  doctrines  of  their  church  were  fa- 
voured by  some  passages  in  these  books;  inter- 
cession for  the  dead,  for  example,  by  the  passage 
2  Mace.  xii.  43 — 45.  Accordingly  the  council 
at  Trent,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  set  aside  the 
distinction  between  the  canonical  and  apocry- 
phal books,  and  closed  its  decretal  by  saying, 
"Si  quis  autem  libros  ipsos  integros,  cum  omni- 
bus suis  partibus,  prout  in  ecclesia  cat.holica  legi 
consueverunt,  et  in  veteri  vulgata  Latino,  editione 


habentur,  pro  sacris  et  canonicis  non  snsciperit, 
et  traditiones  prajdictas,  sciens  et  prudens  con- 
temserit,  anathema  sit."  Sess.  IV.  Deer.  I. 
The  more  candid  and  enlightened  theologians 
of  the  Romish  church  have,  however,  never  al- 
lowed quite  the  same  authority  to  the  apocryphal 
as  to  the  canonical  scriptures;  and  have  adopt- 
ed the  convenient  division  of  the  books  into  pro- 
tocanonici  and  deuterocanonici,  in  the  latter  of 
which  they  place  the  apocryphal  writings. 
Cf.  Morus,  p.  38. 

SECTION  V. 

OF  THE  CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  OR  THE 
COLLECTION  OF  THE  BOOKS  OF  THE  NEW  TES- 
TAMENT INTO  A  WHOLE. 

I.   Origin  of  this  Collection. 

IT  was  natural  that  the  first  Christians,  who 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  using  a  collection  of 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews,  should  feel  in- 
duced to  institute  a  similar  collection  of  their 
own  sacred  books.  This  was  the  more  neces- 
sary, as  many  spurious  writings,  which  were 
ascribed  to  the  apostles,  were  in  circulation, 
and  even  publicly  read  and  used  in  the  churches. 
Even  during  the  life  of  the  apostles,  such  spu- 
rious writings  were  palmed  upon  them  by  impos- 
tors, 2  Thess.  ii.  2 ;  Col.  iii.  17.  In  consequence 
of  these  circumstances,  Christians  were  induced 
very  early  to  commence  the  collection  of  their 
sacred  books  into  a  complete  whole,  with  par- 
ticular reference  to  Christian  posterity,  which 
otherwise  would  have  had  a  very  groundless 
and  disfigured  Christianity.  Vide  Introduction, 
s.  7,  ad  finem.  Into  this  collection  only  such 
writings  were  admitted  as  were  considered  to  be 
the  genuine  productions  of  the  apostles  and  first 
disciples  of  Christ;  although  many  other  books 
were  still  regarded  as  canonical,  in  the  old  ec- 
clesiastical sense  of  the  word,  and  were  still 
publicly  read  in  Christian  assemblies.  Euse- 
bius,  Hist.  Eccles.  III.  3,  and  others  of  the  an- 
cient fathers,  said  expressly  that  many  books 
,  which  were  not  Ir&a^xot 
Thus  the  epistle  of  Barnabas, 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  and  the  sermon  of  Peter, 
were  used  in  Egypt;  and  even  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, the  revelation  of  Peter,  in  Palestine. 

But  with  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  this 
collection  originated,  and  with  respect  to  those 
who  were  chiefly  instrumental  in  forming  it,  we 
can  obtain  only  very  disconnected  and  imperfect 
information  from  the  history  of  the  church  dur- 
ing the  first  centuries.  The  information  which 
we  possess  on  these  points  is,  however,  more 
complete  than  that  which  relates  to  the  canon  of 
the  Old  Testament;  and  indeed  amounts  to  a 
satisfactory  degree  of  evidence. 

In  order  to  confirm  the  credibility  and  genu- 
ineness of  the  collection,  it  was  formerly  sup- 

E2 


54 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


posed  that  some  inspired  man  must  have  either 
made  or  approved  it ;  and  because  John  outlived 
the  other  apostles,  he  was  fixed  upon  as  the  in- 
dividual ;  just  as  Ezra  was,  by  the  Jews,  for  the 
compilation  of  the  Old-Testament  scriptures. 
In  this  supposition  there  is  a  mixture  of  truth 
and  error.  We  have  no  historical  evidence  for 
believing  that  John  either  made  or  approved  the 
whole  collection.  In  order  to  arrive  at  the  truth 
on  this  subject,  we  must  consider  the  collection 
divided  into  its  two  principal  parts,  tvayytfaov 
and  artoatohos. 

1.  It  was  commonly  reported  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  church,  that  John  was  acquainted 
with  the  first  three  gospels,  that  he  sanctioned 
them  by  his  authority,  and  completed  the  his- 
tory of  Jesus  which  they  contain,  by  his  own 
gospel.  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  III.  24.  And 
this  report  appears  to  be  true,  on  a  moment's 
reflection.  Vide  Michaelis,  Herder,  and  Storr. 
John  either  wholly  omits  to  mention,  or  at  most 
only  briefly  notices,  for  the  sake  of  connexion, 
even  such  important  events  as  the  baptism  and 
the  ascension  of  Christ,  and  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  if  they  have  been  fully  de- 
scribed by  the  other  evangelists.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  relates  many  things  which  the  others 
omit.  He  enlarges,  for  example,  on  the  inci- 
dents and  discourses  which  preceded  and  folio  wed 
the  supper,  the  passion,  the  resurrection,  and 
other  events,  the  histories  of  which  are  given 
by  the  other  evangelists.  He  may  therefore  be 
supposed  to  have  known  and  sanctioned  the  first 
three  gospels,  which,  in  connexion  with  his  own, 
were  of  course  received  by  the  Christian  church. 

-2.  But  it  cannot  be  shewn  from  historical  tes- 
timony, or  any  other  evidence,  that  John  either 
made  the  collection  of  the  other  books  (drtoa- 
tfo^oj)  now  belonging  to  the  New  Testament,  or 
sanctioned  it  by  his  authority,  when  made.  This 
supposition  is,  on  the  contrary,  extremely  im- 
probable. If  John  had  sanctioned  the  entire  col- 
lection of  our  New  Testament  scriptures,  how 
could  doubts  have  arisen  respecting  his  second 
and  third  epistles,  the  Apocalypse,  and  some 
other  writings,  even  in  the  midst  of  the  Asiatic 
church,  where  he  himself  lived  ?  His  decision 
would  have  for  ever  settled  the  question  as  to 
the  sacred  canon. 

It  is  evident  from  the  historical  information 
which  we  possess,  that  this  collection  was  not 
finished  at  once,  but  was  commenced  a  consi- 
derable time  before  it  was  made  complete.  It 
was  divided  into  two  parts,  TO  wayy&iov,  and 

O  drtOffT'OXOJ  Or    tO  OTtOUT 'OhlXOV '. 

(1)  As  to  the  gospels,  the  genuine  and  the 
spurious  were  early  distinguished  from  each 
other.  Justin  the  Martyr  distinctly  speaks  of 
the  gospels  as  productions  of  the  apostles.  Ire- 
naeus,  Contra  Haeres,  III.  11,  cites  the  gospels 
of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  as  those 


which  he  knew  to  be  genuine.  The  same  was 
done  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  and  Tertullian. 
Vide  Storr,  s.  12.  Tatian,  at  the  end  of  the  se- 
cond century,  and  Ammonius,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  third,  composed  harmonies  of  the  foui 
gospels,  and  Origen  wrote  a  copious  commen- 
tary on  Matthew  and  John.  The  gospels  were, 
therefore,  collected  as  early  as  the  second  cen- 
tury ;  and  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  were 
regarded  as  of  undoubted  authority  throughout 
the  Christian  church.  They  were  prefixed  to 
the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament ;  because 
the  history  of  Jesus  was  considered,  at  that  early 
period,  as  the  basis  of  Christian  truth,  and  was 
taught  wherever  the  gospel  was  preached,  (John, 
xx.  31  ;)  just  as  the  historical  books,  especially 
the  writings  of  Moses,  were  prefixed  to  the 
Old  Testament,  as  the  basis  of  the  Mosaic 
economy. 

(2)  As  to  the  epistles,  a  collection  of  them 
was  commenced  at  a  very  early  period,  and  was 
gradually  enlarged  and  completed.  It  appears, 
indeed,  to  be  of  somewhat  later  origin  than  the 
collection  of  the  gospels;  but  both  of  them  must 
have  existed  soon  after  the  commencement  of 
the  second  century;  for  Ignatius,  Ep.  ad.  Phi- 
ladelph.  cap.  5,  speaks  of  the  gospels,  and  of  the 
apostolical  writings.  The  apostolical  epistles 
were  first  sent  to  the  churches,  for  which  they 
were  principally  written.  They  were  then 
communicated  by  these  churches,  either  in  the 
original  or  in  transcript,  to  other  connected 
churches,  (Col.  iv.  1G;)  and  each  church  col- 
lected as  many  as  it  could  obtain.  From  such 
small,  imperfect  beginnings,  our  present  collec- 
tion was  formed.  It  is  probable  that  some  cele- 
brated teacher,  who  possessed  more  epistles  than 
any  other  man,  or  perhaps  some  distinguished 
church,  first  instituted  this  collection  in  the  se- 
cond century ;  and  that  it  was  afterwards  adopted 
by  others,  in  deference  to  this  authority.  The 
place  where  this  collection  was  first  made,  is 
unknown.  Mill  supposes  it  was  Rome;  but 
without  sufficient  reason. 

This  collecton  of  the  epistles  was  designed  to 
include  only  those  which  were  most  distin- 
guished, and  whose  authenticity  was  univer- 
sally allowed.  The  drtotftoMxov,  therefore,  ori- 
ginally contained  only  the  thirteen  epistles  of 
Paul,  and  the  first  epistles  of  Peter  and  John; 
since  these  only  were  considered  by  the  oldest 
fathers  as  belonging  to  the  iv8td^xot.  But 
afterwards  the  avtiteyopfva  were  gradually  ad- 
mitted into  the  canon.  And  as  early  as  the  third 
century,  most  of  the  copies  of  the  collection  con- 
tained all  the  books  which  now  belong  to  it,  the 
avfttey  opera  not  excepted  ;  as  appears  from  the 
catalogue  of  Origen  cited  by  Eusebius,  Hist. 
Eccles.  VI.  25  ;  and  from  that  of  Eusebius  him- 
self, Hist.  Eccles.  111.25,  where  he  appeals  to ex- 
t  rfapdSostj,  and  excludes  the  Apocry- 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


55 


pha  from  the  evfita^xou  Vide  Griesbach,  Hist. 
epp.  Paull.  Jenae,  1777,  4to.  The  catalogues 
of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Gregory  Nazi.m- 
zen  agree  with  these,  except  that  the  Apoca- 
lypse is  wholly  omitted  by  the  former,  and  is 
mentioned  by  the  latter  as  doubtful. 

p 

II.  The  Principles  on  which   this  Collection  was 
made,  and  the  Authority  which  it  possesses. 

We  discover  these  principles  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  fathers  of  the  early  ages  of  the  church. 

1.  It  was  a  rule  to  admit  only  such  books 
into  the  canon  as  could  be  proved  to  be  the  pro- 
ductions of  the  apostles  themselves,  or  of  their 
first  assistants  in  office.    Those  only,  therefore, 
were  allowed  to  be  tvSM^yxot,  which  had  credible 
testimony  in  their  favour  from  the  earliest  times. 
The  gospels  of  Peter,  Thomas,  and  others,  were 
on  this  principle  rejected  by  Origen  and  Euse- 
bius. 

2.  The  doctrines  taught  in  a  book  were  also 
examined  before  it  was  admitted  into  the  canon. 
If  any  book  disagreed  with  the  doctrines  which 
the   apostles  taught,    or  with  the  regulations 
which  the  apostles  established,  it  was  excluded 
from  the  canon  as  clearly  spurious.     This  rule 
was  needed  even  at  that  early  period ;  for  many 
books  written  in  support  of  error  had  from  the 
first  been  ascribed  to  the  apostles,  in  order  to 
procure  more  influence  and  currency. 

3.  The  custom  and  example  of  other  churches, 
which  might  reasonably  be  supposed  to  have 
judged  on  good  and  solid  grounds,  and  which 
were  free  from  the  suspicion  of  credulity  or  care- 
lessness, were  in  some  cases  referred  to  in  de- 
termining whether  a  book  should  be  admitted 
into  the  canon.     So  Hieronymus  (Catal.  Script. 
Eccles.),  when  speaking  of  the  book  of  Jude, 
says  that  it  had  indeed  been  doubted  and  reject- 
ed by  some,  but  auctoritatem  jam  vetustate  et  usu 
mcruit. 

The  question  upon  what  the  canonical  autho- 
rity of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  depends 
may  now  be  easily  answered.  It  depends  prin- 
cipally upon  the  decision  of  the  first  Christian 
teachers  and  churches;  as  the  authority  of  the 
Greek  classics  depends  upon  the  decision  of  the 
grammarians  of  Alexandria.  Their  decision, 
however,  was  not  arbitrary,  but  founded  on  sober 
examination  of  the  authenticity  of  these  books. 
No  public  and  universal  law  was  ever  passed 
in  the  ancient  church,  determining  that  all  and 
each  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  should 
be  adopted  without  further  examination  and  in- 
quiry. The  learned  always  were,  and  always 
must  be,  free  to  inquire  on  this  subject.  If  we 
are  convinced  at  all,  it  must  be  by  reason  and 
not  by  authority.  We  should  not,  therefore, 
blindly  credit  the  testimony  of  the  ancients,  whe- 
ther given  by  particular  churches  or  by  distin- 
guished individuals ;  nor,  on  the  contrary,  should 


we  blindly  reject  their  testimony.  WTe  ought 
rather  to  examine  the  evidence  upon  which  they 
decided,  and  then  believe  according  to  our  own 
sincere  conviction.  The  authenticity  of  some  of 
the  books  (the  avtiteyo/Asva)  which  stand  in  our 
present  collection  was  disputed  even  in  ancient 
times ;  and  the  decision  respecting  them  was 
very  different,  even  in  the  ancient  orthodox 
church. 

The  canonical  books  were  indeed,  as  we  find, 
in  some  cases  determined  by  formal  decrees, 
which  seem  to  cut  off  and  discountenance  all 
further  inquiry,  as  in  the  Canones  jSpfatoliei, 
which,  however,  are  spurious  ;  also  in  can.  60 
of  the  council  at  Laodicea,  about  the  year  360, 
in  which  only  the  Apocalypse  is  omitted.  But 
this  council  was  composed  of  only  a  few  bi- 
shops, and  its  determinations  were  not  adopted 
by  the  other  churches ;  besides,  the  sixtieth  canon 
is  probably  spurious.  Vide  Spittler,  Kritische 
Untersuchung  des  sechzigsten  Laodic.  Ca- 
nons, Bremen,  1777, 8vo.  The  council  at  Hippo, 
in  the  year  393,  and  at  Carthage,  in  the  year 
397,  also  established  similar  catalogues.  But 
neither  of  these  councils  was  general.  Many 
other  enactments  were  made  on  the  subject  of 
the  canon  in  the  Romish  church  at  a  later  pe- 
riod ;  but  the  council  of  Trent,  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  for  the  first  time  established  the  canon 
for  the  Romish  church  by  a  general  and  formal 
decree. 

But  the  protestant  church  has  never  acqui- 
esced in  those  decrees  which  preclude  or  pro- 
hibit further  investigation.  Luther  considered 
it  allowable  to  call  in  question  the  authenticity 
of  the  Apocalypse  and  the  epistles  of  James;  and 
he  was  followed  in  this  opinion  by  many  theo- 
logians of  the  sixteenth  century.  And  other 
protestant  theologians  have  doubted  respecting 
other  books  of  the  avtiteyopfva. 

Note  1. — Even  if  we  should  allow  that  the 
avt&eyofjisvn  are  spurious,  and  cannot  be  relied 
upon  in  proof  of  the  Christian  system,  we  should 
not  be  compelled  either  to  relinquish  or  to  alter 
a  single  doctrine.  For  the  books  whose  genu- 
ineness is  undisputed  contain  all  that  is  neces- 
sary for  a  complete  knowledge  of  Christian  faith 
and  duty. 

Note  2. — If  we  examine  the  reasons  which  led 
some  of  the  ancients  to  doubt  the  authenticity 
of  the  &rttteyvfi&va,  we  shall  find  that  they  were 
derived  rather  from  the  doctrines  taught  in  these 
books  than  from  any  historical  evidence  against 
them.  Such  were  Luther's  objections.  But 
none  of  the  objections  of  this  nature  which  are 
alleged  are,  in  my  view,  sufficiently  weighty  to 
justify  us  in  considering  any  one  of  these  books 
as  doubtful,  not  even  the  Apocalypse,  as  most 
at  present  acknowledge.  In  the  following  work, 
therefore,  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion 
will  be  supported  by  texts  taken  from  the  differ- 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


ent  books  of  the  New  Testament,  without  any 
reference  to  this  distinction. 

Works  to  be  consulted : — Gerh.  de  Mastricht, 
Canon  SS.  secundum  seriem  seculor.  N.  T. 
collectus  et  notis  illustratus,  Jenae,  1725.  This 
work  contains  the  opinions  of  the  fathers,  cata- 
logues of  the  canon  extracted  from  their  writ- 
ings, and  the  decrees  of  the  councils.  Stosch, 
De  librorum  V.  T.  canone,  Frankfort  an  dem 
Oder,  1755,  8vo.  Semler,  Abhandlungen  von 
freyer  Untersuchung  des  Canons,  4  Theile, 
Halle,  1771 — 75,  8vo.  Weber,  Beytrage  zur 
Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen  Canons, 
Tubingen,  1791.  Corrodi,  Versuch  einer  Be- 
leuchtung  der  Geschichte  des  jii<lishen  und 
christlichen  Bibelcanons,  2  Biinde,  Halle,  1792. 
Other  works  are  referred  to  in  Jahn,  and  in  the 
Elements  of  Storr  and  Flatt. 

SECTION  VI. 

ON  THE'  UNADULTERATED  CORRECTNESS  AND  IN- 
TEGRITY OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT 
SCRIPTURES. 

THE  integrity  of  the  holy  scriptures  implies 
(1)  that  none  of  the  books  which  formerly  be- 
longed to  the  canon  are  now  wanting  (integritas 
totalis;)  (2)  that  these  scriptures  are  transmitted 
to  us  in  such  a  state  as  still  to  promote  the  ob- 
ject for  which  they  were  originally  written,  (in- 
tegritas partium,  or  partialis.) 

I.  Tntegritas  Totalis. 

If  some  of  the  scriptures  which  formerly  be- 
longed to  the  canon  had  perished,  the  loss  would 
not  be  very  essential.  If  those  that  are  left  give 
us  all  the  information  which  we  need  respecting 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  economy,  no  other 
books  are  necessary.  That  any  books,  how- 
ever, have  ever  belonged  to  the  canon  of  the 
Jewish  or  Christian  scriptures,  which  do  not 
now  belong  to  it,  cannot  be  proved.  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  the  apostles  and  prophets  wrote 
many  books  which  have  not  come  down  to  us — 
books,  too,  which  were  inspired.  For  if  inspi- 
ration is  conceded  to  those  books  of  theirs  which 
were  admitted  into  the  canon  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  and  which  are  therefore  pre- 
served, it  must  also  be  conceded  to  those  which 
were  not  admitted  into  the  canon,  and  have 
therefore  perished.  The  oral  discourses  of  Jesus 
and  the  apostles  were  doubtless  inspired,  and  yet 
many  of  these  discourses  are  lost;  and  even  of 
those  which  were  committed  to  writing,  only 
extracts  of  the  more  important  parts  were  in 
many  cases  preserved.  There  is  nothing  incon- 
sistent, therefore,  in  the  supposition  that  God 
should  suffer  even  an  inspired  book  to  be  left 
out  of  this  collection,  and  consequently  to  be 
lost  to  posterity.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that 
any  of  the  books  which  are  lost  ever  belong- 


ed to  the  canon.  Paul  wrote,  as  we  see  from 
his  epistles,  at  least  one  letter  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans more  than  we  have  at  present.  Many  me- 
moirs of  Jesus,  as  we  find  from  Luke,  i.  1,  were 
written  at  a  very  early  period.  The  historical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  extracted  from 
larger  historical  works,  which  are  often  cited 
in  the  books  compiled  from  them,  but  which 
are  now  lost.  Other  collections  of  songs  are 
mentioned  ;  as,  nchn  ICD,  Joshua,  x.  13.  Writ- 
ings of  the  prophets  Gad,  Nathan,  Semaja,  and 
Jehu,  are  mentioned  in  Chronicles;  but  none  of 
these  ever  belonged  to  the  collection  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  scriptures.  Cf.  Jahn, 
Einleitung. 

II.   Integritas  Partialis. 

The  integrity  of  a  book  is  not  affected  by 
variations  of  the  text,  and  by  false  readings. 
These  could  not  have  been  avoided,  except  by 
miracle,  in  the  numerous  transcripts  which  have 
been  made  of  these  ancient  scriptures.  The  in- 
tegrity of  a  book  requires  only  that  its  text  be 
in  such  a  state  that  the  object  for  which  the 
book  was  written  is  fully  answered.  When  we 
assert  the  integrity  of  the  Bible,  therefore,  we 
do  not  pretend  that  every  letter,  word,  and  ex- 
pression in  our  present  copies  exactly  answers 
to  the  original  text,  but  that  the  general  contents, 
the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  are  taught  in  it  with 
uncorrupted  correctness  and  certainty. 

The  variations  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment amounted,  according  to  the  estimate  of 
Wetstein,  to  sixty  thousand;  and  of  the  text  of 
the  Old  Testament  to  a  still  greater  number. 
But  by  all  these  variations  no  doctrine  of  any 
importance  is  undermined  or  altered,  and  no 
history  of  any  interest  is  disfigured  or  changed. 
A  few  of  the  texts  by  which  some  doctrines 
were  supported  have,  indeed,  been  discarded — 
e.  g.,  1  John,  v.  7 ;  but  there  are  other  texts  which 
afford  to  each  of  these  doctrines  an  ample  proof; 
so  that  the  doctrines  themselves  remain  unal- 
tered. Besides,  the  most  important  variations, 
those  which  affect  the  sense  most  materially,  do 
not  concern  the  doctrines  of  religion  or  the  ob- 
jects of  faith,  but  some  indifferent  circumstances, 
trifling  historical  minutiae,  &c.  Without  giving 
up  the  integrity  of  the  Bible,  then,  we  may  freely 
concede  that  in  some  few  places  the  true  reading 
is  lost  beyond  recovery. 

The  Text  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  not  so  corrupt 
as  to  prevent  the  attainment  of  the  object  for 
which  they  were  written. 
1.  Of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament.    The 
supposition  that  the  text  in  all  the  manuscripts^ 
of  the  New  Testament  has  been  intentionally 
and  generally  falsified  cannot  possibly  be  made. 
Any  falsifications  must  have  been  made  either 
by  the  reigning  ecclesiastical  body  (catholici) 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


57 


or  by  some  of  the  sects  (haeretici)  during  the 
first  three  centuries.  But  among  the  former, 
there  was  no  man  during  this  period  of  sufficient 
authority  to  cause  the  alterations  which  he 
might  have  made  to  be  generally  adopted.  The 
jealousy  existing  among  individual  churches 
and  teachers  was  far  too  great,  and  the  use  of 
the  Christian  scriptures  far  too  general,  to  allow 
an  intentional  falsification  to  be  made.  These 
scriptures  were  publicly  read,  and  were  there- 
fore familiar  to  every  Christian.  This  was  the 
case  certainly  with  those  more  important  parts, 
which,  if  any,  would  have  been  falsified.  There 
were  also  many  translations  made  from  the  va- 
rious manuscripts  of  the  original  Greek,  the 
text  of  which  still  agrees  in  every  important 
particular  with  our  own. 

The  text  of  the  New  Testament  was,  indeed, 
intentionally  altered  and  corrupted  by  some  of 
the  heretics — e.  g.  Marcion ;  but  those  altera- 
tions were  immediately  discovered  and  con- 
demned by  the  orthodox  churches.  In  fact, 
these  heretics  freely  acknowledged  that  they 
themselves  had  fabricated  them,  and  did  not 
pretend  to  follow  the  original  text. 

2.  Of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
opinions  which  formerly  prevailed  respecting 
the  integrity  of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament 
were  much  more  extravagant  than  respecting 
that  of  the  New.  These  opinions  were  founded 
on  the  exaggerated  accounts  which  were  given 
by  the  later  Jews  respecting  the  pains  which 
their  ancestors,  especially  the  Masorites,  had 
taken  to  preserve  the  sacred  text  unaltered. 
They  went  so  far  as  to  say,  that  in  consequence 
of  this  caution,  not  a  single  mistake  or  false 
reading  had  been  able  to  creep  into  the  original 
Hebrew  text.  AncL  they  extended  the  same  re- 
mark even  to  the  accents  and  vowel  points. 
John  Buxtorf,  father  and  son,  professors  of  the 
Hebrew  language  at  Basel,  during  the  last  part 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  adopted  these  fabu- 
lous Jewish  opinions  and  stories,  and  advocated 
them  with  great  zeal.  Through  their  influence 
and  that  of  their  disciples,  as  the  principal 
cause,  these  opinions  became  very  prevalent 
among  the  Swiss,  and  even  Lutheran,  theolo- 
gians at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  and  the  be- 
ginning of  the  eighteenth  century.  In  Switzer- 
land they  were  regarded  as  essential  points  of 
orthodoxy,  and  placed  as  such  in  the  Formula 
consensus  Helvitici.  But, 

(1 )  The  exactest  agreement  of  all  our  present 
manuscripts  would  not  prove  the  present  text  to 
be  throughout  true,  for  all  our  present  Hebrew 
manuscripts  follow  the  same  Masoretic  recen- 
sion;   and  their  agreement  would  only  prove 
that  this  recension  had  suffered  no  corruption. 

(2)  This  supposed  agreement  has,  however, 
been  disproved  since  our  manuscripts  have  been 
compared.   They  diffW  widely  from  one  another, 

8 


as  appears  from  the  vast  number  of  various  read- 
ings collected  by  Kenriicott  and  De  Rossi. 

(3)  The  Hebrew  manuscripts  from  which 
the  ancient  versions — for  example,  the  Septua- 
gint — were  made  differed  still  more  widely  ;  and 
in  some  instances  quite  another  recension  of  the 
Hebrew  text  was  at  the  foundation  of  these  ver- 
sions. 

But  however  great  may  be  the  corruptions 
which  are  found  in  particular  books  or  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament,  they  do  not  materially 
affect  the  Christian  religion,  which  does  not 
stand  in  such  an  intimate  connexion  with  any 
parts  of  the  Jewish  scriptures  that  it  must  stand 
or  fall  with  them.  But  the  same  is  true  on  this 
subject  with  respect  to  the  Old  Testament  as 
was  remarked  above  with  respect  to  the  New. 
Not  a  single  doctrine  is  undermined  or  weak- 
ened by  all  these  various  readings.  Nor  can  it 
be  proved  that  the  text  has  in  a  single  instance 
been  intentionally  corrupted  in  favour  of  parti- 
cular doctrinal  prejudices.  Even  the  Samaritan 
text  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  the  most  im- 
portant of  the  Hebrew  scriptures,  exhibits  their 
contents  with  entire  fidelity,  and  in  entire  ac- 
cordance with  the  texts  of  our  common  Hebrew 
manuscripts. 

Cf.  Rich.  Simon,  Hist,  critique  du  V.  T., 
Rotterdam,  1685,  4to.  Capellus,  Critica  Sacra, 
Paris,  1650.  Eichhorn,  Einleitung  ins  alte 
Testament,  Th.  I.  Cap.  II.  Lichtenstein,  Pa- 
ralipomena  critica  circa  textum  Vet.  Testamenti, 
Helmstiidt,  1799,  4to.  Jahn,  Einleitung.  Also 
the  writings  of  Kennicott  and  De  Rossi. 

SECTION  VII. 

OF  THE  TRUTH  AND  DIVINITY  OF   THE  DOCTRINES 
TAUGHT  BY  CHRIST  AND  HIS  APOSTLES. 

THE  truth  and  divinity  of  the  doctrines  con- 
tained in  the  Christian  scriptures  must  be  con- 
sidered before  the  divinity  of  these  scriptures 
themselves. 

The  principal  proofs  which  Jesus  himself  and 
his  apostles  produced  in  favour  of  the  divinity 
of  their  doctrines  are  the  following: 

I.  Proof  from  the  Claims  which  Jesus  himself  made. 

Jesus  frequently  called  himself  an  immediate 
divine  messenger.  He  declared  that  he  taught 
his  religion  by  the  express  command  of  God, 
and  as  his  deputed  ambassador,  Matt.  xxvi.  63  ; 
John,  v.  43  ;  xvi.  27,  28,  et  passim.  This  de- 
claration of  Jesus,  so  often  repeated,  is,  in  itself 
considered,  of  £reat  weight.  The  same  preten- 
sions have,  indeed,  sometimes  been  made  by  im- 
postors and  enthusiasts;  but  the  whole  charac- 
ter and  conduct  of  Jesus  were  such  as  to  free 
him  from  the  imputation  of  being  either  an  ho- 
nest enthusiast  or  a  crafty  impostor.  He  is  the 
very  opposite  of  what  impostors  and  enthusiasts, 


58 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


oven  of  the  best  description,  usually  are;  he 
practised  none  of  the  arLs  of  deception,  and  he 
appealed  confidently  and  unreservedly  to  his  in- 
nocence, even  in  presence  of  his  enemies  ;  and 
challenged  them  to  convict  him,  if  they  were 
able,  of  a  single  act  of  dishonesty,  John,  viii. 
•1(>,  seq. 

This  proof  has  been  carefully  stated  by  Storr, 
Doctrina  Christiana,  p.  28 — 34,  and  by  Dr. 
Hensler,  Die  Wahrheit  und  Gottlichkeit  der 
christlichen  Religion  in  der  Kiirze  dargestellt, 
p.  26 — 32,  Hamburg,  1803,  8vo. 

II.  Proof  from  the  Excellence,  Suitableness,  and  Be- 
neficial Tendency  of  this  Religion. 

This  proof  is  called  argumentum  internum 
pro  veritate  et  divinitate  religionis  Christianx. 
Jesus  himself  makes  use  of  this  argument,  John, 
vii.  17.  It  is  also  employed  by  the  apostles, 
and  by  the  ancient  apologists  of  Christianity, 
Justin,  Athenagoras,  Tertullian,  and  Clemens 
of  Alexandria.  That  the  Christian  religion  is 
surpassed  by  no  other  in  the  purity,  simplicity, 
and  practical  utility  of  its  doctrines,  is  perfectly 
obvious,  and,  even  at  the  present  day,  is  gene- 
rally acknowledged.  No  sage  or  moralist,  of 
ancient  or  modern  times,  has  accomplished  so 
great  a  work  as  has  been  done  by  Christ;  has 
taught  such  salutary  doctrines — doctrines  which 
exert  so  benign  an  influence  in  comforting  and 
renovating  the  heart  of  man.  And  this  every 
one  may  know  from  his  own  experience  who 
makes  a  personal  application  of  these  doctrines 
in  the  manner  which  Christ  has  prescribed. 
Vide  Introduction,  s.  3,  ad  finem. 

The  religion  which,  by  its  doctrine  and  disci- 
pline, accomplishes  all  this,  and  which  is  so 
taught  as  to  effect  what  had  never  before  been 
done  by  man,  deserves  to  be  called  divine ,•  and 
must  be  acknowledged,  even  by  the  rationalist, 
to  be,  on  this  account,  at  least  important  and 
worthy  of  respect.  But  the  internal  excellence 
of  the  Christian  religion  does  not,  in  itself  con- 
sidered, satisfactorily  prove  that  this  religion  is, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  derived  immediately  from 
God  ;  the  utility  and  benevolent  tendency  of  a 
doctrine  prove  only  that  it  is  worthy  of  God,  and 
not  the  fact  that  it  is  derived  from  him.  As  this 
is  a  question  of  fact,  it  can  be  proved  only  by 
other  facts.  Vide  Introduction,  s.  8.  III.  2,  note. 
Hence  it  is  that  this  proof  from  the  internal  ex- 
cellence of  the  Christian  religion  is  always  in- 
sisted upon,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  proof  from 
miracles,  by  those  who  deny  any  immediate  di- 
vine revelation  in  the  higher  sense.  That  di- 
vine revelation  in  this  sense  cannot  be  suffi- 
ciently established  by  this  internal  argument 
may  be  seen  from  the  Introduction,  s.  7,  I.  ad 
iinem. 

But  although  this  internal  argument  does  not, 
separately  considered,  satisfactorily  prove  the 


immediate  divine  origin  of  the  Christian  religion 
it  is  still  of  great  importance — 

1.  To  ike  sincere  inquirer.     A  conviction  of 
the  inherent  excellence  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  of  its  benevolent  tendencies,  is  of  the  great' 
est  importance  to  the  candid  inquirer  in  seriously 
examining  the  other  proofs  by  which  the  divi- 
nity of  our  religion  is  supported.     It  prepares- 
his  mind  to  receive  them,  and  predisposes  him 
to  believe  any  evidence  that  may  be  offered,  or 
any  declarations  that  may  be  made,  by  one  who 
gave  such  excellent  precepts,  and  lived  himself 
in  a  manner  so  conformed  to  them,  as  Jesus  did, 
Jesus  declared  that  his  instructions  were  derived 
immediately  from  God.     Vide  No  I.     Now  if 
the  inquirer  finds  that  the  religion  of  Christ  ac- 
complishes what  might  be  reasonably  expected 
of  a  religion  of  divine  origin ;  if  he  finds  that  its 
founder  possessed  a  pure  moral  character,  and 
was  neither  an  impostor  nor  a  deluded  enthusi- 
ast; he  will  give  credit  to  his  pretensions,  and 
feel  himself  bound  to  admit  the  evidence  that 
may  be  offered  of  his  divine  mission. 

2.  To  the  practical  Christian.     The  belief  of 
the  truth  and  divinity  of  the  Christian  religion 
arising  from  its  internal  excellence  and  its  bene- 
ficial effects,  is  in  the  highest  degree  important 
to  every  practical  Christian.     His  whole  estima- 
tion of  this  religion  depends  upon  his  having 
felt  this  excellence,  and  joyfully  experienced 
these  benefits,  in  his  own  heart.     These  experi- 
ences produce  a  firm  conviction  in  his  mind  of 
the  truth  of  this  religion,  which  no  theoretic 
doubts  are  able  to  shake. 

These  feelings  arising  in  the  heart  of  the  true 
Christian,  as  he  studies,  applies,  and  practises 
the  instructions  of  his  religion,  and  the  firm  con- 
viction of  the  truth  and  divinity  of  his  religion, 
arising  from  these  feelings,  is  called  testimonium 
spiritus  sancti  internum — i.  e.,  a  conviction  of 
the  divinity  of  the  Christian  religion  produced 
in  the  mind  of  man  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  This 
conviction  is  not  a  conclusion,  but  a  feeling,  from 
which  the  truth  is  inferred.  Vide  Morus,  p.  39, 
40.  The  term  testimonium  (ftopfvpca),  taken 
from  Rom.  viii.  1G,  and  I  John,  v.  6,  was  ap- 
plied to  this  inward  persuasion,  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  the  name  testimonium  externum  spiritus 
sancti,  taken  from  Heh.  ii.  4,  which  was  given 
to  the  proof  afforded  by  miracles. 

Tkt  internal  witness  of  the  Spirit  denotes  those 
pious  feelings  and  dispositions  which  God  or 
the  Holy  Spirit  awakens  in  us  by  means  of  the 
Christian  doctrine,  and  which  are  the  evidence, 
the  internal  proof,  to  us,  that  this  doctrine  is 
true.  "  Ultima  ratio,  sub  qua  et  propter  quam 
fide  divina  et  infallibili  credimus,  verbum  Dei, 
esse  verbum  Dei,  est,  ipsa  intrinseca  vis  et  effica- 
cia  verbi  divini,  et  spiritus  sancti  in  scriptura  lo- 
quentis  testificatio  et  obstgnatio"  Quonstedt, 
Systems,  I.  p.  i  10. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Tliis  intimate  persuasion  is  perfectly  rational, 
and  by  no  means  visionary.  It  is  not  produced 
in  us  in  a  miraculous  manner,  by  direct  divine 
agency,  but  it  results  from  the  truths  which  we 
have  understood  and  obeyed.  We  are  conscious 
in  our  inmost  souls  that  since  we  have  embraced 
this  heavenly  religion,  and  have  faithfully  obey- 
ed its  precepts,  we  have  had  more  peace  and 
happiness,  and  more  strength  to  execute  our  vir- 
tnous  resolutions,  lhan  ever  before.  In  this  way 
we  are  brought  to  the  conviction  that  the  Chris- 
tian religion  is  the  true  and  only  means  of  pro- 
moting our  happiness,  and  of  imparting  that 
quiet  of  mind,  and  that  strength  for  virtue,  which 
we  need.  And  from  this  conviction  we  pass  to 
the  conclusion,  that  the  Christian  religion  is  true 
and  divine,  and  that  Jesus  and  his  apostles  are 
to  be  believed  when  they  declare  it  to  be  such. 
We  have  found  this  doctrine  to  be  possessed  of 
higher  excellences  and  of  a  greater  efficacy  than 
any  other  with  which  we  have  been  acquainted, 
and  hence  conclude  that  it  is  the  very  means 
which  God  himself  has  appointed  for  our  good. 

This  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  derived  from  its  happy  effects,  is 
often  urged  by  Christ,  John,  vii.  15 — 17,  coll. 
viii.  47;  and  also  by  the  apostles,  I  Thess.  ii. 
13  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  1—4  ;  Acts,  ii.  14—37;  and  par- 
ticularly from  the  effect  of  the  discourses  of 
Jesus,  Matt.  vii.  28,  29  ;  Luke,  xxiv.  32.  This 
proof,  explained  in  this  way,  is  conformed  both 
to  reason  and  observation  ;  and  the  feelings 
upon  which  it  rests  must  have  been  experienced 
by  every  true  Christian.  Cf.  s.  124,  II.; 
Nosselt,  Diss.  inaug.  de  interno  testimonio  spi- 
ritus  sancti,  Halle,  1767.  Gehe  (Superintendant 
at  Oschatz),  Diss.  inaug.  de  argumento,  quod 
pro  divinitate  religionis  Christianas  ab  experi- 
entia  ducitur,  Gottingen,  1796.  Morus,  p.  40. 

III.  Proof  from  Miracles. 

In  this  place  we  shall  consider  only  what  we 
are  taught  on  this  subject  by  the  writers  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  the  point  of  view 
in  which  they  regarded  it ;  adding  a  few  obser- 
vations for  the  purpose  of  illustration.  Here- 
after, in  the  Article  on  Divine  Providence,  s.  72, 
we  shall  consider  the  arguments  and  objections 
of  a  philosophical  nature. 

1.  The  following  names  are  given  to  miracles 
by  the  sacred  writers,  and  by  Jesus  himself: — 
rryoj,  nvna-i,  correspondent  to  which  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  and  in  the  New  Testament,  are  the 
words  Sin-cijiuf,  Swdptis,  because  miracles  are 
proofs  of  the  divine  power.  xSe,  ^av/jidaia, 
ijavuara,  something  extraordinary,  which  ex- 
cites wonder,  npi'c,  rs'pas,  tk pata,  prodigia,  por-> 
tcnta,  something  monstrous,  which  excites  the 
idea  of  a  tremendous  force.  PIN,  ar^fla,  ostenta, 
because  miracles  are  signs  or  evidences  of  di- 
vine interposition;  whence  they  are  also  called 


ihe  hand  of  God,  the  finger  of  God.  • 
tov  ®tov.  The  miracles  of  Christ  are  frequently 
called  tpya,  by  way  of  eminence.  The  divine 
power  by  which  miracles  were  wrought  was 
called  nn,  chip  nn,  rtvtvp.a  aytov,  Ttvsvpu  ©for, 


2.  These  biblical  names  of  miracles  clearly 
shew  that  the  sacred  writers  considered  miracles 
to  be  events  effected  by  divine  power,  unlike 
those  which  commonly  occur  in  the  known 
order  of  nature,  established  by  God,  and  inex- 
plicable to  us  by  the  laws  of  nature,  and  there- 
fore calculated  to  excite  surprise  and  wonder. 
Such  events  are  not  necessary  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  natural  religion  ;  but  they  are  indis- 
pensable to  the  establishment  of  any  religion 
which  announces  itself  as  revealed  from  God  in 
any  other  way  than  through  the  reason  of  man,  — 
of  a  religion,  in  short,  like  the  Christian,  which 
is  a  positive  religion,  and  in  which  Christ  ap- 
pears in  the  character  of  a  divine  messenger  to 
disclose  the  mind  of  God.  The  peculiar  doc- 
trines of  this  religion  are  not  cognizable  from 
the  nature  of  things,  but  are  taught  us  by  per- 
sons who  assert  that  they  themselves  were 
taught  by  God.  Now  if  they  would  obtain  cre- 
dit in  this  assertion,  they  must  be  able  to  prove 
their  divine  mission  by  proper  evidence.  They 
cannot  do  this  by  proofs  drawn  from  reason  ; 
they  therefore  resort  to  miracles. 

Properly  speaking,  these  miracles  are  wrought 
by  God.  In  performing  them,  he  does  not  alter 
or  disturb  the  course  of  things  which  he  himself 
directs,  or  counteract  the  laws  which  he  himself 
has  established  ;  but  he  accomplishes,  by  means 
of  nature,  which  he  has  thus  constituted  and 
which  he  governs,  something  more  than  is  com- 
mon, and  in  connexion  with  unusual  circum- 
stances. 

[Note.  —  This  is  here  maintained  in  opposition 
to  some  theologians  of  former  times,  who  held 
that  in  case  of  a  real  miracle  the  course  of  na- 
ture was  disturbed,  or  the  laws  of  nature  coun- 
teracted. "  Miracula  vera  et  proprie  dicta  sunt, 
quse  contra  vim  rebus  naturalibus  a  Deo  inditam, 
cursumque  naturalem,  sive  per  extraordinariam 
Dei  potentiam  efficiuntur  ;  ut  cum  .  .  .  aqua  in  vi- 
num  convertitur,  mortui  suscitantur,"  &c.  Quen- 
stedt,  Systema,  P.  I.  et  II.  p.  471,  Vitebergse, 
1685,  fol.  The  same  opinion  is  expressed  by 
Buddeus.  Miracles,  he  says,  are  "operationes 
quibus  naturae  leges  ad  ordinem  et  conserva- 
tionem  totius  hujus  universi  spectantes,  re  vera 
suspenduntur.'1'1  Instit.  theol.  dogm.  p.  245. 
They  are  likewise  denned  by  W'egscheider  as 
"  eventus  insoliti  ad  mi  rationed)  excitantes  ;  ideo- 
que  a  cooperatione  causae,  humanas  vires  super- 
antis,  et  rerutu  naturae  cursum  consuetum,  leges- 
que  in  efficiendo  ejusmudi  eventu  tollentis,  ple- 
rumque  repptiti."  Institutiones,  p.  173,  s.  46. 
But  with  respect  to  this  opinion,  Augustine  pro- 


GO 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


perly  asked,  "  Quomodo  est  contra  naturam, 
quod  est  voluntate  Dei,  quum  voluntas  t,mti 
utique  creatoris,  conditae  rei  cujuslibet  natura 
sit."  De  Civ.  Dei,  XXI.  8.  This  opinion  led 
to  the  supposition  that  in  connexion  with  every 
miracle  there  was  ajniraculum  restitutionis,  by 
which  the  confusion  occasioned  was  obviated, 
and  the  proper  order  restored.  Vide  J.  Jac. 
Ebert,  Dabitationes  contra  miracula  restitu- 
tionis. 

The  following  remarks  on  this  subject  are 
from  Tieftrunk,  Censur  des  chr.  protest.  Lehrbe- 
griffs,  s.  263 — 265:  "The  efficient  supersen- 
sible Being  may  not  suspend  the  laws,  or  disar- 
range the  course  of  nature;  but  must  employ 
nature  as  the  means  of  producing  the  designed 
result.  What  is  miraculous  is  not  therefore 
contrary  to  nature  (widernatiirlich),  but  extraor- 
dinary, preternatural,  (aussernatiirlich.)  The 
wonder-working  Being  produces  in  the  sphere 
of  sense,  and  by  the  laws  which  govern  this 
sphere,  snch  an  effect  as  does  not  occur  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  things,  and  could  not  be  pro- 
duced by  the  mere  powers  of  nature.  A  miracu- 
lous event  seems  to  encroach  upon  the  course  of 
nature,  without  disturbing  or  displacing  it.  But 
this  encroachment  cannot  be  accounted  for  by 
any  natural  causality,  and  must  be  ascribed  to  a 
higher  power  working  according  to  the  laws  of 
sensible  nature.  But  we  must  not  suppose  that 
this  supersensible  cause  acts  in  a  lawless  man- 
ner in  working  miracles;  for  although  we  are 
unacquainted  with  the  laws  which  prevail  in  the 
sphere  of  spirit,  we  must  still  believe  that  some 
laws  are  there  in  force;  and  if  we  knew  what 
they  were,  we  should  consider  the  same  events 
which  now  appear  miraculous  as  perfectly  na- 
tural." Vide  Hahn,  Lehrbuch  des  christlichen 
Glaubens,  s.  24,  Leipzig,  1828.] 

In  this  extraordinary  exertion  of  his  power, 
God  has  ever  some  great  moral  end  in  view; 
since  it  is  inconsistent  with  reason  and  scripture 
to  suppose  that  he  acts  without  respect  to  an 
end.  Now  the  end  for  which  miracles  are  per- 
formed is  clearly  revealed.  They  are  the  cre- 
dentials of  the  divine  messengers,  and  invest 
with  a  divine  authority  their  precepts,  promises, 
threatenings,  and  whatever  else  they  may  de- 
clare;  for  no  teacher  ever  did  or  can  work  a 
miracle  by  his  own  power :  he  can  only  act  as 
the  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God,  the  author 
and  governor  of  nature.  .When  God,  therefore, 
raises  the  dead,  or  performs  any  other  miracle, 
through  the  instrumentality  of  a  teacher,  he  thus 
declares  that  this  teacher  is  divinely  commis- 
sioned, that  througli  him  he  shall  speak,  and 
act,  and  accomplish  his  purposes.  He  thus  fur- 
nishes his  ambassador  with  credentials,  secures 
him  the  attention  of  his  fellow  men,  calls  upon 
them  to  acknowledge  the  divinity  of  his  mission, 
and  to  receive  his  heavenly  doctrine.  This, 


then,  as  we  are  taught  by  the  Bible,  is  the  end 
fur  which  miracles  were  wrought.  True  mira- 
cles are  the  credentials  which  God  gives  his 
ambassadors  of  their  divine  mission;  and  every 
teacher  who  performs  them  should  be  received 
as  a  messenger  sent  from  God.  For  it  cannot 
be  supposed  that  the  God  of  truth  would  enable 
an  enthusiast,  or  a  crafty  impostor,  or  any  false 
teacher,  to  perform  real  miracles,  since  he  would 
thus  set  his  own  seal  to  a  falsehood.  Hence 
we  may  safely  argue  the  falsity  of  all  the  al- 
leged miracles  which  are  wrought  for  the  con- 
firmation of  doctrines  and  declarations  which  are 
demonstrably  untrue,  and  therefore  not  of  God, — 
such,  for  example,  as  were  wrought  by  the  false 
prophets  in  ancient  times,  and  which  are  de- 
clared in  the  Bible  to  be  deceptive. 

On  these  principles,  Christ  and  his  apostles 
prove  the  divinity  of  their  mission  and  doctrine, 
by  the  miracles  which  they  performed  in  view 
of  their  contemporaries,  Matt.  xi.  3,  seq.  John, 
xiv.  11.  Vide  Scripta  Vajrii  argument!,  ed.  2, 
p.  187.  And  in  consequence  of  the  miracles 
which  he  wrought,  Jesus  was  received  by  many 
of  his  contemporaries  as  a  teacher  sent  from 
God,  John,  iii.  2 ;  ix.  35 — 38.  This  belief  in 
his  character  arising  from  his  miracles,  was  ap- 
proved by  Jesus  himself,  Matt.  xi.  2 — 6,  20 — 24. 
Sometimes,  however,  he  justly  blamed  the  Jews 
for  seeking  constantly  after  signs  and  wonders. 
As  to  the  object  of  the  miracles  which  he  per- 
formed, he  distinctly  declared,  that  they  should 
be  considered  as  proof  (tj^ftov)  that  he,  as  a 
man,  did  not  teach  his  own  wisdom,  nor  act 
from  his  own  will,  but  as  the  organ  of  God,  the 
creator  and  governor  of  the  universe;  and  that 
his  instructions  should  therefore  be  considered  as 
divine  instructions  (a,6yot),  and  received  and 
obeyed  as  coming  from  God.  Vide  John,  iii., 
v.,  vi.,  viii.,  xii.,  xiv.,  xvi. ;  Acts,  ii.  22  ;  x.  38. 
Miracles  are  regarded  by  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles as  always  intended  by  God  to  promote  the 
success  (tftwpyftc&ai)  and  confirm  the  authority 
(/3fj3atovi/)  of  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  one 
through  whom  they  were  performed.  Mark, 
xvi.  20.  The  apostles  refer,  in  the  Acts  and  in 
the  epistles,  to  three  kinds  of  miracles — viz., 
(1)  those  wrought  upon  Jesus,  to  prove  his  au- 
thority, especially  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead  ;  (2)  those  wrought  by  him  ;  and  (3)  those 
which  they  themselves  performed. 

The  proof  from  miracles,  impressing,  as  they 
do,  the  bodily  senses,  often  produces  a  strong 
conviction,  and  is  especially  adapted  to  those 
who  are  insensible  to  the  proof  drawn  from  the 
internal  excellence  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  the  effects  which  it  produces  on  the  hearts 
of  men. 

3.  How  far  is  the  proof  from  miracles  still 
valid  1  May  it  be  urged  at  the  present  day  ]  It 
has  been  rejected,  in  modern  times,  as  wholly 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


61 


destitute  of  evidence,  by  Rousseau,  Hume,  and 
all  the  rationalist  theologians.  Hume  main- 
tained, that  however  strong  might  be  the  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  any  miracle,  there  was  always 
stronger  evidence  against  it;  and  that  every 
miracle  was  contradictory  to  the  reason  and  ex- 
perience of  all  ages.  In  order  to  render  the  mi- 
racles of  the  Bible  suspicious,  he  collected  all 
manner  of  marvellous  histories,  and  endeavoured 
to  shew  that  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  had  less 
evidence  to  support  them  than  many  of  these 
pretended  miracles,  which  were  universally 
allowed  to  be  false.  The  proof  from  miracles 
was  also  abundantly  canvassed  in  the  contro- 
versies with  Lessing. 

We  may  freely  concede,  (a)  that  this  proof 
must  have  carried  a  stronger  and  more  resistless 
evidence  to  the  minds  of  those  who  themselves 
saw  the  miracles  with  their  own  eyes,  than  to 
the  minds  of  others  living  at  a  distance  from  the 
scene,  or  after  the  time  in  which  they  were  per- 
formed ;  and  (&)  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  in- 
tended their  miracles  primarily  for  their  contem- 
poraries, who  expected  and  demanded  evidence 
of  this  nature,  and  who  would  receive  the  true 
religion  more  readily,  and  believe  it  more  firmly, 
if  it  came  to  them  supported  by  such  evidence 
as  was  conformed  to  their  previous  opinions  and 
expectations  ;  and  that  this  proof  may  so  far  be 
said  to  be  temporary.  But  (c)  it  can  by  no 
means  be  said  to  be  destitute  of  evidence  for  all 
who  were  not  the  contemporaries  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles.  If  any  at  the  present  day  are  con- 
vinced of  the  historical  truth  of  the  miracles 
wrought  by  Christ,  to  them  the  proof  derived 
from  miracles  must  still  be  perfectly  valid.  For 
to  attempt  to  prove  a  priori,  as  is  usually  done, 
that  miracles  are  impossible,  is  the  height  of  folly 
and  presumption.  Moreover  (d)  the  system  of 
truth  which  was  taught  by  Jesus,  the  apostles, 
and  prophets,  is  consistent  with  itself  only  on 
the  supposition  that  it  was  corroborated  by  mi- 
racles. They  laid  claim  to  the  character  of  ex- 
traordinary divine  messengers — a  claim  which 
could  not  be  supported  except  by  extraordinary 
events.  Vide  Introduction,  s.  7,  8.  The  rea- 
son, now,  that  so  many  deny  the  evidence  of  mi- 
racles is,  that  they  are  unwilling  to  admit  this 
extraordinary  claim,  which  miracles  are  intended 
to  establish. 

The  historical  credibility  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ  may  be  proved  in  two  ways  : 

(1.)  From  the  testimony  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves. We  reason  thus :  (a)  they  were  able  to 
know  the  truth.  They  were  contemporaries  of 
Christ,  and  eye-witnesses  of  his  works.  They 
enjoyed  the  best  opportunity  for  examining  and 
scrutinizing  every  thing  which  he  did.  Nor  were 
they  credulous ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  slow  to  be- 
lieve, as  Christ  himself  says,  Mark,  xvi.  14. 
They  perfectly  agree  in  their  testimony,  and  in 


open  court  refer  to  the  miracles  of  Christ  as  to 
undisputed  facts,  known  to  the  world,  Acts,  ii. 
22.  (6)  They  intended  to  speak  the  truth.  Their 
Whole  character  is  such  as  to  free  them  from  the 
suspicion  of  intentional  deception.  If  they  had 
been  influenced  by  considerations  of  wordly 
interest  they  would  not  have  embraced  Christi- 
anity, from  which  they  had  little  ta  hope,  and 
everything  to  fear,  as  to  their  temporal  prospects. 
Besides,  the  style  of  their  narratives  is  so  sim- 
ple, artless,  and  unaffected,  that  every  unpreju- 
diced reader  must  feel  himself  compelled  to  ac- 
knowledge that  they  understood  and  believed 
what  they  wrote,  and  had  no  intention  of  deceiv- 
ing their  readers.  1  John,  i.  1,  seq.  Cf.  Morus, 
p.  16—20. 

(2)  From  the  testimony  of  those  who  were 
not  followers  of  Christ,  and  even  of  those  who 
were  opposed  to  his  religion.  The  Jews  who 
were  contemporary  with  Christ  allowed  that  he 
had  wrought  miracles,  (John,  xi.  47,)  and  did 
not  venture  to  accuse  him,  before  a  judicial  tri- 
bunal, of  deception  in  performing  them.  Even 
the  Talmud  makes  mention  of  his  miracles,  and 
allows  their  historical  truth,  although  it  under- 
takes to  account  for  them  in  different  ways. 
And  so  the  pharisees,  when  they  were  unable 
to  deny  the  reality  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  pre- 
tended, as  a  last  resort,  that  they  were  the  work 
of  the  devil.  And  even  the  apostate  Judas,  who 
lived  on  terms  of  perfect  intimacy  with  his  Mas- 
ter, could  not  bring  against  him  the  charge  of 
deception,  and  confesses  at  last,  in  despair,  that 
he  had  betrayed  innocent  blood;  whereas,  if  he 
had  known  or  suspected  any  dishonesty,  he 
would  surely  have  justified  his  crime.  And  if 
he  did  not  know  of  any  dishonesty,  we  may 
safely  conclude  that  there  was  none;  since  the 
imposture  could  not  have  been  executed  without 
pecuniary  means,  which  were  placed  in  the  hands 
of  Judas.  Matt,  xxvii.  4,  seq.  Those  who  op- 
posed Christianity  during  the  first  periods  of  its 
existence — namely,  Celsus,  Hierocles,  and  Ju- 
lian, did  not  doubt  the  historical  truth  of  the  mi- 
racles of  Christ,  although  they  ascribed  them  to 
magical  arts.  Morus,  p.  26,  27. 

IV.  Proof  from  the  fulfilment  of  Ancient  Prophecies 
in  Christ. 

In  urging  this  proof,  Jesus  and  his  apostles 
had  primary,  though  by  no  means  exclusive,  re- 
ference to  the  Jews,  in  whose  sacred  books  these 
predictions  respecting  the  Messiah  were  contain- 
ed. This  proof  will  be  particularly  considered 
in  connexion  with  the  office  of  Messiah,  s.  89, 
90,  in  the  Article  on  Christ. 

V.  Proof  from  the  Prophecies  of  Christ  himself. 

Every  prediction  of  future,  incidents  may  pro- 
perly be  regarded  as  a  miracle.     All  which  was 
said,  therefore,  respecting  the  proof  from  mira- 
F 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


cles,  may  be  applied  to  this  proof  and  the  one 
preceding,  both  of  which  are  parts  of  the  gene- 
ral proof  from  miracles. 

With  respect  to  the  proof  from  prophecy,  we 
remark  now  more  particularly,  that  in  order  to 
its  validity,  (1)  The  prediction  must  be  histori- 
cally true — i.  e.,  must  have  been  actually  made 
before  the  events  to  which  it  relates,  and  not 
fabricated  afterwards,  nor  even  enriched  by  the 
addition  of  any  circumstances  which  may  have 
occurred  in  connexion  with  the  fulfilment  of  the 
original  prophecy.  (2)  It  must  not,  like  most  of 
the  oracles  of  the  ancient  heathen  world,  hide  its 
meaning  under  an  artful  ambiguity  of  expression. 
(3)  The  exact  and  perfect  fulfilment  of  the  pre- 
diction must  be  capable  of  proof  from  history. 
If  any  prediction  answers  these  conditions,  it 
must  be  allowed  to  come  from  God,  and  to  be  of 
the  nature  of  a  miracle,  2  Pet.  i.  19. 

God  only  can  foresee  future  and  fortuitous 
events.  When  a  man  therefore  foretells  events 
of  this  nature,  he  proves  that  he  is  instructed 
and  commissioned  by  God.  The  Jewish  pro- 
phets who  laid  claim  to  the  title  of  divine  am- 
bassadors were  required,  therefore,  in  proof  of 
their  pretensions,  to  foretell  the  future.  Christ 
himself  made  use  of  this  proof  to  support  his 
own  claims,  John,  xiii.  19;  xiv.  29.  He  fore- 
told, in  the  most  distinct  and  accurate  manner, 
his  own  impending  fate,  (Matt.  xvi.  21,  seq. 
Luke,  xviii.  31 — 33 ;)  and  also  that  of  his  dis- 
ciples, Matt.  x.  18,  seq.  He  predicted  that  his 
religion  would  prevail  upon  the  earth,  and  con- 
tinue to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  and  this,  too,  at  a 
time  when  its  destruction  must  have  appeared 
to  every  one  in  the  highest  degree  probable. 
He  predicted  the  destruction  of  the  temple,  and 
the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  state  by  the  Romans, 
Matt.  xxiv. ;  Luke,  xxi.  This  latter  prediction 
was  very  minute,  and  was  fulfilled,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  in  every  particu- 
lar. Cf.  the  valuable  treatises  on  the  prophecies, 
collected  by  Hurd  and  Halifax.  Thomas  New- 
ton, Treatise  on  the  prophecies  which  have 
been  remarkably  fulfilled.  Less,  Wahrheit  der 
christlichen  Religion,  s.  472,  if.  Gottingen, 
1785. 

Morus,  p.  24,  seq.,  s.  14,  seq. 

Note. — It  thus  appears,  that  in  investigating 
the  truth  of  Christianity  we  must  proceed  as 
we  do  when  we  investigate  any  subjects  of  an 
historical  nature.  We  must  believe  what  we  are 
taught  in  the  holy  scriptures,  upon  the  authority 
of  the  testimony  by  which  it  is  supported.  We 
are  indeed  gratified  to  find  other  reasons,  beside 
positive  divine  testimony,  on  which  to  found  our 
belief  in  the  truths  of  religion;  but  these  addi- 
tional reasons  are  not  essential  to  our  belief. 
And  in  cases  where  we  are  unable  to  discover 
them,  we  may  believe  upon  the  simple  divine 
testimony.  Nor  are  we  chargeable  with  credu- 


lity in  so  doing,  any  more  than  when  we  be- 
lieve, on  credible  testimony,  any  fact  which  may 
for  a  time  be  incomprehensible. 

Cf.  Job.  Friedr.  Kleuker,  Neue  Priifung  und 
Erklarung  der  vorziiglichsten  Beweise  fur  die 
Wrahrheit  und  den  gottlichen  Ursprung  des 
Christenthums,  wie  der  OrTenbarung  iiberhaupt, 
3  Bde,  Riga,  1787—94,  8vo.  Koppen,  Die 
Bibel  ein  Werk  der  gottlichen  Weisheit,  Ausg. 
2,  Rostock  and  Leipzig,  1797-8,  8vo.  Storr, 
Doctrinae  Christianas,  &c.,  p.  21,  seq.  Siiskind 
(Prof,  of  theology  at  Stuttgard),  Eine  histo- 
risch — exegetische  Untersuchung,  In  welchem 
Sinne  hat  Jesus  die  Gottlichkeit  seiner  Religion 
und  Sittenlehre  behauptet]  Tubingen,  1802, 
8vo.  Hensler,  Die  Wahrheit  und  Gottlichkeit 
der  christlichen  Religion,  in  der  Kiirze  darge- 
stellt,  s.  33—48. 

SECTION  VIII. 

OF  THE  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES  OF  THE 
OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS,  OR  THE  HIGHER 
DIVINE  INFLUENCE  ENJOYED  BY  THE  SACRED 
WRITERS. 

Introductory  Remarks. 

1.  THE  two  following  positions — viz.,  the  doc- 
trines taught  in  the  books  of  the  Bible  are  of  di- 
vine origin,  and  these  books  themselves  are  given 
by  God,  are  by  no  means  the  same,  and  need  to 
be  carefully  distinguished.  The  divinity  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible  was  considered  in  s.  7 ;  but 
this  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  divinity  of 
the  Bible  itself.  The  doctrines  of  revelation 
are  frequently  contained  in  books  of  devotion, 
for  example,  but  it  is  not  pretended  that  on  this 
account  these  books  are  of  divine  origin.  The 
truth  and  divinity  of  the  Christian  religion  might 
be  satisfactorily  proved  if  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  acknowledged  to  be  merely  ge- 
nuine, and  the  authors  of  them  merely  credible; 
so  that  the  divinity  of  the  Christian  religion  need 
not  be  considered  as  depending  on  the  divinity 
of  the  holy  scriptures.  The  two  things  were  dis- 
tinguished from  each  other  as  early  as  the  time 
of  Melancthon. 

Religion,  therefore,  is  more  concerned,  as 
Michaelis  has  justly  observed,  in  having  proot 
for  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  than  for  the 
inspiration  of  the  sacred  volume.  Still,  the  sin- 
cere friend  of  truth  will  surely  be  rejoiced  in 
finding  reason  to  believe  in  the  immediate  divine 
origin  of  the  books  of  our  religion.  If  this  higher 
divine  influence,  called  inspiration,  were  not  en- 
joyed by  the  apostles  in  those  instructions  which 
they  have  left  us,  how  easily  could  we  be  dis- 
turbed by  the  suspicion  that  they  misunderstood 
some  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  or  failed 
to  exhibit  them  in  a  proper  manner!  They 
were  liable,  we  might  then  say,  from  their  de- 
voted attachment  to  the  person  of  Christ,  and 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


63 


their  high  esteem  for  his  character,  to  adopt 
false  and  exaggerated  opinions  respecting  his 
nature,  and  his  future  exaltation.  In  this  way, 
if  these  books  were  not  believed  to  be  given  by 
inspiration  of  God,  the  most  important  positive 
doctrines  of  Christianity  might  be  considered 
doubtful;  as  has  been  done,  in  fact,  in  modern 
times,  by  those  who  deny  the  inspiration  of  the 
scriptures. 

2.  Inspiration  has  been  defined  in  different 
ways.  Cf.  the  historical  sketch,  s.  9,  10.  It 
may  be  best  defined,  according  to  the  representa- 
tions of  the  scriptures  themselves,  to  be  an  ex- 
traordinary divine  influence,  by  which  the  teachers 
of  religion  were  instructed  what  and  how  they 
should  write  or  speak,  while,  discharging  the  duties 
of  their  office.  There  is  no  need  of  any  distinc- 
tion betwen  their  oral  and  written  discourses. 
Morus,  p.  30,  s.  24.  The  correctness  of 
this  definition  will  hereafter  appear  from  the 
texts  which  will  be  cited  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Note. — It  may  be  regarded  as  a  settled  point 
that  inspiration  is  not  impossible,  and  that  no 
argument  a  priori  can  be  urged  against  the  his- 
torical evidence  of  the  fact.  This  was  truly 
remarked  by  Kant,  Religion  innerhalb  der  Gran- 
zen  der  reinen  Vernunft,  2  Ausg.  Konigsberg, 
1793,  8vo;  and  also  by  Fichte,  Versuch  einer 
Kritik  aller  Offenbarung,  2  Ausg.  Konigsberg, 
1793,  8vo. 

I.  Inspiration  of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  This  cannot  be  proved  from  the  testimony 
of  the  fathers.     They  can  command  belief  only 
when  they  testify  respecting  things  which  could 
be  known  by  observation;  such  as  the  authen- 
ticity of  a  book,  or  the  age  of  the  writer.     Nor 
can  the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible  be  proved  by 
the  argument  by  which  we  prove  the  divine 
origin  of  the  doctrines  it  contains — viz.,  the  in- 
ternal witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  s.  7.   Still  less 
can  it  be  proved  from  the  miracles  which  the 
sacred  writers  performed.   These  arguments  for 
the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  were  unknown  to  the 
ancients,  and  were  first  employed  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  by  the  theologians  of  Helmstadt, 
who  succeeded  Calixtus. 

2.  The  great  argument  upon  which  protest- 
ants  rely  in  proving  the  inspiration  of  the  scrip- 
tures presupposes  only  the  genuineness  of  the 
books,  and  the  credibility  of  the  authors  of  the 
New  Testament.  Vide  s.  7;  cf.  Morus,  p.  17— 
20,  s.  3—9,  and  p.  32,  s.  28.     We  hold  that 
every  book  of  the  New  Testament  which  is  ge- 
nuine, and  which  was  really  written  by  an  apos- 
tle, is  inspired,  or  written  under  a  special  divine 
influence.     In  proof  of  this  point,  we  rely  upon 
the  express  testimony  of  Jesus,  who  explicitly 
and  solemnly  promised  to  his  disciples  a  peculiar 
divine  assistance  whenever  they  should  be  call- 


ed upon  to  teach,  confirm,  or  defend  his  reli- 
gion, to  the  service  of  which  he  had  consecrated 
them. 

Christ  promised  his  disciples  this  peculiar 
divine  assistance  on  four  different  occasions  : — 
(a)  when  he  first  sent  them  forth,  Matt.  x.  19, 
20;  (6)  in  a  discourse  in  which  he  commis- 
sions them  to  publish  his  religion,  Luke,  xii. 
11,  12;  (c)  when  he  predicted  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  Mark,  xiii.  11;  Luke,  xxi.  14; 
(d]  in  his  last  address  to  his  disciples,  John, 
xiv. — xvi.  On  these  occasions  he  promised 
them  -to  jtvevpu  aytov,  an  extraordinary  divine 
influence  to  attend  them  constantly,  and  secure 
them  against  error.  He  said  to  them  in  Mark, 
that  when  they  spoke  under  this  divine  impulse, 
it  would  not  be  they  who  spoke,  but  the  Holy 
Spirit,  (ovx  £6ts  -fytetj  ol  hahovwtf j,  aXXa  to 
jtvfv/^a  TO  aytoi/r)  He  forbade  them  to  pre- 
meditate what  they  should  say  before  judicial 
tribunals,  since  they  should  then  be  taught  by 
the  Divine  Spirit,  not  only  what  but  how  they 
should  speak,  (/t^  f*fp*pvjflti'tt  rtwj  ^  -ti  XaJt»?- 
coyz'f •  So^jjcterat  yap  vp.lv  x.  t.  X.)  The  object 
of  the  apostles,  in  those  discourses  in  which 
the  divine  assistance  was  promised,  was  not 
only  to  defend  themselves,  but  to  give  instruc- 
tion in  Christianity. 

Now,  if  the  apostles  were  assisted  in  this 
manner  in  their  discourses,  which  were  merely 
oral,  and  of  course  of  a  very  temporary  and  li- 
mited advantage,  how  much  more  should  they 
be  assisted  in  their  written  instructions,  which 
were  destined  to  exert  a  more  lasting  and  extend- 
ed influence  !  "  Est  enim  scripturx  etprsedica- 
tionis  par  ratio.  Quae  enim  voce  prsedicabatur 
doctrina,  ea  postea  juvandse  memoriae  causa  con- 
signabatur  literis,  et  quae  causa  erat  cur  praedi- 
cationem  ex  divina  inspiratione  oporteret  peragi, 
ea  militabat  pro  scriptione  eo  magis,  quod  scrip- 
tura  deberet  esse  medium  doctrinae  ejusdem  in- 
corrupte  ad  finem  mundi  usque  conservandse,  et 
ad  posteritatem  propagandae."  Job.  Musaeus 
in  Spinosismo,  p.  G9.  Divine  assistance  was 
promised  to  the  apostles,  in  general  terms,  in 
the  discharge  of  their  duties  as  teachers,  whe- 
ther they  spake  or  wrote;  and  the  words  tatetV 
and  rtapaxatelv  are  applied  with  equal  propriety 
to  speaking  and  writing.  According  to  John, 
xiv. — xvi.,  Christ  promised  his  disciples  that  so 
often  as  the  circumstances  of  time  and  place 
might  require,  they  should  enjoy  the  constant, 
uninterrupted  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as 
their  Paracletus,  their  counsellor,  and  assistant. 
According  to  John,  xvi.  7 — 11,  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  convince  the  world  through  them,  (by 
their  writing,  therefore,  as  well  as  speaking.} 
And  finally,  the  apostles  and  evangelists  them- 
selves ascribe  the  same  authority  to  their  writ- 
ings as  to  their  oral  instructions,  John,  xx.  31  ; 
1  John,  i.  1 — 1;  2  Thess.  ii.  15;  1  Cor.  xv.  1. 


64 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


coll.  ii.  13 ;  Ephes.  iii.  3,  seq. ;  Acts,  xv.  23, 
seq. 

The  Holy  Spirit,  beside  the  general  assistance 
which  he  would  render  the  apostles,  should,  ac- 
cording to  the  promise  of  Christ,  reveal  to  them 
many  things  of  which  Christ  had  not  spoken, 
John,  xvi.  12 — 15.  That  in  their  teaching  they 
might  be  secure  from  mistake,  even  with  respect 
to  knowledge  which  they  might  have  acquired 
in  the  unaided  use  of  their  own  faculties,  lie 
should  remind  them  (vrto/jLvr^e^  of  all  that  Christ 
had  taught  them  ;  and  himself  instruct  them  in 
everything  (gtSofft-  ytdvta)  necessary  for  the 
discharge  of  the  duties  of  their  office,  John,  xiv. 
26.  He  should  reveal  to  them  future  events, 
John,  xvi.  13  ;  endow  them,  when  necessary, 
with  miraculous  powers,  Mark,  xvi.  17  ;  correct 
their  mistakes,  and  impart  to  them  new  instruc- 
tions whenever  they  were  called  for,  John,  xvi. 
12;  xiv.  26.  So  that  whatever  the  apostles 
taught  might  be  regarded  as  coming  from  God. 

This  testimony  of  Christ  is  the  foundation  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. And  from  this  testimony  we  see  clearly 
the  propriety  of  the  definition  of  inspiration 
given  in  the  introductory  remarks.  In  order  to 
shew  in  what  estimation  the  apostles  held  their 
own  writings  and  those  of  their  fellow-labour- 
ers, it  deserves  to  be  mentioned,  that  the  epis- 
tles of  Paul  were  placed  by  Peter  on  a  level 
with  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
were  then  regarded  by  both  Jews  and  Christians 
as  divine,  2  Pet.  iii.  16. 

These  promises  of  special  divine  assistance 
were  not,  indeed,  originally  made  to  Mark  and 
Luke,  who  were  not  apostles.  But  each  of  them 
was  the  disciple  .and  assistant  of  an  apostle. 
oSrytris  xai  ^fi/j-evsve^  IlfT'pov,  xai 
a  into  IltVpov  x^pvfjao/u.fva  £yypa<J><I»$  r{\n.iv 
Irenseus,  Adversus  Hseres.  III.  1. 
Luke  stood  in  a  similar  relation  to  Paul,  by 
whom  his  writings  were  supposed  to  be  sanc- 
tioned. "Lucae  digestum  Paulo  adscribere 
solent,"  Tertullian,  Adversus  Marc.  IV.  5. 
The  writings  of  Mark  and  Luke,  therefore,  being 
either  dictated  or  sanctioned  by  inspired  apos- 
tles, must  be  regarded  as  possessing  divine  au- 
thority. "  Potest  magistrorum  videri,  quae  dis- 
cipuli  promulgarint,"  Tertullian,  ubi  supra,  IV. 
5.  Besides,  as  they  were  the  companions  and 
fellow-labourers  of  the  apostles,  they  may  be 
supposed  to  have  been  endowed,  as  such,  with 
the  higher  gifts  of  teaching,  to  have  enjoyed  the 
same  divine  influence  when  they  wrote  and 
spake,  and  therefore  to  be  entitled  to  equal  cre- 
dit with  the  others  in  what  they  teach.  Nor 
were  these  promises  originally  made  even  to 
Paul,  who  was  not,  like  the  other  apostles,  a 
companion  of  Jesus;  but  they  were  afterwards 
extended  to  him,  since  he  was  appointed  an 


apostle  by  Jesus  himself,  and  enjoyed  all  the 
privileges  of  an  apostle,  and  was  acknowledged 
by  the  others  as  one  of  their  own  number. 
Morus,  p.  19,  s.  7. 

II.  The,  Inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ  generally  con- 
sidered the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  to  be  in- 
spired ;  by  which  they  did  not  mean,  merely, 
that  the  doctrines  contained  in  them  were  of  di- 
vine origin,  but  that  the  books  themselves  were 
divine,  being  the  productions  of  inspired  pro- 
phets. Vide  Josephus,  Contra  Apionem,  I.  7. 
They  all  agreed  in  this  point,  although  they  had 
different  opinions  respecting  the  mode  and  the 
degrees  of  inspiration.  It  is  not  enough  to  say 
that  Christ  and  the  apostles  did  not  disclaim  this 
prevailing  opinion  of  the  Jews ;  they  assented  to 
it,  and  presupposed  and  confirmed  its  truth. 
They  received  the  Old  Testament,  in  all  its 
parts,  as  divine.  The  texts  in  which  the  several 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  cited,  are  enu- 
merated by  Storr,  Biblical  Theology,  vol.  1,  s. 

13,  14  (of  the  translation.)*     Now  if  Christ  and 
his  apostles  were  inspired  men,  as  has  been 
shewn,  No.  1,  their  testimony  with  respect  to 
the  inspiration  of  the  ancient  scriptures  is  deci- 
sive.    And  this  testimony  affords  the  most  brief 
and  convincing  proof  which  can  be  offered  for 
the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament.     Vide 
Morus,  p.  23,  s.  13. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  though  Christ 
and  his  apostles  laboured  to  subvert  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  and  to  establish  a  more  perfect  one 
in  its  place;  they  still  regarded  the  Mosaic  doc- 
trine, institute,  and  writings,  notwithstanding 
their  imperfections,  as  divine.  These  imperfec- 
tions were  inevitable  to  the  ancient  economy, 
which  was  designed  for  the  world  while  yet  in 
its  infancy,  and  incapable  of  a  higher  instruc- 
tion. 

That  the  apostles  assented  to  the  Jewish  opi- 
nion respecting  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, is  abundantly  evident  from  various  and 
explicit  passages  in  their  writings.  Their  opi- 
nions on  this  subject  are  exhibited  with  most 
clearness  in  the  two  following  texts  : — 

1.  2  Tim.  iii.  14—17.  In  this  passage,  Paul 
exhorts  Timothy  to  hold  fast  the  doctrine  which 
was  taught  by  the  apostles,  because  they  were 
inspired  teachers,  and  because  their  doctrine  was 
accordant  with  the  ancient  scriptures.  In  ver. 

14,  he  mentions  the  first  reason :   "  Continue 
thou   in  the   things  which  thou   hast  learned 
ftSwj  rfapa  tlvos  2juc&£$."     In  ver.  15  he  men- 
tions the  second  reason :  Continue  thou  in  the 
things  which  thou  hast  learned  (for  this  is  the 


*  Pages  66—72,  in  the  edition  forming  part  of 
WARD'S  LIBRARY  OF  STANDARD 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


65 


force  of  xcu,)  because  thou  hast  from  a  child  known 
the  ho/y  scriptures  (of  the  Old  Testament,)  ta 
iwdfjtfvd  at  ootyiaat,  ti$  (ycoi'jypiaz'  6ia  rtt-ofscoj  T^S  iv 
Xptcrra  "Irjaov,  which  can  instruct  you  in  the 
knowledge  of  that  salvation  which  we  obtain  by 
the  Christian  doctrine.  Here  Paul  expresses  his 
opinion  that  the  Old  Testament  leads  to  Christ, 
and  is  preparatory  to  Christianity.  In  ver.  16, 
he  proceeds  to  say,  Hdaa,  ypcw^  SsojtvtvGtos  (for 
$eortvfv(tto$  ovffa,  according  to  Clemens  of  Alex- 
andria, Theodoret,  the  Syriac  version,  the  Vul- 
gate, and  nearly  all  the  theologians  of  the  six- 
teenth century  ;  otherwise  the  article  must  be 
inserted  before  ypa<|»?,  and  the  comma  after  it  be 
retained,)  xal  co^aXt^oj  Ttpoj  St-SaofxaXuxv,  rtpo$ 
rtpoj  Ertayop^-iocrtv,  rtpoj  rtatdtiav  "tr^v  iv 
vvv],  Jill  inspired  scripture  (no  part  of  it 
excepted)  is  also  projitablefor  instruction  (in  the 
Christian  religion),  for  conviction  (confutation 
of  errors,  &c.),/or  improvement,  and  for  disci- 
pline in  virtue  or  piety.  Ver.  17,  "Iva 
YI  o  tov  ®sov  ai^pcortoj,  rtpoj  jtav  t'pyov  a 
ifyptia/jit  vo$,  By  means  of  the  Old-Testament  scrip- 
tures the  servant  of  God  (Christian  teacher)  may 
become  Jilted,  and  truly  qualified  for  his  import- 
ant work.  In  this  passage,  therefore,  Paul  ex- 
presses the  opinion,  that  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  inspired,  and  that,  when  rightly 
employed,  they  are  useful  even  in  Christian  in- 
struction. 

2.  2  Pet.  i.  19,  20.  Vide  Scripta  Varii  Argu- 
ment!, t.  i.  p.  1,  seq.  In  this  passage,  Paul 
shews,  in  opposition  to  Jews  and  judaizing  he- 
retics, that  Jesus  was  the  true  Messiah.  In 
shewing  this,  he  now  appeals  to  those  predic- 
tions of  the  Jewish  prophets  which  had  been 
fulfilled  in  him.  Ver.  19,  "  We  (apostles)  find 
the  oracles  of  the  prophets  (respecting  Christ) 
much  more  convincing  now  (since  they  have 
been  fulfilled  ;)  and  ye  will  do  well  to  attend  to 
them.  Formerly,  before  their  fulfilment,  they 
were  obscure,  like  a  lantern  shining  feebly  on  a 
dark  path,  until  the  appearance  of  Christ  upon 
the  earth,  from  which  event  a  clearer  light  now 
proceeds,  and  we  can  better  understand  the  pro- 
phecies." Ver.  20,  "Nor  could  the  prophets 
themselves  of  the  Old  Testament  give  a  clear 
explanation  (IrttXvcrij  from  ertfavfw,  explicare, 
Mark,  iv.  34,)  of  their  own  oracles,  because 
they  had  only  indistinct  conceptions  of  the  sub- 
jects on  which  they  spake,  and  knew  only  so 
much  as  was  communicated  to  them,  from  time 
to  time,  by  divine  revelation."  (This  is  the 
context  of  ver.  21 ;  and  what  is  here  said  agrees 
with  the  passage,  1  Pet.  i.  10—12.)  Ver.  21, 
Ov  -yap  ^sfa^tcttt  (l^7»  V?n)  cw&pwrtou  qv£%$r{ 
rtote  rtpo^t'cta,  aM,'  vrtb  rtvfvpa'tos  ayi,ov  (divine 
impulse  and  guidance)  $fpojitei>ot  (tpfpfo&at,  mo- 
veri,  agitari, — the  word  by  which  the  Greeks 
commonly  described  the  inspiration  of  their 
9 


minstrels,  prophets,  soothsayers  of  the  temple 
of  Apollo,  &c. ;  vide  s.  9;)  ihdtyoav  aytot-  ©?ov 
av^pcoTtot  (the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,) 
for  no  oracle  was  delivered  from  the  mere  will  of 
man,  (i.  e.,  whether  they  should  speak,  and 
what  and  how  they  should  speak,  did  not  depend 
on  the  will  of  the  prophets  ;)  but  the  ancient  pro- 
phets spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  prophets  themselves  acknowledged,  that 
whatever  they  taught,  whether  by  speaking  or 
writing,  was  dictated  to  them  by  God,  or  the 
Divine  Spirit,  and  was  published  by  his  com- 
mand, Ex.  iv.  12,  15,  16;  Deut.  xviii.  18;  Jer. 
i.  6,  seq. ;  Amos,  iii.  7  ;  Is.  Ixi.  1 ;  Cf.  Morus, 
p.  20,  seq. 

This  passage  from  Peter  proves  the  inspira- 
tion only  of  the  prophetical  part  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  not,  strictly  speaking,  of  the  rest. 
But  from  the  two  passages  taken  together,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  apostles  believed  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, as  a  whole,  to  be  inspired.  We  can  find 
no  evidence  in  all  the  New  Testament  that 
Christ  and  his  apostles  dissented  in  the  least 
from  the  opinion  commonly  received  among  the 
Jews  on  this  subject.  But  the  Jews  regarded 
the  entire  collection  of  the  Old-Testament  scrip- 
tures as  divine.  They  were  frequently  called 
by  Josephus  and  Philo,  ^ttat  ypa$at,  tspa  ypctyi- 
juara,  and  always  mentioned  with  the  greatest 
veneration.  Divine  inspiration  (tjtiitvoia,  ©EOV) 
is  expressly  conceded  by  Josephus  to  the  pro- 
phets .-  and  as  none  but  prophets  were  permitted 
by  the  Jews  to  write  their  national  history,  and 
none  but  priests  to  transcribe  it,  (as  appears 
from  the  same  author ;)  we  conclude  that  inspi- 
ration was  also  conceded  by  him  and  his  con- 
temporaries to  their  historical  books.  Josephus, 
Contra  Apionem,  I.  6,  7,  8.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  20. 

Such  were  the  prevailing  opinions  of  the  Jews 
of  the  first  and  second  centuries,  and  long  be- 
fore the  birth  of  Christ;  and  to  these  opinions 
Christ  and  his  apostles  plainly  assented ;  they 
must,  therefore,  be  adopted  by  all  who  allow 
Christ  and  his  apostles  to  be  divine  teachers. 
The  contemptuous  expressions  which  many  have 
permitted  themselves  to  use  with  regard  to  the 
Old  Testament  are,  as  Morus  justly  observed, 
Epitome,  p.  24,  Christiana  indignae  voces. 

The  doubt  may  arise  whether  some  of  the  his- 
torical books  can  be  considered  as  the  produc- 
tions of  prophets,  as  they  were  compiled  from 
other  works  after  the  Babylonian  exile.  But  no 
essential  difference  is  made,  even  if  what  is  sup- 
posed be  true ;  since  the  most  important  parts 
of  these  historical  books  were  extracted  from 
larger  histories,  and  ascribed  to  the  prophets  by 
whom  they  were  originally  written.  So  the  ex- 
tracts made  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chroni- 
cles, from  a  larger  history  of  Jewish  kings,  are 
ascribed  to  Isaiah. 

F2 


66 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


SECTION  IX. 


HISTORICAL  OBSERVATIONS,  COMPARING  THE  CON- 
CEPTIONS AND  EXPRESSIONS  OF  THE  ANCIENT 
WORLD  RESPECTING  IMiMEDIATE  DIVINE  INFLU- 
ENCE. 

I.  The  Idea  of  Inspiration  Universal. 

WE  find  that  every  nation  of  the  ancient 
world  believed  in  immediate  divine  influences, 
although  the  particular  conceptions  which  they 
entertained  on  this  subject  varied  with  their 
local  circumstances,  and  the  different  degrees  of 
their  intellectual  culture  :  but  in  consequence  of 
the  prevalence  of  a  strict  and  scholastic  philoso- 
phy in  modern  times,  our  own  conceptions  on 
this  subject  have  become  widely  different  from 
those  which  formerly  prevailed,  and  can  hardly 
be  brought  into  agreement  with  them.  The  at- 
tempt has  frequently  been  made  to  reconcile  the 
modes  of  thinking  and  speaking  respecting  di- 
vine influences,  which  were  common  in  all  an- 
tiquity, with  the  philosophical  principles  of  our 
own  day.  But  this  attempt  has  not  been  very 
successful;  and  the  entirely  different  methods 
which  have  been  adopted  by  writers  to  effect 
this  reconciliation  are  a  sufficient  proof  of  the 
difficulty  of  the  undertaking. 

From  the  above  remarks  we  may  conclude — 

1.  That  since  these  conceptions  are  found  to 
exist  among  all  people,  and  to  be  everywhere 
very  much  alike,  especially  in  the  early  stages 
of  cultivation,  they  must  be  natural  to  the  hu- 
man mind,  and  result  directly  from  its  original 
constitution. 

2.  That  if  God  has  seen  fit  to  make  a  direct 
revelation  to  any  particular  man  or  nation,  he 
has  accommodated  himself  in  so  doing  to  these 
original  conceptions  of  the  mind,  and  has,  as  it 
were,  met  them  on  the  way  in  which  they  were 
coming  towards  him.     This  might  be  reason- 
ably expected  from  the  Divine  wisdom  and  good- 
ness ;  for  how  should  a  wise  and  good  father 
deem  it  improper  to  adapt  the  instructions  which 
he  gives  to  his  children  in  their  education  to 
their  natural  expectations,  and  to  answer  the  de- 
mands of  their  minds  ?     This  shews  us  the  rea- 
son why  true  inspiration,  such  as  the  apostles 
and  prophets  enjoyed,  resembles  so  much  in  its 
external  signs,  how  wide  soever  the  internal  dif- 
ference may  be,  the  false  and  imaginary  inspira- 
tion to  which  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  the 
heathen  world  pretended.     The  reason  of  this 
resemblance  between  real  and  pretended  inspi- 
ration should  be  carefully  noted,  because  the 
comparison  of  the  two  has  been  frequently  turn- 
ed to  bad  account. 

3.  That  the  explanations  which  are  frequently 
given  of  those  passages  of  the  Bible  which  treat 
of  inspiration  cannot  be  true.     Some  modern 
writers  explain  away  the  sense  of  these  passages 
till  nothing  seems  to  be  left  of  literal  inspira- 


tion, and  everything  accords  with  their  philo- 
sophical system.  But  by  applying  these  his- 
torical observations  to  these  passages,  we  find 
that  the  sacred  writers  intended  to  teach  a  lite- 
ral inspiration  in  the  proper  sense,  and  were  so 
understood  by  their  contemporary  hearers  and 
readers. 

II.  Rude  Nations  believed  Great  Men  to  be  Inspired. 

Nations  in  the  first  stages  of  improvement 
believe  that  everything  which  is  great,  which 
excites  their  wonder,  or  surpasses  their  compre- 
hension, is  the  result  of  immediate  divine 
agency,  and  overlook  the  second  causes  to  which 
these  effects  are  to  be  ascribed.  Accordingly, 
they  regard  useful  inventions,  laws,  and  reli- 
gious institutions,  as  gifts  bestowed  directly  by 
God,  and  the  distinguished  men  through  whom 
these  blessings  are  bestowed  as  the  favourites 
and  messengers  of  God,  and  therefore  entitled 
to  the  highest  reverence.  This  statement  is 
abundantly  proved  from  the  mythology  of  the 
ancient  nations,  and  especially  of  Greece. 
Through  these  men  God  was  supposed  to  speak  ; 
and  what  they  said  was  regarded  as  the  word  of 
God,  and  they  themselves  as  holy  or  consecrated, 
as  is  implied  in  all  the  ancient  languages.  Thus 
minstrels  and  prophets  were  called  by  the  an- 
cient Greeks  dytot  and  §tloi,  by  the  sacred 
writers  n^n;?,  D^SH  E^K,  2  Kings,  i.  9,  aytot 
®iov  ilv^purtot,  2  Pet.  i.  21;  also  D^NOJ,  which, 
according  to  its  Arabic  etymology,  would  denote 
messengers,  ambassadors,  (of  God.)  The  term 
£fortp6rto$  (Homer,  Iliad,  XII.  228)  signifies 
one  who  speaks  in  the  place  of  God,  rates.  Cicero, 
Pro  Archia  Poeta,  VIII.,  says  that  poets  were 
supposed  divina  quodam  spiritu  inflari,  and  that 
they  were  called  sancti,  quod  quasi  deorum 
aliquo  dono  atque  munere  commendati  nobis  esse 
videantur ;  and  XII.,  that  they  semper  apud 
omnes  sancti  sunt  habiti  atque  dicti.  Cf.  Dresde, 
Proluss.  duo  de  notione  prophetae  in  codice 
sacro,  Wittenberg,  1788 — 89.  Morus,  p 
20,  21. 

III.  Great  Men  believed  themselves  to  be  Inspired. 

Those  who  felt  themselves  urged  on  to  great 
and  noble  deeds,  or  irresistibly  compelled  to 
communicate  their  feelings  to  others,  believed 
the  impulses  by  which  they  were  actuated  to  be 
supernatural,  and  that  they  were  the  organs 
through  whom  the  Deity  spake  and  acted. 
Many  of  the  sages  and  philosophers  of  early  an- 
tiquity expressed  this  belief  respecting  them- 
selves; and  to  doubt  their  sincerity,  or  to  sup- 
pose that  they  made  such  pretensions,  as  artful 
politicians,  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  their 
contemporaries,  would  betray  great  ignorance 
of  the  history  of  mankind.  The  minstrels  and 
prophets  among  the  ancient  Greeks  believed  no 
less  firmly  than  their  hearers  or  readers  that  they 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


67 


were  actuated  by  a  divine  impulse.  This  ap- 
pears evident  from  the  writings  of  Homer. 
What  Cicero  said,  De  Nature  Deorum.  II.  6(5, 
Nemo  vir  magnus  sine  aliquo  afflatu  divino  un- 
quam  fuit,  was  universally  believed  in  all  anti- 
quity. Accordingly,  everything  great  and  noble 
in  the  thoughts  or  actions  of  the  ancient  heroes, 
commanders,  kings,  and  sages,  all  their  great 
undertakings,  their  wars  and  victories,  were 
ascribed  to  the  Deity  working  in  them  as  instru- 
ments of  its  own  purposes. 

It  appears,  then,  from  Nos.  II.  III.,  that  the 
teachers  and  prophets  of  the  heathen  world,  as 
well  as  those  of  the  Bible,  both  believed  them- 
selves and  were  believed  by  others  to  be  in- 
spired. And  the  question  here  naturally  arises, 
whether  the  inspiration  of  the  latter  as  well  as 
that  of  the  former  may  not  have  been  feigned  or 
imaginary.  This  question  may  be  firmly  an- 
swered in  the  negative,  with  reasons  which  are 
perfectly  satisfactory  to  the  unprejudiced  in- 
quirer. The  teachers  and  prophets  of  the  Bible 
were  enabled,  through  the  divine  wisdom  and 
goodness,  to  give  such  proof  of  the  reality  of 
their  inspiration  as  those  of  the  heathen  world 

could  never  offer. 

* 

IV.  Different  Nations  agree  in  their  Representations 

and  Ideas  of  Inspiration. 
The  conceptions  formed  of  the  Deity  in  the 
early  ages  were  extremely  gross  and  sensual. 
Men  in  the  savage  state  have  always  supposed 
God  to  possess  a  body,  and  every  way  to  resem- 
ble themselves.  Their  conceptions  respecting 
his  influence  would  not,  of  course,  be  more  re- 
fined than  respecting  his  nature.  In  this  parti- 
cular, as  well  as  in  many  others,  the  ideas 
which  the  human  mind  has  entertained  have 
been  everywhere  very  much  the  same,  as  is 
proved  by  the  agreement  of  various  languages. 
Almost  all  the  ancient  nations  ascribed  the  di- 
vine influence,  by  which  the  confidents  of  hea- 
ven were  inspired  to  speak  or  act,  to  the  word 
or  mouth  of  God,  or  to  the  breath  proceeding  out 
of  his  mouth ;  and  they  accordingly  regarded  this 
divine  influence  itself  as  literally  inspiration. 
All  this  is  shewn  by  the  language  employed  to 
designate  their  ideas.  Vide  John,  xx.  22.  The 
oracles  of  the  prophets  were  called  among  the 
Hebrews  nirr>  >c,  rwv  n;n,  iji ;  among  the  Greeks, 
tyr^ri,  <j)ct0t$,  xoytov  and  among  the  Romans,  ora- 
cula,  derived,  according  to  Cicero,  from  ore  sive 
oratione  Deorum,  And  these  divine  influences 
are  expressed  in  all  the  ancient  languages  by 
terms  which  literally  designate  blowing,  breath- 
ing, breathing  upon,  &c.;  in  the  Hebrew, 
ryn,  crn^N  rvn,  u>np  nn,  mrv  n-3  rvn;  in  the  Greek, 
rti/sco,  £/irtv£to,  Ttvfiyta  (aytw  or  ©foa;,)  l(Jirtv£v<U$y 
Erttrtvota  ®to{),  also  ^drt^DUToj,  2  Tim.  iii.  lf>, 
(vide  s.  8  ;)  sometimes,  ha-ktlv  iv  jtvevpaat.  Qeov 
lvai,  or  ijtirivoiav  ®tov  t^ftv  in 


the  Latin,  inapiratio,  inspiratus,  (a  spirando,) 
and  spiritu  divino  instinctum  essc,  Livy,  V.  15, 
afflatus  Dei,  afflatum  esse  numine,  inflari  divino 
spiritu,  Cicero,  Pro  Archia  Poeta,  VIII.  From 
this  agreement  in  the  terms  by  which  the  an- 
cient nations  designated  inspiration,  we  argue 
the  agreement  of  their  original  ideas  respecting 
it;  and  we  conclude  that  these  terms,  when 
used  in  the  Bible,  must  be  understood  to  denote 
immediate  divine  influences,  since  this  is  the 
only  sense  in  which  they  were  used  in  the  an- 
cient world.  Cf.  s.  19,  II.,  and  s.  39,  I. 

V.  Inspired  Men  often  spake  what  they  did  not 

understand. 

The  ancient  nations  believed  that  one  whose 
words  and  actions  were  thus  under  the  divine 
influences,  was  himself,  at  the  time  of  inspira- 
tion, merely  passive.  Mentes  declares  to  Tele- 
machus,  Odyssey,  I.  200,  201  — 


'ASavaro 


evl 


Cf.  Odyssey,  XV.  172.  They  also  believed 
that  the  soothsayer  or  minstrel  did  not  himself 
understand,  and  could  not  explain  to  others,  what 
he  spake,  or  rather,  what  God  spake  through 
him,  while  he  was  inspired.  This  opinion  was 
a  natural  consequence  of  the  former.  In  con- 
formity with  this  general  belief  was  the  opinion 
of  the  Jews,  as  expressed  in  the  Talmud,  the 
prophets  themselves  did  not,  in  many  cases,  under- 
stand the  import  of  what  they  predicted.  The 
same  opinion  is  expressed  by  Josephus  and 
Philoj  and  Peter  says,  2  Pet.  i.  20,  rtpotytj'tfia, 
tStaj  £7tt2u;<5£tt?  ov  ytVff  at.  Vide  s.  8.  We  find 
the  same  thing  expressed  in  innumerable  pas- 
sages of  the  Grecian  writers.  Plato,  in  his  dia- 
logue jtspi  *I?aaSo$  (vlcov),  puts  the  prevailing 
notion  of  the  Greeks  into  the  mouth  of  Socra- 
tes :  —  KOV<|>OP  gpr^a  rtoty/rTjs  eati,  xai  rttyvov,  xai 
tspov  xai>  ov  TtpOT'Epov  olornts  rtoitiv  jtpiv  av  c-v&fo; 
•tf  fytvrt'tat>  xai  txtypuv,  xai  6  vovj  p.r^xi'ti  £-v  avtcp 
ivy.  £wj  8'  dv  fowti  t%vj  "fb  x^r^a,  aovvatos  jiav 
jtotflv  ia'tlv  cu£pcortO£,  xai  Zpya/J-cpbiiv  .  .  .  .  ov 
yap  T'££W7  tfavtf  a  ta'yorcuv,  aMa  ^st'a  bwdpei,  .  .  . 
u  >f6$,  itcupoi^fi/os  fovtuv  vovv,  tovtot,s 
,  xai  tol$  ^p^tfjU^Sots,  xai  -fotj 
*  Iva  ^«t$  oti  axovovtef  £t6u»|Ufv  oti 
tiaiv  ot  tav-fa  Xfyovi'fj,  oiiVw  rtoXXov  a 
olj  vovs  p.1*]  rta.psG'tw,  aTtX'  6  ^-EOJ  iativ  o  ' 
8id  tov't&v  8s  <j>^f'yy£T'cu<  rtpoj  tj/jids,  *'  The  poet 
cannot  compose,  nor  the  soothsayer  prophesy, 
unless  he  is  inspired  by  the  Deity,  and  trans- 
ported, as  it  were,  beyond  himself.  He  then 
loses  sight  of  the  rules  of  art,  and  is  borne  away 
by  the  divine  impulse.  The  Deity  deprives 
him  of  his  own  consciousness  and  reflection, 
and  employs  him  as  an  ambassador.  It  is  not 
he  who  speaks,  but  God  who  speaks  through  him." 
True  inspiration  is  described  in  very  much  the 


68 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


same  way,  Mark,  xiii.  11.    Again,  Plato  says 
in  his  dialogue  rtepi,  'Apjr^j  (Mewov),  'Op£w$  a,v 


seat  fjuyd'ka,  xortop^ovfiw  wv  Ttparroufft  xat  Xt'youot, 
"poets  and  prophets  are  justly  called  divine, 
because  while  they  declare  important  things, 
they  themselves  do  not  understand  what  they 
say."  In  the  Odyssey,  I.  347—350,  Telema- 
chus  thus  checks  Penelope  in  attempting  to 
control  the  bard, 

Mfjrep  ipti,  rl  r   dp  dv  <p$ovieis  epirjpov  aoifov 
Tepneiv  ornn?  of  vdof  Spvvraf,  ov   vv   T'   do  i  So  I 
A  IT  10  it  dXXd  TroSt  Zevs   a  ?  r  t  o  y  ,   8j  TE  6iS<Mtv 
'Avipatnv  atywrgoiv  STTCOJ  IS&gffiv  CKOOTW. 


Phemius  declares,  ODYSSEY,  xxn.  346, 


«i/u*  Sedj  6s  /xot  iv  Qpeolv  otfiag 
Tlavroias  ivetpvoev. 

In  the  Sybilline  Oracles,  an  inspired  speaker 
says, 

ovre  yap  ol&a, 
'O  rt  Xtyco,  Kt\£Tai  6'  b  Stdj  ra  IKUOT  dyoptvtiv. 

So  it  is  said  respecting  Balaam,  (Num.  xxiii. 
5,)  that  the  Lord  put  words  into  his  mouth.  The 
ancient  minstrels  and  poets,  in  whose  produc- 
tions art  had  as  yet  no  share,  were  called  simply 
aoiSoi  and  Stot  aoiooL  So  they  are  always  called 
in  Homer.  The  word  jtoiqtrj  is  of  later  origin, 
and  was  unknown  until  poetry  had  become  an 
art.  Cf.  Scripta  Varii  argumenti,  p.  28,  29, 
ed.  2. 

VII.  Inspiration  described  by  terms  indicating 
Violence. 

The  impulse  which  is  felt  by  those  who  are 
inspired  is  commonly  very  strong  and  irresist- 
ible. They  often  betray  their  emotion  by  an 
unusual  strength  of  voice,  and  very  violent  bo- 
dily movements  ;  hence,  in  all  the  ancient  lan- 
guages the  terms  which  designate  the  words  and 
actions  of  those  who  are  inspired  convey  the 
idea  of  violence  of  mental  feeling  and  bodily  ac- 
tion —  e.  g.,  6p/i»7  (impetus),  op^ao/tat.  Those 
who  were  inspired  were  said,  corripi,  agitari 
Deo,  xat£%ea$at,  ex  ®sov,  $£pfc&<u,  (2  Pet.  i.  21), 
pati  Deum;  and  inspiration  itself  was  called 
furor  divinus,  juavta  (jKcuvfo^cw.)  Accordingly, 
the  words  which  in  the  ancient  languages  signi- 
fy to  predict,  generally  signify  too,  to  rage,  to 
act  like  a  madman,  insanire  —  e.  g.,  vaticinari  in 
Latin,  and  in  Hebrew  N3i~>n,  1  Sam.  xviii.  10. 
The  impulses  attending  inspiration  were  like- 
wise represented  in  the  writings  of  the  Asiatics 
as  a  spiritual  and  sacred  intoxication  ,-  because 
they  transported  a  man  beyond  himself,  and 
strained  and  elevated  all  the  powers  of  his  soul. 
Hence  the  figurative  language  employed,  Luke, 
i.  15;  Ephes.  v.  18.  The  ancient  prophets  and 
poets,  as  we  see  from  Homer,  were  accustomed 


to  employ  music  and  song  as  a  means  of  exciting 
and  increasing  inspiration.  Elisha  did  the  same, 
•2  Kings,  iii.  15.  And  the  members  of  the 
schools  of  the  prophets  were  ever  engaged  in 
these  exercises,  1  Sam.  x.  5,  seq. 

SECTION  X. 

OF  THE  VARIOUS  THEORIES  RESPECTING  THE  MAN- 
NER AND  DEGREES  OF  INSPIRATION. 

I.  The  Theory  that  Inspiration  in  the  highest  sense 
was  extended  equally  to  all  Scripture. 

THE  theory  that  the  divine  assistance  which 
the  sacred  writers  experienced  extended  to  every- 
thing which  they  wrote,  words  and  letters  not 
excepted,  is  doubtless  one  of  the  oldest  in  the 
Christian  ehurch.  In  this  view  of  the  subject, 
the  sacred  writers  were  merely  the  scribes  or 
amanuenses,  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  were  often 
compared  by  the  ancients  to  flutes,  upon  which 
the  Spirit  of  God  played.  This  comparison  is 
found  in  the  writings  of  Justin,  Athenagoras, 
Macarius,  and  other  fathers  ;  and  also  of  the 
modern  theologians,  Musaeus,  Baier,  Quenstedt, 
and  even  of  Schubert,  in  the  middle  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century. 

This  theory  accords  very  well  in  many  re- 
spects with  the  mode  of  thought  and  conception 
which  prevailed  in  the  ancient  world,  (vide  s. 
9;)  but  it  is  very  unlike  the  ideas  which  are 
entertained  on  the  subject  of  inspiration  at  the 
present  day.  But  it  is  still  more  important  to 
remark  respecting  it,  that  the  sacred  writers 
themselves  never  profess  to  have  enjoyed,  while 
writing,  inspiration  of  such  a  nature.  And  that 
they  were  not  in  reality  the  mere  organs  of  the 
Divine  Spirit,  whatever  may  have  been  supposed 
by  their  contemporaries,  must  appear  from  a  mo- 
ment's observation.  For  (1)  we  find  that  each 
of  the  writers  of  the  Bible  has  his  own  peculiar 
style,  which  perfectly  distinguishes  him  from 
all  the  rest.  It  has  indeed  been  said,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  accommodated  himself  to  the  style  of 
each  particular  writer ;  but  the  one  who  dictates 
is  not  wont  to  accommodate  himself  to  the  style 
of  the  amanuensis.  (2)  The  manner  in  which 
the  sacred  writers  treat  the  subjects  which  they 
introduce, — the  costume  with  which  they  invest 
them,  is  often,  notwithstanding  the  dignity  and 
excellence  of  the  subjects  themselves,  rude  and 
unpolished,  and  such  as  might  be  expected  from 
illiterate  and  uncultivated  writers.  This  trait, 
at  least  in  their  writings,  must  be  ascribed  to 
their  own  agency.  (3)  In  many  cases  the  in- 
spired writers  evidently  made  use  of  the  pro- 
ductions of  others  :  the  evangelists  composed 
their  histories  in  part  from  the  previous  accounts 
of  the  life  of  Jesus;  the  later  prophets,  Ezekiel 
and  Jeremiah,  frequently  borrowed  from  the 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


69 


oracles  of  Isaiah,  &c.  (4)  The  sacred  histo- 
rians frequently  appealed  to  the  evidence  of 
their  own  senses  for  the  facts  which  they  relate, 
to  the  testimony  of  others,  to  the  records  from 
which  they  derived  their  information,  and  to 
their  own  investigations,  (Luke,  i.  1  ;)  from  all 
which  it  appears  that  they  were  not  passive 
under  the  divine  influences,  and  that  they  were 
not  miraculously  endowed  with  any  knowledge 
which  they  could  obtain  in  the  diligent  use  of 
their  own  intellectual  powers,  since  God  does 
not  work  miracles  when  they  are  unnecessary. 
(5)  They  frequently  speak  in  their  own  names, 
send  greetings,  mention  their  private  affairs  (2 
Tim.  iv.  13,  seq.),  &c.  (6)  In  some  cases  they 
themselves  make  a  distinction  between  their 
own  advice  and  the  express  command  of  God, 
or  of  Christ,  1  Cor.  vii.  25,  coll.  v.  40;  2  Cor. 
viii.  10. 

According  to  the  conceptions  of  the  ancient 
world,  (vide  s.  9,)  the  very  words  employed 
were  in  some  cases,  though  not  always,  inspired  ; 
and  by  many  writers,  both  of  ancient  and  mo- 
dern times,  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  has 
been  thought  to  extend  even  to  the  words  in 
which  it  was  written.  This  opinion  is  advo- 
cated by  Ernesti,  Neue  Theol.  Bibliothek,  b.  iii. 
s.  468,  ff.  The  argument  which  he  used,  and 
which  is  commonly  urged,  is  this :  thoughts 
cannot  be  clearly  communicated  to  the  mind 
without  words;  and  therefore  the  latter,  as  well 
as  the  former,  must  have  been  given  to  the  in- 
spired writers  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  I  may 
obtain  a  person  to  write  a  book  under  my  super- 
intendence and  direction  ;  I  may  communicate 
to  him  the  ideas  to  be  expressed,  furnish  him 
with  all  the  materials  of  the  composition,  and 
suggest,  whenever  it  is  necessary,  particular 
words;  and  all  this  without  dictating  to  him 
every  syllable  and  letter  to  be  employed  :  I  may 
leave  him,  under  my  close  supervision,  to  exe- 
cute the  work  in  his  own  way.  So  Paul  might 
have  been  left  by  the  Spirit  to  pursue  his  own 
method  in  shewing  that  the  Mosaic  institute 
must  be  abolished.  But  in  other  cases  it  seems 
to  be  necessary  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should 
have  communicated  the  very  words  in  which 
the  things  revealed  should  be  expressed  ;  as,  for 
example,  in  certain  numbers,  or  names  of  persons 
and  places,  which  could  not  have  been  known 
except  from  revelation.  Vide  Morus,  p.  35,  n. 
6.  Considerations  like  these  prepared  the  way 
for  the  views  which  follow. 

II.  The  Theory  that  Inspiration  was  extended  in  dif- 
ferent degrees  to  different  portions  of  Scripture. 

This  theory  was  adopted  in  order  to  avoid  the 
difficulties  resulting  from  the  former.  In  this 
view  of  the  subject,  the  degrees  of  inspiration 
vary  with  the  character  of  the  writer  and  the 
nature  of  the  subject.  This  was  believed  by 


some  of  the  ancients  ;  but  theologians  have  never 
been  able  to  agree  in  deciding  how  many  de- 
grees of  inspiration  there  were,  or  in  what  way 
they  should  be  defined  ;  nor  is  it  probable  that, 
on  these  points,  they  will  ever  perfectly  agree, 
since  the  inspired  writers  have  left  them  unde- 
cided, and  we  are  unable  to  determine  with  re- 
spect to  objects  which  lie  so  wholly  beyond  the 
circle  of  our  experience.  The  following  are 
some  of  the  principal  attempts  that  have  been 
made  to  determine  the  manner  and  degrees  of 
inspiration : — 

1.  Some  theologians  are  contented  with  the 
general  position,  that  there  are  different  degrees 
of  inspiration,  and  do  not  think  proper  to  deter- 
mine under  what  particular  degree  any  given 
passage  was  written.    They  go  no  further  than 
to  say,  that  in  writing  on  subjects  of  the  first 
importance,  in  communicating  facts  which  could 
have  been  learned  only  from  revelation,  and  in 
cases  where  there  was  peculiar  liability  to  mis- 
take, the  sacred  writers  enjoyed  the  highest  de- 
gree of  divine  influence — the  inspiration  of  words 
(inspiratio  verbalis) ;  but  that  in  treating  of  sub- 
jects of  inferior  interest — for  example,  of  those 
of  a  merely  historical  nature — they  enjoyed  no 
higher  assistance  than  was  necessary  to  secure 
them  against  error,  to  refresh  their  recollection 
with  the  knowledge  which  they  had  before  ac- 
quired, or  perhaps  to  give  the  first  impulse  to 
speak  or  write.     These  views   of  inspiration 
were  entertained  by  Michaelis,  Doderlein,  and 
others.     Calixtus  thought  that  it  was  sufficient 
to  say,  in  general  terms,  that  the  sacred  writers 
were  secured  by  divine  influence  against  the 
possibility  of  mistake.     Cf.  Morus,  p.  36,  s. 
29,  n.  7.     But  considering  that  we  are  unable, 
at  the  present  time,  to  determine  how  much  the 
sacred  writers  knew  respecting  the  several  sub- 
jects of  which  they  have  treated,  from  their  own 
unaided  study,  and  how  much  from  the  direct 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  none  of  the  theolo- 
gians above  mentioned  have  attempted  to  define 
accurately  the  degree  of  inspiration  under  which 
particular  portions  of  holy  writ  were  composed. 

2.  Other  theologians  have  denied  that  all  the 
books  of  the  Bible  were  inspired,  or  that  the 
whole  of  the  inspired  books  was  written  under 
special  divine  assistance.     Those  who  have  en- 
tertained this  opinion  may  be  subdivided  into 
different  classes.     Some  go  so  far  as  to  say, 
that  some  parts  of  a  book  may  be  of  divine  ori- 
gin, while  other  parts  of  the  same  book  are  of 
human  origin  only,  and  must  therefore  be  care- 
fully distinguished  from  the  former. 

If  we  ask,  now,  which  parts — of  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans,  for  example — are  divine  and 
which  human,  we  shall  receive  various  answers. 
Henry  Holden,  as  cited  by  Richard  Simon, 
would  say,  that  only  those  parts  were  to  be  re- 
ceived as  inspired  which  the  sacred  writers 


70 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


themselves  expressly  declared  were  spoken  by 
God;  and  that  the  other  parts,  whether  they 
related  to  history  or  doctrine,  were  to  be  re- 
garded as  human.  Others  would  say,thatwhat- 
ever  related  to  the  doctrines  of  religion  was  in- 
spired. Semler,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Canon, 
and  likewise  Kant,  maintained  that  the  general 
moral  utility  of  a  work  was  the  only  criterion 
by  which  its  inspiration  could  be  judged;  that 
an  inspired  book  must  therefore  be  calculated 
to  promote  the  moral  improvement  of  all  men 
in  all  ages ;  and  that  consequently  those  parts 
only  of  our  scriptures  which  had  this  tendency 
were  inspired. 

According  to  the  last  opinion,  some  parts  of  a 
book — those  of  universal  application,  and  of  ge- 
neral moral  utility — are  inspired,  while  other 
parts  of  one  and  the  same  book,  not  possessing 
these  marks  of  divinity,  are  merely  human. 
To  this  view  it  may  be  objected,  (1)  that  by 
subjecting  inspiration  to  the  criterion  of  utility 
it  does  the  same  as  to  deny  it  altogether;  since 
what  might  be  received  as  divine  by  one,  from 
the  general  utility  which  he  might  suppose  it  to 
possess,  might  be  denied  this  character  by  an- 
other, as  wanting,  in  his  view,  this  mark  of 
inspiration.  (2)  It  is  chargeable  with  the  error 
of  reasoning  a  priori  upon  a  question  of  fact — 
an  error  which  cannot  be  justified;  for  if  God 
has  seen  fit  to  give  special  divine  aids  to  any 
individual,  we  are  not  to  determine  by  our  rea- 
sonings, and  prescribe  as  it  were  to  God,  what 
and  how  great  they  may  or  must  have  been. 
(3)  It  does  not  correspond  with  the  view  of  the 
inspiration  and  divinity  of  a  book  entertained 
by  the  ancient  world,  and  of  course  by  the 
sacred  writers.  Vide  s.  9.  It  is  easy  to  see, 
that  while  those  who  hold  this  opinion  retain 
the  ancient  words  inspiration  and  divinity,  they 
endeavour  to  use  them  in  such  a  sense  as  will 
accord  with  the  prevailing  conceptions  of  our 
own  age,  and  with  the  principles  of  their  philo- 
sophy. 

This  opinion  is  not  of  recent  origin.  Tertul- 
lian  says,  "  A  nobis  nihil  omnino  rejiciendum 
est,  quod  pertinet  ad  nos  :  et  legimus,  omnem 
scripturam  sedificationi  habikm  divinitus  inspi- 
rari."  De  habitu  mulierum,  c.  3.  He  says 
this  in  order  to  defend  the  book  of  Enoch. 

Note. — We  may  indeed  decide  that  a  divine 
revelation  cannot  contain  any  doctrines  subver- 
sive of  the  moral  improvement  and  happiness 
of  men,  which  we  have  before  shewn  (Intro- 
duction, s.  3, 6)  to  be  the  great  objects  for  which 
a  revelation  was  made.  And  we  may  conse- 
quently determine,  that  no  book  which  contains 
such  hurtful  doctrines  can  be  inspired.  So  far 
Kant,  Fichte,  and  others,  are  right.  But  when 
they  undertake  to  prescribe  to  Supreme  Wisdom 
the  means  by  which  this  end  is  to  be  attained, 
they  transcend  their  proper  limits.  These 


means,  it  is  obvious  to  every  one,  must  vary 
with  the  age,  character,  and  other  circumstances 
of  those  for  whom  they  are  intended.  And 
who  can  say,  that  positive  religion  may  not  be 
a  means  of  moral  improvement,  by  giving  effi- 
cacy to  moral  religion,  and  hence  be  revealed 
and  inspired!  If  positive  doctrines  were  not 
contained  in  the  Bible,  philosophers  would  soon 
demonstrate  that  they  must  be  contained  in  a 
revelation  made  from  God. 

3.  The  great  body  of  modern  theologians, 
both  of  the  Romish  and  protestant  churches, 
prefer  a  middle  course  between  the  theory  first 
mentioned  and  the  opinions  last  cited.     They 
adopt,  for  the  most  part,  the  theory  of  Claude 
Frassen,  a  Franciscan  monk  and  a  scholastic 
theologian  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  sup- 
pose three  degrees  of  inspiration. 

(a)  The  first  and  highest  degree  of  inspira- 
tion is,  the  revelation  of  things  before  unknown 
to  the  sacred  writers.   This  is  called  by  Frassen, 
inspiratio   antecedens,  but   commonly  by  other 
writers,  revelation,-  who  thus  make  a  distinction 
between  inspiration  and  revelation,  and  hold  that 
revelation  is  indeed  always  attended  by  inspira- 
tion, but  that  inspiration  is  not,  in  every  case, 
preceded  by  revelation.     Everything  in  the  sa- 
cred scriptures,  they  say,  is  inspired,  but  every- 
thing there  is  not  revealed  ;  for  much  which  is 
contained  in  the  Bible  was  known  to  the  sacred 
writers  from  their  own  reflection. 

(b)  The  second  degree  of  inspiration  is,  the 
security  against  error  which  God  affords  the  sa- 
cred writers  in  the  exhibition  of  doctrines  or 
facts  with  which  they  are  already  acquainted, 
the  care  which  he  takes  in  the  selection,  truth, 
and  intelligibleness  of  the  subjects  introduced, 
and  the  words   by  which  they  are  expressed, 
&c.     This  is  called  by  Frassen,  inspiratio  con- 
comitans. 

(c)  The  third  degree   of  inspiration  is,  the 
divine  authority  stamped  upon  writings,  origin- 
ally composed  without  inspiration,  by  the  ap- 
probation of  inspired  men,  and  is  called  inspira- 
tio consequens.  This  degree  of  inspiration  is  pre- 
dicated of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which  were  approved  by  Jesus  and  the 
apostles;  and  of  the  gospels  Mark  and  Luke, 
which  were  approved  by  Peter  and  Paul,  and 
afterwards  by  John. 

This  theory  is  developed  by  Doddridge,  and 
still  more  fully  by  Tollner;  the  latter  of  whom 
endeavours  to  shew,  that  the  authority  of  the 
holy  scriptures  as  the  source  of  our  knowledge 
in  matters  of  faith  is  perfectly  secured,  even  in 
cases  where  only  the  lowest  degree  of  inspira- 
tion is  admitted.  Vide  Tollner,  Die  gottliche 
Eingebung  der  heiligen  Schrift. 

4.  Other   theologians   deem   it   sufficient  to 
shew  that  the  prophets  and  apostles  enjoyed  a 
higher  divine  assistance  and  support.     Vide  s. 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


71 


8.  They  were  induced  in  various  ways,  some- 
times by  natural  means,  and  sometimes  by  im- 
mediate divine  direction,  to  write  the  sacred 
books.  They  always  wrote,  as  well  as  spoke, 
as  persons  enjoying  the  influence  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  This  is  the  light  in  which  inspiration 
is  regarded  by  Morus,  p.  32,  seq.  s.  27,  28.  He 
did  not  think  necessary  to  determine  what  par- 
ticular actus  &ortvtv<rtias  was  exerted  in  each 
particular  actus  scribendi. 

It  may  be  well  to  remark  the  striking  contrast 
between  the  meagre  productions  of  the  fathers 
of  the  first  century  and  the  rich  and  instructive 
writings  of  the  apostles,  most  of  whom  were 
illiterate  me'n.  But  how,  the  unprejudiced  in- 
quirer will  be  compelled  to  ask,  could  the  latter 
have  written  in  sush  a  widely  different  manner, 
and  one  so  superior  to  that  of  the  fathers,  if  they 
had  not  enjoyed  a  higher  divine  assistance! 

Note. — The  following  works  on  this  subject 
may  be  recommended  to  the  attention  of  the  stu- 
dent. Rich.  Simon,  Histoire  Critique  du  V. 
T.,  especially  ch.  23 — 25;  and  the  Letters  of  a 
Dutch  dmne  on  the  critical  History  of  Simon, 
edited  by  Le  Clerc.  The  opinions  contained  in 
this  work,  some  of  which  are  true,  and  others 
false  and  partial,  have  been  developed  by  mo- 
dern theologians.  Among  modern  works,  the 
following  are  most  distinguished  : — (1)  Semler, 
Abhandlung  von  freyer  Untersuchung  des  Ca- 
nons, 4  Thle,  Halle,  1771—75,  8vo.  The  dif- 
ferent theories  are  here  illustrated  and  examined. 
This  work  induced  Schmid,  Miiller,  Pittiscus, 
and  others,  to  undertake  the  defence  of  the  com- 
mon doctrine.  (2)  Tollner,  Die  gottliche 
Eingebung  der  heiligen  Schrift,  Mitau  und 
Leipzig,  1782,  8vo.  (3)  Koppen,  Die  Bibel 
ein  Werk  der  gottlichen  Weisheit.  This  book 
contains  many  excellent  observations  on  the 
origin  and  collection  of  the  different  parts  of  the 
Bible.  (4)  Fichte,  Versuch  einer  Kritik  aller 
Offenbarung,  Konigsberg,  1793,  8vo — a  pro- 
found inquiry  respecting  the  possibility  of  direct 
revelation,  and  the  criteria  by  which  it  is  to  be 
judged.  (5)  Sonntag,  Doctrina  inspirationis, 
ej usque  ratio,  historia,  et  usus  popularis,  Hei- 
delberg, 1810,  8vo. 

Note  2. — The  teacher  of  religion  should  not 
trouble  the  common  people  and  the  young  with 
the  recondite  investigations  of  ancient  and  mo- 
dern theologians  respecting  the  nature,  manner, 
and  degrees  of  inspiration,  or  respecting  the  an- 
cient mode  of  thought  and  expression  on  this 
subject.  In  his  public  instructions  he  should 
confine  himself  to  the  scriptural  view  of  inspira- 
tion exhibited  in  s.  8.  He  should,  as  Calixtus 
and  Morus  have  done,  give  prominence  to  the 
truth,  that  the  sacred  writers  were,  by  divine 
aid,  perfectly  secured  against  error.  He  should 
explain  to  his  hearers  the  promises  of  assistance 
which  Christ  gave  his  disciples.  In  doing  this, 


he  will  sufficiently  establish  and  confirm  their 
faith.  But  he  ought  not  by  any  means  to  with- 
hold this  doctrine  from  those  whom  he  is  ap- 
pointed to  teach,  since  it  is  a  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Bible,  and  is  calculated,  as  there  exhibited, 
to  produce  a  deep  and  happy  persuasion  of  the 
truths  of  revealed  religion.  Nor  should  he  at- 
tempt to  modernize  this  doctrine,  but  should 
rather  labour  to  restore  it  to  its  early  simpli- 
city. 

SECTION  XL 

OF  SOME  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  ATTRIBUTES  OF 
THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 

SINCE  the  sixteenth  century,  the  theologians 
of  the  protestant  church  have  endeavoured  to  ob- 
viate various  opinions,  respecting  the  nature  and 
use  of  the  Bible,  which  appeared  to  them  erro- 
neous, by  treating  in  their  systems  of  the  attri- 
butes of  the  holy  scriptures.  Most  of  what  they 
say  on  this  subject  is  aimed  against  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Romish  church.  The  following  are 
the  principal  attributes  of  the  Bible : — 

I.  The  Intel ligibkness  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

The  protestant  church  has  maintained  from 
the  first,  in  opposition  to  the  Romish,  that  the 
holy  scriptures  are  intelligible.  The  popes  have 
always  been  anxious  to  crush  a  spirit  of  free  in- 
quiry in  the  members  of  their  church,  to  subject 
belief  to  human  authority,  and  to  arrogate  to 
themselves  a  judicial  power,  even  in  matters  of 
faith.  But  they  saw,  at  once,  that  the  free  use 
of  the  Bible  would  be  very  much  in  the  way  of 
the  success  of  their  designs;  and  therefore  either 
wholly  interdicted,  or  at  least  encumbered  the 
common  use  of  it,  under  the  pretence  that  it  was 
full  of  obscurities,  calculated  to  mislead  or  con- 
found the  faith  of  the  laity,  which  ought  to  de- 
pend upon  tradition  or  ecclesiastical  authority. 
Vide  Introduction,  s.  7,  III.  and  Art.  I.  s.  13. 
This  extravagant  opinion,  however,  is  only  re- 
ceived by  the  more  zealous  adherents  of  the 
papal  see,  and  is  rarely  entertained  by  the  theo- 
logians of  the  Gallican  church. 

On  the  other  hand,  many  protestant  theolo- 
gians have  entertained  opinions  respecting  the 
intelligibleness  of  the  Bible  which  are  equally 
extravagant.  The  truth  on  this  subject  may, 
perhaps,  be  best  expressed  as  follows : — The 
holy  scriptures  are  so  written,  that  the  first  read- 
ers, for  whom  they  were  especially  designed, 
could  understand  the  greater  part  of  them  with- 
out the  necessity  of  laborious  interpretation,  and 
that  even  we  can  ^obtain  from  them  a  clear  ac- 
quaintance with  those  doctrines  of  religion  which 
are  essential  to  our  improvement,  comfort,  and 
salvation.  There  is  no  need  of  proving  more 
than  this.  The  following  remarks  will  illustrate 
the  view  here  expressed  : — 


72 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


1.  Many  parts  of  these  books  must  have  been 
unavoidably  obscure  even  to  the  contemporaries 
of  the  sacred  writers,  from  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
jects   of    revelation.     Many    of    the    subjects 
brought  to  view  in  the  epistles  of  Paul  were 
hard  to  be  understood,  even  at  his  own  time,  2 
Pet.  iii.  16.    And  much  that  was  written  under 
divine  influence  was  unintelligible  even  to  the 
sacred  writers  themselves.     Vide  s.  9,  V.    But 
as  Buddeus  justly  observes,  "alia  est  perspi- 
cuitas  rerum,  alia  verborum." 

2.  The  writers  of  the  Bible  employed  the  lan- 
guage and  style  which  were  common  in  the  age 
in  which  they  lived,  and   understood  by  the 
public  for  which  they  wrote ;   they  expressed 
themselves  in  conformity  with   the   modes   of 
speech  and  thought  then  prevalent:  of  course, 
their  writings  must  have  been,  for  the  most  part, 
intelligible  to   their  contemporaries,  to  whom 
they  had  always  primary  reference  in  what  they 
wrote. 

3.  But  in  consequence  of  this  very  circum- 
stance, much  which  was  then  perfectly  intelli- 
gible is  so  no  longer.     Our  language  is  wholly 
unlike  the  Hebrew  or  Hebraistic  Greek  in  which 
they  wrote.     And  our  manners,  customs,  opi- 
nions,  and    modes    of   thinking,   are    equally 
changed.   If  we  were  able  to  place  ourselves  in 
the  circumstances  and  enter  into  the  feelings  of 
the  inspired  authors,  we  should  find  their  writ- 
ings comparatively  easy  and  intelligible.     But 
common  Christians  cannot  do  this  ;  and  even  the 
most  learned  will  find  passages  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  which,  after  all  their  efforts, 
will  remain  doubtful  and  obscure.   If,  however, 
we  set  aside  all  passages  of  this  nature,  we  shall 
find  enough  left  to  give  us  a  clear  and  sure 
knowledge  of  the  essential  doctrines  of  religion. 
These  difficult  and  obscure  passages  commonly 
have  no  bearing,  or,  at  most,  a  very  remote  one, 
upon  the  truths  of  salvation.     And  it  is  fre- 
quently the  case,  that  when  an  important  doc- 
trine or  duty  is  expressed  with  apparent  obscu- 
rity in  one  place,  it  is  exhibited  elsewhere  with 
so    much    the   greater  clearness.     Experience 
shews,  that  people  in  common  life  have  been 
able  to  acquire,  by  the  exercise  of  a  sound  under- 
standing, and  by  the  aids  of  the  divine  Spirit,  a 
fund  of  useful  knowledge  and  of  important  prin- 
ciples, even  from  very  defective  translations  of 
the  Bible.     Indeed,  an  illiterate  man,  who  pos- 
sesses a  sound  understanding  and  good  charac- 
ter* and  studies  the  Bible  without  prejudice,  will 
often  understand  it  better,  and  with  more  ease, 
than  the  scholar,  who  first  adopts  his  opinions 
and  then  endeavours  to  find  them  in  the  Bible. 
The  latter  looks  upon  all  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  through  a  discoloured  medium.  The  holy 
scriptures  were  not  written  for  the  scholar,  as 
such ;  nor  were  they  intended  to  afford  materials 
for  speculation,  but  rather  enjoyment  for  the 


heart.  Hence  they  are  often  misunderstood  and 
despised  by  those  whose  feelings  are  deadened, 
and  who  have  little  taste  for  anything  but  spe- 
culation. Most  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible  were 
themselves  illiterate  men,  and  lived  in  familiar 
intercourse  with  common  people.  They  there- 
fore meet  the  wants  of  this  class  of  society,  and 
agree  with  the  common  mode  of  thought  and 
expression  better  than  the  learned  commonly  do. 
This  consideration  is  overlooked  by  those  who 
would  take  the  Bible  from  the  hands  of  the  com- 
mon people.  It  is  truly  remarked  by  Thomas  i 
Kern  pis,  that  the  holy  scriptures  must  be  read 
with  the  assistance  of  the  same  Spirit  by  which 
they  were  inspired.  Now  this  may  be  enjoyed 
by  all — by  the  unlearned  as  well  as  the  learned, 
if  they  only  sincerely  wish  to  obtain  it. 

It  should  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  very 
difficulties  and  obscurities  which  occur  in  the 
Bible  have  been  very  beneficial  to  the  human 
race  by  exercising,  and  of  course  strengthening, 
the  powers  of  the  mind.  If  the  scriptures  were 
so  plain  that  all  parts  of  them  could  be  under- 
stood without  study,  they  would  not  furnish 
nourishment  and  employment  for  the  spirit  of 
inquiry.  Lessing  made  the  bold  assertion,  that 
the  human  race  had  not  been  benefited  so  much 
by  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  Bible  as  by  the 
inquiries  and  investigations  to  which  the  Bible 
had  given  occasiou. 

Some  have  attempted  to  prove  the  intelligible- 
ness  of  the  Bible  from  texts  of  scripture ;  but  an 
opponent  would  not  allow  the  testimony  of  a 
writer  in  his  own  behalf  to  be  valid  proof;  nor 
do  these  texts  (such,  for  example,  as  compare 
scripture  with  a  light,  enlightening  men,  and 
shewing  them  the  way  to  true  happiness,  Psa. 
xix.  8;  cxix.  105)  apply  so  much  to  the  scrip- 
tures themselves  as  to  the  doctrines  which  they 
contain. 

II.  The  Efficacy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

When  we  say  the  holy  scriptures  have  an  effi- 
cacy, we  use  figurative  language ;  forthrs  efficacy 
belongs  rather  to  the  doctrines  and  principles 
contained  in  the  scriptures.  Theologians  have 
been  led  to  adopt  many  fine  distinctions  on  this 
point,  by  the  controversies  which  have  existed 
respecting  the  means  of  grace.  We  shall  con- 
sider these  distinctions  in  connexion  with  the 
means  of  grace,  s.  133,  II. 

III.  The  Infallibility  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

When  we  assert  the  infallibility  of  the  holy 
scriptures,  we  mean  to  say,  that  if  any  doctrine 
of  religion  can  be  clearly  shewn  to  be  taught  in 
them,  it  must  be  received  as  true,  and  needs  no 
further  evidence ;  according  to  the  maxim,  sen- 
sus  hermeneutice  verus,  est  etiam  dogmatice  verus. 
This  position  is  grounded  on  the  fact,  that  the 
authors  of  the  Bible  were  rendered  infallible  by 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


73 


divine  influence,  according  to  the  promise  of 
Christ,  John,  xiv.  26.  It  is  taken  in  opposition 
to  those  who  rely  unduly  upon  unaided  reason 
in  matters  of  faith;  Vide  Introduction,  s.  7,  II. 
and  s.  8,  9.  But  before  we  can  prove  that  any 
doctrine  is  taught  in  the  holy  scriptures,  we 
must  be  sure  of  the  uncorruptedness  of  the  sa- 
cred text,  and  of  the  justice  of  our  interpretation 
of  it;  and  as  both  of  these  points  are  sometimes 
attended  with  difficulties,  we  cannot  apply  this 
maxim  to  much  purpose  in  particular  cases,  al- 
though, abstractly  considered,  it  is  perfectly 
true. 

IV.  The  Authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

1.  Auctoritas  normativa.     By  this  is  meant 
the  authority  of  the  Bible  to  bind  men  to  believe 
and  do  what  it  teaches  and  prescribes.     This  is 
likewise  called  auctoritas  canonica  (petito  voca- 
bulo  ex  Gal.  vi.  16.)    Vide  Morus,  p.  37.     This 
authority  depends  upon  the  infallibility  of  the 
scriptures,  and  also  upon  their  divine  origin. 
Moreover,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  re- 
quire that  every  doctrine  should  be  examined 
by  the  instructions  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles, 
and  should  be  received  as  obligatory,  if  found 
i.o  agree,  but  otherwise,  should  be  rejected,  1 
John,  iv.  1,  coll.  2  John,  v.  10 ;  Gal.  i.  8.     Paul 
exhorts  Timothy  to  hold  fast  the  doctrines  of 
true  Christianity  (vyiawovtss  koyot,),  the  sum  of 
which  (urtoT'VTtcocris,  what  we  now  find  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostles)  he  had  taught  him  with 
his  own  mouth,  2  Tim.  i.  13.     Jesus  himself 
required  that  the   doctrines  which    he   taught 
should  be  received  on  his  mere  authority,  and 
frequently  brought  no  other  proof  than  the  sim- 
ple assertion,  'Eyw  Se  te'yw  vplv*     He  gave  Ni- 
codemus  to  understand  that  he  acted  very  incon- 
sistently in  acknowledging  his  divine  authority, 
and  yet  questioning  the  truth  of  his  assertions. 
The  question  which  Nicodemus  asked,  "  How 
can  these  things  be  7"  was  indeed  very  natural ; 
and  the  serious  inquirer  after  truth  will  always 
rejoice  to  have  it  answered.     But  if  it  cannot  be 
answered,  he  must  be  content  with  the  mere  as- 
sertion of  a  teacher  whose  divine  authority  he 
must  acknowledge  :  he  must  say  with  respect 
to  Christ,  as  Pliny  the  younger  said  of  a  certain 
wise  man,  tua  mihi  auctoritas  pro  ratione  sufficit. 

2.  Auctoritas  judicialis.     By  this  is  meant, 
that  the  scriptures  are  the  final  appeal  in  mat- 
ters of  faith  and  practice.    No  doctrines  opposed 
to  the  Bible  can  be  admitted  as  true  by  those 
who  receive  it  as  an  inspired  book.     Christ  and 
the  apostles  everywhere  appeal  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  thus  shew  that  they,  and  the  Jews 
generally,  regarded  it  as  divine,  John,  v.  39; 
Matt.  xxii.  44;  Acts,  xv.  15.     But  in  applying 
the  judicial  authority  of  scripture  to  particular 
cases,  everything  depends  upon  the  justice  of 
the  interpretation ;  arid  we  must  frequently  say, 

10 


that  it  is  rather  the  interpreter  than  the  scripture 
which  decides.  Most  theological  controversies 
owe  their  origin  to  the  different  interpretations 
of  the  Bible ;  and  every  theologian  pleads  the 
auctoritas  judicialis  of  scripture  in  behalf  of  his 
own  opinion,  because  he  regards  one  particular 
sense  of  the  words  as  true.  The  question  is, 
how  he  proves  that  this  sense  is  the  true  one, 
and  whether  he  interprets  the  Bible  on  just  prin- 
ciples 1 

The  text,  Heb.  iv.  12,  13,  where  the  word  of 
God  is  said  to  be  xprtixbs  sv&v/jirfituv  xai  evvoiuv 
scapSuxj,  is  often  cited  in  this  connexion.  But 
the  phrase  xoyoj  &fov  here  signifies  the  divine 
threatenings  against  sinners  and  apostates.  The 
meaning  of  the  text  is,  the  threatenings  of  God 
relate  not  merely  to  the  outward  actions,  but  to 
the  most  secret  purposes  of  evil. 

V.  The  Sufficiency  or  Completeness  of  the  Holy 

Scriptures. 

1.  The  sufficiency  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 
All  the  doctrines  affecting  the  improvement, 
comfort,  and  salvation  of  men,  which  were 
taught  by  Jesus,  the  apostles,  and  prophets,  are 
contained  in  the  holy  scriptures,  without  any 
omission.  This  completeness  (plenitudo)  of 
the  scriptures  is  called  by  Paul,  Acts,  xx.  27, 
rtatsav  f^ov^v  tfov  ©sou,  the  whole  divine  plan  of 
salvation.  This  attribute  of  scripture  is  main- 
tained in  opposition  both  to  those  who  receive 
from  tradition  some  doctrines  of  faith  which  are 
not  found  in  the  Bible,  and  to  those  who,  under 
the  influence  of  enthusiasm,  would  make  addi- 
tions from  new,  pretended  revelations  to  the  doc- 
trines really  revealed.  In  opposition  to  both  of 
these  classes,  this  attribute  may  be  truly  predi- 
cated of  the  holy  scriptures;  for  the  instructions 
which  the  Bible  contains  respecting  the  way  of 
real  happiness  here  and  hereafter  are  so  com- 
plete that  we  have  no  occasion  to  resort  either 
to  the  dark  sources  of  tradition  or  the  assevera- 
tions of  fanatics.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  when 
we  affirm  the  sufficiency  of  the  scriptures  we 
must  not  be  understood  to  mean  that  the  Bible 
is  a  repertory  of  information  respecting  the  arts, 
sciences,  literature,  and  every  object  of  human 
knowledge.  These  things  do  not  fall  within 
the  scope  of  the  sacred  writers,  because  they  do 
not  stand  immediately  connected  with  the  great 
end  of  man.  The  instructions  contained  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  were  adapted  to  the 
comprehension  and  wants  of  those  for  whom 
they  were  primarily  written.  But  we  are  per- 
mitted, according  to  the  example  of  Jesus  and 
his  apostles,  yea,  we  are  required,  to  adapt  these 
instructions  to  our  own  wants,  and,  by  the  help 
of  these  scriptures,  to  make  constant  progress 
in  spiritual  knowledge  and  experience.  This 
progress,  however,  must  still  accord  with  the 
Biblo,  and  be  regulated  by  the  principles  of 
G 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Christianity.  The  Bible,  from  which  these 
principles  are  learned,  must  be  the  star  by  which 
we  are  guided  in  all  our  advances.  In  this  view, 
Paul  recommends  the  use  of  the  Old  Testament, 
even  to  Christian  teachers,  2  Tim.  iii.  15.  Vide 
Introduction,  s.  5.  I. 

2.  The  sufficiency  nf  (he  books.  This  implies, 
that  our  canon  contains  books  enough  to  furnish 
the  Christian  with  all  necessary  knowledge  of 
the  truths  of  religion.  This  cannot  be  proved 
from  the  sacred  writers  themselves ;  for  the 
canon  must  have  been  incomplete  while  any 
one  of  them  was  as  yet  writing.  The  passage 
Rev.  xxii.  18,  19,  idv  m  tTtt^  eV  avtd,  x.  4.  x. 
was  formerly  cited  in  proof  of  the  sufficiency  of 
the  books  of  the  Bible,  by  Tertullian,  Adv. 
Herm.  c.  22,  and  has  since  been  frequently 
called,  as  well  as  the  whole  book  in  which  it 
stands,  sigillum  canonis.  But  the  prohibition 
here  expressed  strictly  relates  only  to  the  Apo- 
calypse. So  much,  however,  is  beyond  dispute, 
that  the  great  truths  of  salvation  are  repeated  so 
often  in  the  Bible,  that  they  might  all  be  learned 
from  a  much  smaller  collection  of  books  than 
we  have  at  present.  If  therefore  some  part  of 
the  canon  should  be  rejected  as  spurious,  the 
completeness  of  the  holy  scriptures  would  be 
unaffected,  and  the  system  of  divine  truth  re- 
main entire. 

SECTION  XII. 

OF  THE  USE  OF  THE  BIBLE  AS  THE  SOURCE  OF  THE 
DOCTRINES  OF  REVELATION. 

I.  The  Use  of  the  New  Testament. 

FROM  the  remarks  already  made,  it  appears 
that  the  scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  are  to 
be  regarded  as  the  source  from  which  we  are  to 
derive  the  knowledge  of  the  principal  doctrines 
of  the  Christian  religion.  But  in  deriving  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, we  must  be  governed  by  the  following 
considerations : — 

1.  The  authors  of  the  New  Testament  had 
their  contemporaries  principally  in  view  in  what 
they  wrote.  Paul,  for  example,  in  his  epistle 
to  the  Romans,  had  primary  and  principal  refer- 
ence to  the  church  then  existing  at  Rome,  and 
not  to  the  Christian  church  in  succeeding  ages. 
These  scriptures  would  have  been  very  differ- 
ently composed  if  they  had  been  throughout  in- 
tended for  all  ages  of  the  world.  Instead  of 
containing  salutations,  allusions  to  local  inte- 
rests, and  temporary  disputes  and  errors,  and  a 
disconnected  view  of  the  doctrines  of  revelation, 
they  would  have  exhibited  a  complete,  connected 
system  of  religious  truth.  Those  texts  of  the 
Bible,  then,  which  relate  merely  to  circum- 
stances then  existing,  but  never  afterwards,  can- 
not be  regarded  as  sources  of  Christian  doctrine. 


Such  texts  are  indeed  useful,  in  making  us  ac- 
quainted with  the  history  of  the  times  in  which 
they  were  written,  and  in  furnishing  examples 
for  imitation,  if  similar  circumstances  should 
recur ;  but  in  themselves  they  have  no  binding 
authority  at  the  present  time.  Texts  of  this  na- 
ture are  those  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
in  the  epistles  to  Timothy,  which  relate  to  the 
constitution  of  the  apostolical  church.  For  these 
texts  the  sacred  writers  do  not  claim  an  univer- 
sal and  perpetual  authority,  still  less  do  they 
claim  this  for  all  parts  of  their  writings  without 
exception,  although  they  do  distinctly  for  the 
Christian  doctrines  which  they  teach.  Vide 
Introduction,  s.  5,  I.  and  s.  8,  III.  3,  b. 

2.  Since  the  scriptures  of  the  New  Testament 
were  originally  adapted  to  the  age  in  which  they 
were  written,  and  always  presuppose  the  oral 
instructions  which  were  given  by  the  apostles, 
we  cannot  expect  that  all  the  doctrines  of  faith 
should  be  taught  in  them  with  equal  fulness  and 
clearness.     The  slight  and  unfrequent  mention 
of  a  doctrine  in  our  sacred  writings  does  not 
prove  its  unimportance,  since  the  authors  of  the 
Bible  might  have  known  that  it  was  already 
sufficiently  understood  and  duly  regarded  by 
those  for  whom  they  wrote.     Nor  does  the  fre- 
quent and  extended  discussion  of  any  subject  in 
the  Bible  prove  its  internal  and  lasting  import- 
ance, since  the  local   circumstances   of  some 
churches,  or  the  character  of  certain  individuals, 
may  have  required  a  more  repeated  and  urgent 
inculcation  of  particular  doctrines  than  would  be 
otherwise  advisable.     Thus  the  circumstances 
of  the  church  at  the  time  when  the  apostles 
wrote  led  them  to  insist  more  frequently  and 
strongly  upon  the  abolition  of  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tute than  they  would  have  done  in  other  circum- 
stances. 

3.  The  case  is  exactly  the  same  with  the 
manner  in  which  the  apostles  taught  the  doc- 
trines of  religion.     Their  manner  was  adapted 
to  the  conceptions,  views,  and  capacities  of  their 
contemporary  hearers  and  readers,  and  is  often 
wholly  inappropriate  to  other  persons  in  other 
circumstances.     In  bringing  the  instructions  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles  in  proof  of  any  doctrine 
of  religion,  we  must  therefore,  in  many  cases, 
pay  more  regard  to  the  truth  itself  which  they 
teach,  than  to  the  manner  in  which  they  illus- 
trate it.     For  many  of  the  proofs  and  illustra- 
tions employed  successfully  by  the  first  teachers 
of  Christianity  have  now  lost  their  force  and 
evidence.     It  is  frequently  true,  that  those  very 
cortsiderations    which    must    have    made    the 
strongest  impression  on  the  contemporaries  of 
the  apostles,  are  least  of  all  convincing  to  us ; 
while,  on  the  contrary,  the  proofs  by  which  we 
are  most  influenced  would  have  been  scarcely 
intelligible  to  them.     The  proofs  which  Jesus 
adduced  from  the  01  rl  Testament  in  behalf  of 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


75 


many  of  his  doctrines  wore  far  more  convincing 
to  the  Jews  than  the  most  powerful  arguments 
which  could  be  drawn  from  human  reason.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  many  of  the  illustrations 
•contained  in  the  epistles  to  the  Hebrews  and 
Galatians.  The  doctrines  of  the  Bible  are  un- 
alterably true,  and  intended  for  all  ages  of  the 
world  ;  but  the  method  in  which  they  are  taught, 
the  costume  in  which  they  are  invested,  the  ar- 
guments by  which  they  are  proved,  w7ere  all  de- 
signed primarily  for  the  Jews,  and  are  therefore 
by  no  means  obligatory  on  the  present  teachers 
of  religion. 

We  may  therefore  affirm,  that  while  it  was 
the  design  of  God  that  religious  knowledge 
should  be  communicated  by  means  of  these  books 
to  all  the  successive  ages  of  the  world,  this  was 
not  the  design  which  the  authors  of  the  Bible  had 
in  view,  in  a  great  portion  of  what  they  wrote. 
But  for  the  very  reason  that  these  sacred  books 
were  designed  for  the  good  of  all  succeeding 
ages,  each  particular  portion  of  them  could  not 
possibly  be  designed  for  each  successive  age. 
What  if  most  useful  and  necessary  for  one 
period  is  not  equally  so  for  another.  But  we 
should  expect,  that  the  wants  of  the  present  and 
future  would  be  alike  provided  for  in  the  codex 
of  revelation ;  and  this  we  find  to  be  done  in  the 
Bible.  Many  parts  of  it,  which  seem  hardly  to 
answer  the  demands  of  the  present  day,  were 
perfectly  adequate  to  the  wants  of  a  former 
period  ;  and  the  reverse  :  and  many  parts  which 
were  once  in  the  highest  degree  useful,  and 
have  ceased  to  be  so  now,  may  perhaps,  in  after 
times,  become  as  useful  and  important  as  ever. 

4.  Those  texts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments which  exhibit  particular  doctrines  with 
the  most  fulness  and  clearness,  and  are  therefore 
most  frequently  cited  for  proof  or  illustration,  are 
called  sedes  doctrinarum,  dicta  probantia ;  more 
frequently  loca  classica — i.e.,  primaria,  prsestan- 
tissima;  like  aucfores  classier,  first  used  by  Gel- 
lius,  XIX.  8 ;  and  cives  classici,  the  name  given 
to  those  belonging  to  the  first  class  of  Roman 
citizens,  into  which  such  only  were  admitted  as 
possessed  a  certain  amount  "of  property,  decided 
by  law. 

In  using  these  proof-texts  many  of  the  ancient 
systems  followed  a  kind  of  doctrinal  or  herme- 
neutical  tradition,  employing  such  texts  only  as 
had  been  adduced  by  the  authors  of  the  sym- 
bols, who,  on  their  part,  had  employed  those 
mostly  which  had  been  previously  adduced  by 
the  ecclesiastical  fathers,  and  the  theologians 
of  the  Romish  church.  As  the  theologians  of 
former  times  strictly  followed  the  doctrines  of 
the  symbolical  books,  they  were  incline-d  to 
adopt  the  arguments  and  proof-texts  by  which 
these  doctrines  were  there  supported.  Hence 
we  find  almost  the  same  proof-texts,  explained 
in  the  same  way,  constantly  recurring,  with 


very  slight  alterations  in  the  theological  sys- 
tems, as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century.  Some  of  these  traditionary  texts  had 
no  bearing  on  the  point  which  they  were  in- 
tended to  prove,  or  at  best  were  doubtful  and 
obscure;  while  on  the  other  hand,  some  of  the 
most  direct  and  pertinent  texts  were  never  cited. 
In  making  use  of  these  texts  we  should  never 
lose  sight  of  the  above  remarks.  As  Luther 
well  observes,  we  must  treat  the  Bible  cau- 
tiously, and  inquire  not  only  whether  any  par- 
ticular truth  is  taught  in  the  word  of  God,  but 
whether  it  concerns  us  or  others.  "  Man  muss 
mit  der  Schrift  sauberlich  handeln  und  fahren. 
Man  rnuss  nicht  allein  ansehen  ob  es  Gnues 
wort  sey;  sondern  vielmehr  zu  wem  es  geredet 
sey,  ob  es  dick  treffe,  oder  eincn  andern.  Den 
Unterschied  sollen  wohl  merken,  fassen,  und 
zu  herzen  nehmen  die  Prcdigcr,  ja  alle  Chris- 
ten," Luther,  Unterricht  wie  man  sich  in  Mosen 
schicken  soil.  WTe  should  also  carefully  dis- 
tinguish between  the  truth  itself  wrhich  is  taught 
in  these  passages,  and  the  manner  in  which 
this  truth  is  illustrated. 

II.  The  Use  of  the  Old  Testament. 

1.  Christianity  and  the  Jewish  institute  are 
not  so  nearly  related  that  they  must  stand  or  fall 
together.     It  is  possible  that  one  who  knew  nc- 
thing  of  the  Jewish  religion,  and  had  never  read 
the  Jewish  scriptures,  might  believe  on  Jesus 
as  the  Saviour  of  the  world.     And  we  find,  ac- 
cordingly, that  when  the  apostles  were  called  to 
teach  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion  to 
those   who  were   unacquainted  with  Judaism, 
they    rarely    alluded    to    the   Old    Testament. 
Christ  and  the  apostles  regarded  the  divine  re- 
velations as  gradual,  and  the  instruction  given 
in  the  Old  Testament  as  elementary,  adapted  to 
the  state  of  society  while  yet  in  the  infancy  of 
improvement,  and  calculated  to  deepen  the  sense 
of  the  higher  and  more  spiritual  wants  of  the 
mind.     Vide   Introduction,    s.    8,  II.     In  this 
light  is  Judaism  regarded  by  Paul,  who  com- 
pares the  ritual  of  the  former  institute  with  a 
schoolmaster  (rtcuSoycoyoj)  who  is  deserted  by 
the  children,  as  they  approach  towards  manhood, 
Gal.  iii.  24 ;  iv.  1,  9.     The  books  therefore  con- 
taining the  principles  of  the  Jewish  religion, 
taken  by  themselves,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a 
principal  source  of  our  knowledge  of  the  Chris- 
tian system,  although  they  are  of  essential  ser- 
vice, and   indeed   often   indispensable.     They 
are  recommended  in  the  New  Testament  to  our 
careful  study  ;  but  always  in  connexion  with 
Christian  instructions.     For  we,  as  Christians, 
are  no  longer  bound  by  many  things  which  are 
commanded  in  the  Old  Testament;  and  must 
learn  from   Christian  instructions   what   these 
things  are,  and  why  their  obligation  has  ceased. 

2.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testament  may  he 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


used  for  various  purposes,  which  differ  very 
much,  according  to  time  and  circumstances. 

(1)  Usus  polemicus  or  elencticus.  The  Old 
Testament  may  be  employed  to  prove  the  truth 
and  divinity  of  the  Christian  religion  against 
Jews  and  infidels.  From  these  ancient  books 
we  can  shew  that  the  Christian  institute  was 
promised  and  expected  from  the  earliest  times; 
and  can  correct  many  of  the  mistakes  which 
have  prevailed  among  the  Jews  and  other 
nations.  For  this  purpose  they  were  used  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  sometimes  in  the 
instruction  even  of  the  heathen,  but  more  fre- 
quently when  Jews  were  to  be  convinced.  We 
may  see  the  different  method  in  which  they 
addressed  Jews  and  heathen,  by  comparing  the 
discourses  of  Paul  contained  in  the  Acts,  and 
also  his  epistles  to  the  Hebrews  and  Galatians, 
with  those  to  the  Thessalonians. 

When  Christ  wished  to  convince  the  Jews  of 
the  truth  of  his  religion,  and  the  divinity  of  his 
mission,  he  exhorted  them  to  study  their  own 
scriptures,  in  which  he  was  predicted.  But  al- 
though this  advice  of  Christ  was  first  given  to 
the  Jews,  it  must  apply  in  full  force  to  all  who 
allow  the  authority  of  Christ,  and  acknowledge 
that  the  Old  Testament  contains  predictions  re- 
specting him.  Christ  thus  addresses  the  Pha- 
risees, (John,  v.  39,)  "Epswars  (indicative,  not 
imperative,  as  many  suppose)  ra?  ypa<j>a$,  ott 
8ox£it£  EI>  avracs  £cov  al&viov  tftv  x  ou 


£  x  £  (,  v  at,  £  a  iv  a 
fjuou,  "Ye  search  the  scriptures  (of  the  Old 
Testament),  because  ye  suppose  that  ye  shall 
find  in  them  the  means  of  attaining  salvation; 
and  these  very  scriptures  testify  of  me  —  i.  e.,  of 
the  Messiah,  the  character  which  I  sustain,  and 
of  the  way  of  salvation  through  me."  In  2  Tim. 
iii.  14  —  17,  Paul  distinctly  states  that  Timothy 
(even  as  a  Christian  and  Christian  teacher,  verse 
17)  would  find  the  Old  Testament  very  useful 
in  connexion  with  the  Christian  instruction 
which  he  had  received  (ver.  14),  in  acquainting 
himself  with  the  way  of  salvation  (ver.  15),  in 
teaching  this  way  to  others  (rtpoj  6t§acrxca.cav, 
ver.  16),  and  in  refuting  the  objections  of  the 
Jews  and  other  enemies  of  Christianity,  (rfpoj 
tteyxov,  ver.  16.)  Cf.  s.  8,  II.  1.  2  Peter,  i. 
19,  "The  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament 
respecting  Christ,  are  now,  since  their  fulfilment, 
much  more  certain  than  formerly;  and  ye  (con- 
verts from  Judaism,  who  are  accustomed  to  read 
the  Jewish  scriptures)  will  do  well  to  attend  to 
them."  In  this  very  connexion,  however,  Peter 
likens  the  Old  Testament  to  a  lantern,  casting 
a  feeble  light,  when  compared  with  the  day 
which  had  risen,  since  Christ  had  appeared, 
upon  those  who  had  embraced  his  religion.  Cf. 
s.  8,  II.  2. 

Note.  —  However  imperfect  the  Jewish  insti- 
tute may  be  in  comparison  with  the  Christian, 


it  must  not  be  despised  or  undervalued.  Morus, 
p.  24,  note.  It  was  perfectly  adapted  to  the  age 
for  which  it  was  intended,  and  to  the  country 
where  it  was  established,  and  could  not  have 
been  different  in  any  respect.  It  betrays  a  poor 
judgment  to  blame  a  teacher  for  not  introducing 
into  his  book  of  elements  everything  which  is 
found  in  a  complete  system,  or  for  pursuing  a 
different  method  in  the  instruction  of  little  chil- 
dren and  advanced  scholars.  This,  so  far  from 
deserving  blame,  constitutes  the  highest  merit 
of  the  teacher.  The  instructions  given  by  God 
in  the  Old  Testament  are  regarded  in  this  light 
by  Christ  and  the  apostles,  and  are  highly  es- 
teemed as  adapted  to  the  age  for  which  they 
were  given.  Vide  s.  8,  II.  ad  finem. 

(2)  Usus  dogmaticus  and  historicus.  The  Old 
Testament  is  of  use  in  ascertaining  the  doctrines 
of  Christianity,  inasmuch  as  it  is  very  full  upon 
many  doctrines  presupposed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  gives  intimations  on  many  doctrines 
on  which  the  latter  enlarges,  (a)  As  the  primi- 
tive Christians  were  for  the  most  part  native 
Jews,  they  were  naturally  supposed  to  have 
known  from  the  Old  Testament  many  of  the 
most  important  truths  of  religion.  Accordingly 
we  find  that  the  instructions  given  them  in  the 
New  Testament  respecting  the  nature,  attri- 
butes, and  providence  of  God,  the  creation  of 
the  world,  and  the  fall  of  man,  are  less  full  and 
explicit  than  those  contained  in  the  Old.  (£>) 
The  Old  Testament  also  contains  traces,  inti- 
mations, and,  as  it  were,  the  germs  of  many 
doctrines  which  were  afterwards  followed  out 
and  developed  by  Christ  and  the  apostles. 
This  is  exactly  as  it  should  be  in  a  book  of 
elementary  instruction.  The  Old  Testament 
pointed  to  the  distant  blessings  which  were 
promised.  The  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  treat  of  the  Messiah,  the  life  beyond  the 
grave,  and  subjects  of  the  same  kind,  are  useful 
in  shewing  that  these  ideas  have  been  brought 
to  light  and  developed  by  Christ  (usus  histori- 
cus), and  that  all  the  divine  revelations  compose 
one  complete  system. 

The  false  opinions  which  were  formerly  en- 
tertained respecting  the  use  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  its  relation  to  Christianity  led  many 
writers  to  attribute  too  many  Christian  ideas  to 
the  ancient  Jewish  prophets,  and  to  carry  back, 
without  any  distinction  of  time,  all  the  light  of 
the  New  Testament  into  the  Old.  That  the 
light  enjoyed  under  the  former  dispensation  was 
inferior  to  that  which  Christians  enjoy  appears 
from  the  declarations  of  an  apostle,  2  Peter,  i. 
19,  seq. ; J  Pet.  i.  10,  seq.  Christ  himself  says, 
Matt.  xi.  11,  that  among  those  who  had  been 
born  of  women  there  had  not  been  a  greater 
prophet  than  John,  his  precursor  ;  but  that  the 
least  who  enjoyed  Christian  instruction,  and 
had  kindled  his  torch  by  the  Christian  light, 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


77 


was  better  acquainted  with  the  peculiar  doctrines 
of  the  Christian  religion  than  John. 

(3)  Usus  hertneneuticus.     As  Christ  and  the 
apostles  were  native  Jews,  and  had  their  own 
countrymen  for   their  first  hearers,  they  con- 
formed, as  far  as  they  could  consistently  with 
duty,  to  the  manners  and  opinions,  to  the  mode 
of  thought  and  expression,  common  among  those 
with  whom  they  were  conversant.     It  is  there- 
fore impossible  for  any  one  who  is  ignorant  of 
this  prevailing  mode  of  thought  and  expression 
to  understand  fully  their  instructions.    And  this 
knowledge,  which  is  so  essential  to  the  right 
understanding  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  can  be 
obtained  only  from  the  Old  Testament.     The 
service  which  it  renders  us  in  this  respect  is  of 
the  greatest  importance.     How  many  mistakes 
respecting  the,doctrines  of  faith,  and  how  much 
confusion  would  have  been  avoided,  if  theo- 
logians had  brought  to  the  study  of  the  Chris- 
tian scriptures  a  thorough  acquaintance  with  the 
Old  Testament ! 

(4)  Usus  moralis.     The  books  of  Moses,  the 
Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  other  portions  of  the  Old 
Testament,  are  full  of  precepts  relating  to  the 
wise  conduct  of  human  life,  and  calculated  to 
awaken  religious  and  pious  sentiments.     Even 
the  historical  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
highly  useful  in  this  view,  and  should  be  em- 
ployed by  religious  teachers,  and  especially  the 
teachers  of  youth,  for  the  promotion  of  virtue 
and  piety,  more  than  is  commonly  done.   It  was 
the  manner  of  Moses,  and  of  all  the  ancient  Jew- 
ish teachers,  to  give  instruction  by  means  of 
history — a  manner  which  is  always  interesting, 
and  which  was  imitated  by  the  first  Christian 
teachers,  who  always   built  their  instructions 
upon  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of 
Christ. 

CAUTIONS  to  be  observed  in  the  use  of  the 
Old  Testament  for  moral  instruction. 

(a)  All  the  precepts  contained  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament are  not  of  universal  obligation;  some  of 
them  are  applicable  only  to  those  living  under 
the  peculiar  constitution  of  the  Jewish  nation. 
Christians  commit  a  great  mistake  when  they 
apply  to  themselves  the  promises  of  temporal 
good  and  the  threatenings  of  temporal  evil  which 
are  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  which 
are  valid  only  under  a  theocratical  form  of  govern- 
ment. Christians  can  make  application  to  them- 
selves of  such  only  of  these  precepts  as  relate  to 
all  men  in  every  age.  By  neglecting  this  distinc- 
tion, and  applying  to  the  present  time  what 
has  long  since  ceased  to  be  valid,  the  teacher  of 
religion  frequently  draws  contempt  upon  him- 
self and  his  doctrine,  and  awakens  unnecessary 
suspicion  of  the  truth  of  what  he  utters.  Every 
act  of  disobedience  to  the  divine  law  will  indeed 
be  punished,  and  every  act  of  obedience  reward- 
ed. But  that  this  will  be  visibly  accomplished 


in  the  present  life  is  nowhere  taught  in  the 
Christian  system,  but  rather  the  contrary. 
Temporal  rewards  and  punishments  are  peculiar 
to  a  theocratic  constitution,  and  ought  not  to 
be  expected  under  a  different  divine  dispensa- 
tion. 

(6)  The  rudeness  of  the  early  ages,  and  the 
degeneracy  of  the  Jewish  nation,  called  for  a 
strictness  of  discipline  from  which  Christianity 
has  now  released  us.  The  spirit  of  Christianity 
is  in  many  respects  essentially  different  from 
that  of  Judaism.  The  latter  terrified  by  punish- 
ments those  who  were  too  depraved  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  love  ;  the  former  teaches  us  to  love 
God  as  our  father  and  benefactor,  and  moves  us 
by  mildness  and  benevolence.  Rom.  viii.  15, 
"  Ye  (true  Christians)  have  not  received  (by 
Christianity)  a  slavish  spirit,  leading  you  still 
(rtcaiv,  as  Christians)  to  tremble  before  God; 
but  ye  have  a  filial,  c-onfiding  disposition 
(rtvzvpa  vlo&aias')  produced  in  your  rninds  by 
God,  under  the  influence  of  which  you  can  sup- 
plicate him  in  all  circumstances  as  your  beloved 
Father."  Cf.  Heb.  xii.  18—24  ;  Gal.  iv.  1—4. 
When,  therefore,  as  Christians,  we  obey  any 
part  of  the  law  of  Moses,  or  of  the  precepts  of 
the  Old  Testament,  we  yield  this  obedience,  not 
because  it  is  required  by  the  law  of  Moses  or 
the  Old  Testament,  but  partly  because  it  is  com- 
manded by  the  universal  moral  law,  and  chiefly 
because  it  is  commanded  by  Christ.  For  Christ 
did  not  come,  as  he  himself  said,  to  annul  the 
moral  law  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  to  fulfil  and 
enforce  it,  Matt.  v.  17,  seq.  So  depraved  were 
the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Moses,  and  long  after- 
wards, that  he  was  compelled  to  proceed  with 
them  as  a  teacher  does  with  ignorant,  rude,  and 
untractable  pupils.  The  first  measures  which  the 
teacher  takes  in  the  education  of  such  pupils  are, 
to  separate  them  from  others  of  the  same  charac- 
ter with  themselves,  to  impose  compulsatory  re- 
straints, to  awe  them  with  threatenings,  and  to 
make  to  them  such  sensible  representations  as 
are  most  calculated  to  produce  an  effect.  And 
these  are  the  measures  which  Moses  adopted. 
Those  for  whom  his  institute  was  intended  were, 
in  a  great  measure,  incapable  of  any  higher  re- 
ligious knowledge,  which  was  not  therefore 
given  them,  except  in  such  obscure  intimations 
as  were  proper  in  elementary  instructions. 
Vide  Introduction,  s.  8,  II.  Cf.  Gal.  iv.  3; 
Col.  ii.  8,  20.  Warburton,  Divine  Legation  of 
Moses. 

(c)  Christians  ought  not  to  adopt,  without 
some  limitation,  the  life  and  example  of  the  per- 
sons described  in  the  Old  Testament,  even  of 
those  there  mentioned  with  approbation,  as  mo- 
dels for  their  own  imitation  ;  for,  in  consequence 
of  their  better  instruction,  Christians  are  now  in 
many  respects  far  advanced  beyond  the  best  of 
former  times.  In  those  ages  of  ignorance  many 
G  2 


78 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


things  were  allowed  or  palliated  which,  in  this 
period  of  higher  illumination  and  improvement, 
would  be  without  excuse.  Many  events  in  the 
histories  of  David,  Samson,  and  others,  for 
which  they  might  perhaps  have  been  excul- 
pated, cannot  be  adopted  by  Christians  as  mo- 
dels for  their  imitation.  These  remarks  are  suf- 
ficient to  shew  the  necessity  of  caution  in  the 
use  of  the  characters  of  Old-Testament  history, 
in  recommending  moral  duties,  and  in  popular 
instruction.  Vide  Joh.  Aug.  Wolf,  Diss.  duo 
de  exemplis  biblicis  in  theologia  morali  caute 
adhibendis,  Lipsiae,  1786,  4to.  Christian  teach- 
ers would  do  well  to  follow  in  this  respect  the 
example  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 
They  never  deal  in  indiscriminate  praises  and 
encomiums  of  the  characters  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  always  select  those  parts  of  their  ex- 
ample which  are  worthy  of  commendation,  and 
of  the  imitation  of  Christians ;  such  as  the  piety 
and  faith  of  Abraham,  and  others  mentioned, 
Heb.  xi. 

SECTION  XIII. 

OF  THE  READING  OF    THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 

I.  History  of  the  Dispute  respecting  the  Reading  of 

the  Bible. 

THAT  the  holy  scriptures  were  less  read  by  the 
the  ancient  Jews  and  primitive  Christians  than 
at  the  present  day  is  beyond  dispute.  Books 
were  formerly  very  rare  and  costly,  and  the  read- 
ing public  was  extremely  small.  Even  in 
Europe  it  was  not  so  large  by  half,  a  century 
ago,  as  now.  The  great  body  of  society,  in  for- 
mer times,  had  little  taste  for  reading,  or  indeed 
ability,  as  a  general  thing,  either  to  read  or  to 
write.  They  were  not  therefore  required,  by 
any  precepts  of  the  Bible,  to  read  the  scriptures 
themselves.  This  was  made  the  duty  of  the 
teachers  of  religion,  who  were  then  required  to 
read  the  scriptures  before  the  people.  Thus  the 
sons  of  Levi  were  required  to  read  the  law  of 
Moses  in  the  hearing  of  the  people,  Deut.  xxxi. 

II,  12  ;  and  Timothy  was  required  to  study  the 
scriptures  in  order  to  qualify  himself  to  teach 
others,  2  Tim.  iii.  15.     The  passage,  John,  v. 
39,  is  also  addressed  to  the  teachers  of  religion. 
In  consequence  of  the  fact,  that,  in  ancient  times, 
the  great  body  of  mankind  received  instruction 
more  by  hearing  than  by  their  own  reading,  the 
learner  was   called   axpoatr^,  and    instruction, 
njisir,  dxojj,  Rom.  x.  15. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  common  people 
and  the  ignorant  are  nowhere  forbidden,  in  the 
Old  or  New  Testament,  to  read  the  scriptures ; 
but  were  rather  encouraged  to  instruct  them- 
selves by  their  own  study  of  the  Word  of  God, 
if  they  had  sufficient  leisure  and  ability.  The 
letters  of  the  apostles  were  addressed  to  the 


whole  church,  and  were  publicly  read  in  the 
hearing  of  all,  Col.  iv.  16.  Now,  if  the  apostles 
did  not  fear  any  harm  from  having  their  epistles 
read  in  public,  in  the  hearing  of  all,  they  could 
have  no  reason  to  apprehend  danger  from  having 
them  perused  in  private.  The  Jews  also  were 
always  permitted  the  free  use  of  their  scriptures, 
cf.  Acts,  viii.  28;  nor  is  there  a  passage  in  all 
the  Old  Testament  in  which  this  is  prohibited. 
In  the  early  Christian  church,  too,  the  reading 
of  the  Bible  was  universally  allowed,  and,  in- 
deed, encouraged  and  facilitated  by  frequent 
versions.  As  early  as  the  second  century  the 
Bible  had  been  rendered  into  Syriac  and  Latin, 
and  was  accessible  in  these  versions  to  as  many 
as  wished  to  own  or  study  them.  Hieronymus 
commends  Pamphilus,  "  quod  scripturas  quoque 
sanctas,  non  ad  legendum  tantum,  sed  ad  haben- 
dum  tribuebat  promptissime,  non  solum  viris  sed 
etiam  feminis,  quas  vidisset  lectioni  deditas," 
Apol.  I.  Contra  Rufnnum.  Julian  objected  to 
Christians,  "  quod  mulieres  puerosque  pateren- 
tur  scripturas  legere,"  Cyril.  Alex.  Contra  Jul. 
VI.  9.  Cyprian  recommended  the  study  of  the 
Bible  to  Christians  :  "  Scripturis  inquam  sacris 
incumbat  christianus  fidelis,  et  ibi  inveniet 
condigna  fidei  spectacula,"  Cyprian,  De  Spec- 
tac.  p.  342.  From  all  this  it  appears,  that  at 
this  period  of  the  church  the  use  of  the  holy 
scriptures  was  unincumbered.  Vide  Walch, 
Vom  Gebrauch  der  hetligen  Schrift  unter  den 
alten  Christen,  Leipzig,  1779,  8vo. 

At  a  later  period  the  great  decline  of  learn- 
ing commenced.  And  to  such  a  point  of  dark- 
ness did  western  Europe  arrive,  that  the  whole 
learning  of  the  clergy  of  the  middle  ages  often 
consisted  in  their  being  able  to  read.  In  a  state 
of  things  like  this,  the  Bible  was  not,  of  course, 
much  read  by  the  laity,  if,  indeed,  they  were  able 
to  read  at  all.  And  as  the  Latin  version  was 
retained,  although  the  Latin  language  had 
ceased  to  be  vernacular  after  the  seventh  centu- 
ry, the  common  people  became  more  and  more 
ignorant  of  its  contents. 

In  the  midst  of  this  darkness  the  pope  and 
clergy  established  many  doctrines,  which  were 
as  promotive  of  their  own  interests  as  they  were 
contrary  to  the  Bible.  These  innovations  and 
errors  were  soon  discovered  and  opposed  by 
some  of  the  more  intelligent  and  inquisitive 
even  among  the  laity.  Hence,  to  take  the  Bible 
from  their  hands  was  the  obvious  policy  of  the 
clergy.  Accordingly,  Pope  Gregory  VII.,  of 
the  eleventh  century,  declared  himself  against 
the  free  and  general  use  of  the  scriptures.  But 
as  many  of  the  laity,  who  had  obtained  more 
enlightened  views  from  the  use  of  the  Bible, 
opposed  themselves  to  the  designs  of  the  pope, 
the  prohibition  was  repeated  by  Innocent  III., 
at  the  commencement  of  the  thirteenth  century. 
The  use  of  the  Bible  was  again  forbidden  the 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


laity,  on  account  of  the  Waldenses,  by  the 
council  held  at  Toulouse,  in  the  year  1229. 
Prohibemus,  ne  libros  V.  T.  aut  N.  laicis  per- 
mittatur  habere;  nisi  forte  Psalterium  vel  Bre- 
viarium  pro  divinis  officiis  ac  Horas  Beatae  Vir- 
ginis  aliquis  ex  devotione  habere  velit;  sed,  ne 
praemissos  libros  habeant  in  vulgari  translations, 
arctissime  inhibemus,"  Concilium  Tolosanum, 
Can.  XII.  At  a  synod  at  Beziers,  in  the  year 
1233,  the  laity  were  forbidden  to  possess  any 
books  of  theology  in  the  Latin  language,  and 
both  clergy  and  laity  to  possess  any  in  the  ver- 
nacular. In  the  year  1338,  John  Wickliff  was 
declared  a  heretic  by  a  synod  at  Oxford  for  pub- 
lishing an  English  translation  of  the  Bible;  and 
in  the  year  1408,  the  third  synod  at  the  same 
place  ordained,  "  ne  quis  textum  aliquem  ex 
scriptura  transferal  in  linguam  Anglicanam,  nisi 
a  Dioecesano  vel  Concilio  provinciali  translatio 
approbata  sit." 

Still  there  were  many  among  the   different 
sects,  and  some  even  of  the  catholic  church,  who 
read  the  Bible  for  themselves.     And  by  com- 
paring the  existing  state  of  faith  and  practice 
with  the  Bible,  they  were  soon  convinced  of 
the  errors  arid  corruptions  of  the  church.     At 
last,  m  the  sixteenth  century,  Luther  and  the 
Swiss  reformers  appeared,  and  restored  the  free 
use  of  the  Bible.    Luther  especially  very  much 
promoted  the  general  circulation  of  the  scrip- 
tures by  his  German  translation,  which  was  the 
principal  means  of  the  Reformation.   The  coun- 
cil at  Trent  did  not  now  venture  to  renew  the 
prohibition  of  the  Bible,  and  undertook  only  to 
establish  the  Vulgate  edition  as  alone  authen- 
tic.    But  afterwards,  Pope  Pius  IV.  issued  an 
Index  librorum  prohibitorum,  in  the  preface  to 
which  he  writes,  "  Cum  experimento  manifes- 
tutn  sit  si  sacra  Biblia  vulgari  lingua  passim 
sine  discrimine  permittantur,  plus  inde  ob  ho- 
minum  temeritatem  detriment!  quam  utilitatis 
oriri ;  hac  in  parte  judicio  Episcopi  sive  Inqui- 
sitoris  stetur,  ut  cum  consilio  parochi  vel  Con- 
fessarii  Bibliorum  a  catholicis  auctoribus  ver- 
sorum  lectionem  in  vulgari  lingua  eis  concedere 
possint,  quos  intellexerunt  ex  hujusmodi  lec- 
tione  non    damnum,    sed    fidei  atque   pietatis 
augmentum  capere  posse ;  quam  facultatem  in 
scriptis  habeant.     Qui  autem  absque  tali  facul- 
tate  ea  legere  sive  habere  prassumserit,  nisi  prius 
Bibliis  ordinario  redditis,  peccatorum  absolu- 
tionem  percipere  non  possit."     But  even  this 
permission  was  afterwards  limited  by  Clement 
VIII.,  who  declared  that  by  this  indulgence  of 
Pius  IV.,  "nullam  de  novo  tribui  facultatem 
Episcopis  vel   Inquisitoribus  aut   Regularium 
Superioribus    concedendi    licentiam     eraendi, 
It'gendi,  aut  retinendi   Biblia,  vulgari  lingua 
edita,  cum  hactenus  mandato  et  usu  sanctse  ro- 
ittanse  et  universalis  Inquisition! s  sublata  cisfuerit 


facultas  concedendi  hujusmodi  licentias  legendi 
vel  retinendi  Biblia  vulgaria,  aut  alias  sanctse 
scripluras  tarn  Novi  quam  Vtteris  Testa menti 
partes,  quavis  vulgari  lingua  editas  ;  ac  imuptr 
summaria  et  compendia  etiam  historica  eorun- 
dem  Bibliorum,  sen  librorum  sanctae  scripture, 
quocunque  vulgari  idiomate  conscripta  ,•  quod  qui- 
dem  inviolate  servandum  est."  And  at  last  this 
permission  was  wholly  withdrawn  by  Gregory 
XV.,  who  says,  "  De  plenitudine  apostolicae  po- 
testatis  et  ex  certa  scientia,  ac  matura  delibera- 
tione  revocamus,  cassamus,  et  annullamus 
omnes  et  singulas  licentias  legendi  et  habendi 
biblios  quoscunque  prohibitos." 

It  is  injustice,  however,  to  the  catholic  church, 
to  suppose  that  this  prohibition  of  the  free  and 
general  use  of  the  Bible  was  ever  universally 
approved.  There  have  always  been  theolo- 
gians, especially  in  the  Gallican  church,  who 
have  advocated  the  lawfulness  and  necessity  of 
the  unlimited  use  of  the  scriptures.  Paschasius 
Quesnel  published  at  Paris,  1687,  and  Brussels, 
1702,  a  French  translation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, (Le  Nouveau  Testament,  avec  des  reflex- 
ions morales  sur  chaque  verset,)  from  which  a 
hundred  and  one  propositions  were  extracted  at 
the  instigation  of  the  Jesuits,  and  condemned  by 
the  pope  in  the  bull  Unigenitus,  1713.  Among" 
these  propositions  were  the  following : — "  Lec- 
tio sacra?  scripturse  est  pro  omnibus."  "  Ob- 
scuritas  sancti  verbi  Dei  non  est  Laicis  ratio 
dispensandi  se  ipsos  ab  ejus  lectione."  "  Abri- 
pere  e  Christianorum  manibus  Novum  Testa- 
mentum,  sive  eis  illud  clausum  tenere,  auferendo 
eis  modum  illud  intelligendi,  est  illis  Christi  os 
obturbare."  "  Interdicere  Christianislectionem 
sacrse  scripturae,  prasertim  Evangelii,  est  inter- 
dicere  usum  luminis  filhs  lucis,  et  facere  ut  pa- 
tiantur  speciem  quandam  excommunicationis." 
It  should  be  remarked,  too,  that  the  nse  of  the 
Bible  has  never  been  prohibited  without  some 
limitation ;  so  that  it  is  not  unfrequent  in  our 
day  for  the  most  distinguished  theologians  of 
the  Romish  church  to  advocate  the  general  use 
of  the  scriptures;  while  there  are  still  many 
Jesuites,  or  Exjesuites,  who  hold  to  the  prohi- 
bition of  the  Bible.  Vide  Hegelmeier,  Ges- 
chichte  des  Bibelverbots,  Ulm,  1783,  8vo. 

[Note. — The  following  passage  from  the  his- 
torian Olatis  Magnus,  will  shew  on  what  pre- 
tences the  court  of  Rome  has  sometimes  pro- 
ceeded in  forbidding  the  translation  and  circula- 
tion of  the  holy  scriptures.  "  Gregorius  VII., 
Vratislao  (a  Bohemian  nobleman)  scripsrt  (2 
Jan.  1080)  ac  prohibuit,  ne,  ut  optavit,  scriptura 
sancta  verteretur  in  linguam  vulgarem  ;  quoniam 
tam  secreta  majestas  in  ea  est,  ut  difficulter 
translate  sensus  secretorum  Dei  poterit  in  ea 
postmodum  deprehendi;immonunquamdevotir  r 
fieret  populus,  quando  sciens  facilitntem,  in  con- 


80 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


temptum  verteret,  quod  in  reverentiaconsueverat 
admirari  et  jam  in  cerevisiaria  taberna  irrisorie 
decantatur,"  Hist.  Lib.  XVI.  c.  39. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  the  Bible  was 
translated  by  many  catholic  theologians,  in  order 
to  prevent  the  use  of  the  "  heretical"  Bible  by 
the  members  of  their  communion.  The  New 
Testament  was  translated  by  Hieron.  Emser, 
in  1527,  and  by  J.  Dietenberger,  in  1533;  and 
the  whole  Bible  by  J.  Eck,  Gasp.  Uhlenberg, 
and  others. 

The  condemnation  of  the  maxims  of  Father 
Quesnel  by  Clement  XI.  occasioned  a  contro- 
versy in  the  catholic  church,  which  resulted  in 
larger  views  respecting  the  use  of  the  scriptures. 
These  views  were  patronised  by  Benedict  XIII., 
in  the  synod  held  at  the  palace  of  the  Lateran, 
and  afterwards  more  successfully  by  Maria  The- 
resa and  Joseph  II.,  of  Austria. 

Since  the  commencement  of  the  present  cen- 
tury, the  Bible  Society  has  found  patrons  in 
many  distinguished  members  of  the  catholic 
church.  The  Archbishops  of  Mohileff  and  of 
Gnesne  sanctioned  a  Polish  version  of  the  scrip- 
tures, and  promoted  its  circulation  in  their  dio- 
ceses; for  which,  however,  they  were  severely 
rpprimanded  by  Pius  VII.,  in  his  brief  of  June 
29,  1816.  Among  the  distinguished  catholics 
who  have  made  common  cause  with  the  protes- 
tants  in  the  circulation  of  the  Bible,  in  opposi- 
tion both  to  papal  authority  and  the  active  jea- 
lousy of  the  Ultra-montanists,  the  names  of  Van 
Ess,  Gossner,  and  De  Sacy,  deserve  to  be  parti- 
cularly mentioned.  In  our  own  country,  the 
*'  bishops  of  the  church"  are  content  with  "  ear- 
nestly cautioning  the  laity  against  the  indiscri- 
minate use  of  the  unauthorized  and  extremely 
defective  and  erroneous  versions  which  are 
placed  within  their  reach,"  and  with  recommend- 
ing "the  Douay  translation  from  the  Vulgate  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Rhemish  translation 
of  the  New  Testament."  Vide  Pastoral  Letter 
of  the  Prelates  of  the  catholic  church,  Baltimore, 
1829. 

While  these  more  liberal  views  are  obtaining 
in  the  Romish  church,  it  is  worthy  of  remark 
that  many  protestant  divines  have  so  far  desert- 
ed the  principles  of  the  Reformation  as  wholly 
to  disapprove  of  the  general  reading  of  the 
Bible,  or  at  least  to  allow  it  only  under  very 
narrow  restrictions.  Several  bishops  of  the 
episcopal  church,  both  in  England  and  America, 
have  publicly  avowed  their  hostility  to  the  Bible 
Society,  pretending  that  its  exertions  menaced 
the  safety  of  the  established  church.  Vide 
Christian  Observer,  vol.  xx.  p.  28.  The  same 
hostility  to  the  unrestricted  use  of  the  Bible  has 
been  manifested  by  several  German  theologians. 
Vide  Lessing,  Theol.  Nachlass,  Berlin,  1784. 
J.  G.  Becker,  Tract,  ad  quaestionem,  utrum  lec- 
tio literarum  sacra?  scripturae  omnibus  ornnino 


Christianis,  maxirne  imperitae  multitudini,  valde 
sit  commendanda,  Rostochii,  1793,  4to.  Voigt- 
lander,  Die  Bibel  kein  Erbauungsbuch,  in  the 
Predigerjournal  fur  Sachsen,  November,  1809. 
Voeckler,  De  eo,  an  bene  actum  sit,  scripta  Ve- 
teris  et  Novi  Testarnenti  omnia  ac  singula  cum 
imperitorurn  multitudine  communicandi,  Lipsiae, 
1823,  8vo.  Vide  Hahn,  Lehrbuch  des  christ. 
Glaubens,  Leipzig,  1828.] 

II.  How  may  the  Bible  be  best  adapted  to  common 
use  ? 

It  appears  from  the  preceding  historical  sketch 
that  religion  has  always  suffered  from  the  prohi- 
bition or  restriction  of  the  use  of  the  scriptures  ; 
and,  on  the  contrary,  has  always  gained  from 
their  free  and  unrestricted  use.  To  establish 
this  declaration,  we  need  only  appeal  to  the  time 
of  the  Reformation.  The  most  direct  way  to 
render  Christianity  obsolete  is  to  take  the  Bible 
from  the  hands  of  the  common  people.  And 
already  have  we  begun  to  experience  the  evils 
resulting  from  the  efforts  of  some  modern  teach- 
ers to  banish  the  reading  of  the  scriptures,  espe- 
cially of  the  Old  Testament,  from  our  schools, 
or  at  least  to  diminish  the  degree  of  attention 
formerly  paid  to  them. 

But  however  useful  the  simple  perusal  of  the 
scriptures  in  the  common  method  may  be  to 
common  people  of  no  education,  it  may  doubt- 
less be  rendered  in  different  ways  more  useful 
and  less  objectionable.  The  following  are  the 
principal  methods  adopted  to  promote  the  gene- 
ral utility  of  the  Bible:— 

1.  New  translations.  Before  the  perusal  of 
the  scriptures  can  be  instructive  and  edifying  to 
the  common  people,  they  must  be  able  to  obtain 
clear  and  definite  conceptions  of  what  they  read ; 
and  they  can  do  this  only  by  means  of  good  and 
intelligible  translations.  It  were,  indeed,  desir- 
able that  the  established  version,  which  has  a 
classical  authority  with  the  great  body  of  society, 
should  be  gradually  improved,  if  circumstances 
were  such  as  to  allow  this  to  be  done.  Consi- 
dering the  period  at  which  this  version  was 
made,  it  is  a  masterpiece  in  its  kind,  and  is  in 
many  respects  worthy  of  the  study  and  imitation 
of  the  modern  translator.  But  since  that  period 
we  have  made  great  advances  in  the  art  of  inter- 
pretation, and  have  many  exegetical  helps,  which 
were  not  then  enjoyed.  Our  language,  too,  has 
undergone  great  alterations  since  this  translation 
was  written  ;  and  many  of  the  words  and  phrases 
which  are  used  in  it,  and  which  were  then  com- 
mon, are  now  obsolete  and  unintelligible;  but 
the  period  has  not  yet  arrived,  either  for  intro- 
ducing a  new  version  into  the  protestant  church, 
or  for  making  considerable  improvements  in  the 
one  now  established.  Indeed,  to  attempt  this 
at  the  present  crisis  of  the  affairs  of  religion,  and 
while  opposing  sects  are  inflamed  with  such  a 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


81 


zeal  against  each  other,  would  be  extremely  dan- 
gerous. In  these  circumstances  we  could  hardly 
expect  that  any  one  plan  of  improvement  would 
gain  the  assent  of  all  parties.  Since,  therefore, 
neither  a  new  version  can  at  present  be  author- 
ized, nor  any  considerable  improvements  be 
made  in  the  old,  we  can  do  nothing  better  to 
excite  the  interest  and  enlist  the  feelings  of  the 
common  people  in  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  than 
to  recommend  to  them  new  translations  and 
practical  expositions,  to  be  used  in  connexion 
with  the  established  version. 

2.  Allegorical  interpretation  and  compends. 
Every  part  of  the  Bible  was  not  intended  for  all 
ages  or  for  all  classes  of  readers.  Considerable 
portions  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
have  no  immediate  connexion  with  the  Christian 
religion  and  the  truths  of  salvation,  and  contri- 
bute little  to  the  instruction  and  edification  of 
believers,  and  are  therefore  of  service  merely  to 
the  scholar.  Vide  s.  12.  In  order  now  to  ren- 
der the  reading  of  the  scriptures  truly  profitable 
to  common  people,  and  to  save  them  from  wast- 
ing their  time  upon  subjects  which  lie  beyond 
their  sphere,  and  from  which  they  can  derive  no 
profit,  their  attention  should  be  directed  to  such 
passages  as  exhibit  the  great  truths  of  Christian 
faith  and  practice,  and  especially  to  the  instruc- 
tive narratives  of  the  Bible.  The  inconveni- 
ences resulting  to  the  greater  portion  of  readers 
from  the  indiscriminate  and  unaided  perusal 
of  the  Bible,  and  the  necessity  of  doing  some- 
thing to  adapt  it  better  to  their  spiritual  profit, 
have  been  for  a  long  time  perceived  and  felt ; 
and,  accordingly,  two  methods  have  been  taken 
to  obviate  these  inconveniences,  and  to  render 
the  perusal  of  the  Bible  more  useful  to  common 
readers. 

(a)  A  mystical  and  allegorical  mode  of  inter- 
pretation has  been  applied  to  the  historical  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  to  other  parts  of  the 
Bible,  which  have  no  immediate  bearing  on  the 
doctrines  of  salvation,  or  the  moral  improvement 
of  men ;  and  in  this  way  a  new  sense  has  been 
ascribed  to  these  passages  better  calculated  to 
instruct  and  edify.  This  method  was  formerly 
adopted  by  Philo  and  other  Jews,  who  were  fol- 
lowed in  this  respect  by  many  of  the  Christian 
fathers,  especially  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria, 
Origen,  and  others  of  the  Egyptian  church. 
This  method  has  also  been  adopted  in  modern 
times.  It  has  doubtless  been  the  means  of  good 
in  some  former  periods,  and  to  certain  classes  of 
readers ;  but  it  involves  so  many  inconveniences, 
and  gives  occasion  to  so  many  errors,  that  the 
revival  of  it  at  the  present  day  can  hardly  seem 
desirable.  It  has  lately,  however,  though  under 
fie  different  name  of  moral  interpretation,  re- 
ceived the  sanction  of  Kant.  Vide  Nosselt, 
Progr.  Animadversiones  in  sensurn  sacrorum 
librorum  moralem,  Halle,  1795. 
11 


[Note. — Those  who  apply  this  mode  of  inter- 
pretation suppose  that  every  passage  of  the  Bible 
contains  a  concealed,  spiritual,  and  higher  sense, 
either  in  connexion  with  or  under  its  literal  and 
grammatical  sense;  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
thus  gave  two  or  more  senses  to  the  words 
which  he  inspired.  The  catholic  church  held 
to  a  fourfold  sense  of  the  Bible — viz.,  (1)  GRAM- 
MATICUS,  (2)  MYSTICUS,  subdivided  into  (a) 
tropologicus,  s.moralis  (1  Cor.  ix.  8,  seq.),  (6) 
allegoricus  (Gal.  iv.  21,  seq.),  (c)  anagogicus. 
This  theory  of  catholic  hermeneutics  was  ex- 
pressed in  the  following  distich  : — 

Litera  gesta  docet;  quid  credas,  allegoria; 
Moralis,  quid  agas ;  quid  speres,  anagogia. 

Tirinus,  a  Jesuit,  thus  writes : — "  Sub  unis, 
iisdemque  sacrae  scripturae  verbis,  praeter  sensum 
literalem,  primario  a  spiritu  sancto  intentum, 
latere  subinde  etiam  alium,  sensum  mysticum 
sive  spiritualem,  secundario  a  spiritu  sancto  in- 
tentum, patet  ex  John,  iii.  14,  ubi  per  exalta- 
tionem  serpentis  Mosaici,  Christus  suam  cruci- 
fixionem ;  ex  Matt.  xii.  20,  ubi  per  occultationem 
Jonas  in  venire  celi,  suam  sepulturam  desig- 
nat,"  &c. 

In  opposition  to  this,  Sam.  Maresius,  of  the 
reformed  church,  writes — "  Absit  a  nobis  ut 
Deum  faciamus  StyTuo-rYov,  aut  multiplices  sen- 
sus  affingamus  ipsius  verbo,  in  quo  potius,  tam- 
quam  in  speculo  limpidissimo,  sui  autoris  sim- 
plicitatem  contemplari  debemus,  Ps.  xii.  6 ;  xix. 
8.  Unicus  ergo  sensus  scripturoe  nempe  gram- 
maticus,  est  admittendus,  quibuscunque  demurn 
terminis,  vel  propriis  vel  tropicis  et  figuratis  ex- 
primatur.  Sed  cum  res  illo  sensu  grammatieo 
expressae,  (sunt  enim  verba  rerum  imagines) 
saepe  sint  typicee,  hinc  fit,  ut  sensus  ille  unicus 
et  simplex  debeat  extendi  non  solurn  ad  typtiin, 
sed  etiam  ad  prototypum,cui  praefigurando  typus 
ille  a  Deo  destinatur ;  quo  spectant  pleraque  ex- 
empla  hie  Tirino  citata,  et  in  quibus  sensum 
hactenus  mysticum  agnoscimus,  qnatenus  res 
ipsae  mysticam  habuerunt  significationem." 

Such  was  the  opinion  of  the  reformers,  and 
of  most  of  the  older  evangelical  theologians; 
but  Musaeus,  Calovius,  Quenstedt,  Hollaz,  Car- 
povius,  Mosheim,  and  others,  contended  for  a 
mystical  sense,  besides  the  literal  sense  disco- 
vered and  determined  by  the  usus  loquendi  and 
the  context.  By  this  mystical  sense  they  meant, 
however,  only  a  spiritual  application  of  the  lite- 
ral sense.  On  the  contrary,  Baier,  Buddeus, 
Baumgarten,  and  others,  maintained  that  this 
spiritual,  hidden,  second,  remote,  sense  of  the 
scriptures  was  the  one  intended  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  In  later  times,  Dr.  Olshausen  distin- 
guishes between  the  literal  sense  of  the  Bible 
and  a  deeper  sense  (vrtovoia,  Untersinn),  which 
he  calls  spiritual.  Vide  Olshausen,  Ein  Wort 
iiber  tiefern  Schriftsinn,  Konigsberg,  1824,  8vo. 


82 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Hahn,  Lehrbuch  des  christlichen  Glaubens, 
Leipzig,  1828.] 

(6)  Another  means  of  rendering  the  Bible 
more  useful  to  all  classes  of  people — a  means 
far  better  than  the  former,  and  more  adapted  to 
the  present  lime,  is  that  of  making  compends, 
containing  the  most  important,  instructive,  and 
practical  portions  of  the  scriptures.  The  idea 
of  making  extracts  from  the  Bible  is  not  of  re- 
cent origin.  Soon  after  the  Babylonian  exile, 
the  Jews  made  selections  from  the  various  his- 
torical works  of  their  prophets.  The  books  of 
Kings,  Chronicles,  &c.,  are  compends,  com- 
posed from  larger  historical  works  therein 
named.  Compends  of  the  same  kind  were  early 
attempted  among  Christians.  According  to 
Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  IV.  26,  Melito  of  Sardis, 
in  the  third  century,  composed  a  Synopsis  Vete- 
ris  Testamenti,  which,  however,  is  now  lost. 
And  we  learn  from  a  catalogue  of  the  writings 
of  Augustine,  given  by  Possidonius,  an  African 
bishop  of  the  fifth  century,  and  a  disciple  of 
Augustine,  that  he  also  made  a  selection  of  such 
portions  of  the  Old  Testament  as  were  interest- 
ing and  instructive  to  Christians,  to  which  he 
gives  the  title  of  Speculum. 

These  compends  of  the  scriptures  may  be 
constructed  on  different  plans,  according  to  the 
various  ends  for  which  they  are  composed. 
But  we  are  speaking  here  of  that  kind  only 
which  is  intended  for  the  instruction  and  edifi- 
cation of  the  common  people  and  of  the  young. 
During  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  many 
compends  of  this  nature  have  been  composed  in 
the  protestant  church.  Some  theologians  of 
that  party  which  would  banish  from  religion 
everything  positive  have  made  use  of  this  method, 
in  order  to  give  a  direction  to  the  religious  in- 
struction of  the  common  people  and  of  the  young, 
conformably  to  their  own  maxima.  They  have 
selected  such  portions  only  of  the  Bible  as  incul- 
cate the  truths  of  natural  religion,  or  exhibit  the 
the  general  precepts  of  morality,  and  have  either 
wholly  omitted  or  very  slightly  noticed  the  posi- 
tive doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith.  Many  of 
them  have  gone  so  far  as  to  insist  that  such  com- 
pends should  be  used  in  the  schools  instead  of 
the  Bible,  and  have  boldly  declared  that  they 
might  be  made  gradually  to  supersede  wholly 


the  original  scriptures ;  as  in  very  many  cases 
the  extracts  made  from  a  work  have  led  to  an 
entire  neglect  of  the  original  from  which  they 
were  taken. 

If  we  consider  these  abuses,  and  the  present 
very  doubtful  tendency  of  this  method,  we  can- 
not deny  that  there  are  weighty  objections  to 
the  regular  use  of  compends  of  the  Bible  in  po- 
pular religious  instruction.  Indeed,  Eichhorn 
(Bibl.  der  bibl.  Lit.  Th.  I.  s.  828,  f.)  and 
many  other  neologists  have  declared  themselves 
against  this  method. 

If,  however,  these  compends  are  properly 
constructed  and  rightly  used  they  may  be  very 
useful.  In  order  to  avoid  the  mistakes  just  men- 
tioned, and  to  answer  the  ends  for  which  these 
selections  should  be  designed,  they  should  be 
composed  in  view  of  the  following  considera- 
tions :  (1)  The  author  of  the  compendium  and  the 
teachers  who  use  it  must  carefully  guard  against 
the  appearance  of  undervaluing  the  Bible  itself, 
or  of  wishing  to  supersede  it  by  their  selections. 
(2)  They  must  rather  labour  to  prepare  those 
whom  they  teach  by  means  of  these  extracts  to 
read  the  Bible  itself  with  understanding  and 
profit.  In  short,  a  compend  of  the  Bible  should 
be  made  a  practical  introduction  to  the  Bible 
itself,  and  should  be  calculated  to  awaken  the 
desire  of  reading  the  original  from  which  it  is 
taken.  (4)  The  historical  portions  of  the  Bible 
should  be  carefully  retained,  and  the  attention 
of  the  reader  should  be  directed  to  their  practi- 
cal use.  (5)  The  author  should  especially  la- 
bour to  render  everything  clear  and  intelligible, 
preserving,  however,  as  far  as  may  be,  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible  itself,  and  indeed,  for  the 
most  part,  that  of  the  authorized  version,  to 
which  the  readers  have  been  accustomed  from 
their  youth.  Cf.  Koppen,  Die  Bibel  ein  Werk 
der  gottlichen  Weisheit,  Th.  II.  s.  737.  Some 
of  the  best  compends  are  those  of  Trinius, 
Bahrdt,  Seiler,  Hufnagel,  Schneider,  Treumann, 
Risler,  and  others  mentioned  in  Noesselt's  Bu- 
cherkenntniss.  One  of  the  latest  compends  is 
that  of  Zerrenner,  which,  however,  does  not 
answer  all  the  conditions  above  stated.  The 
student  will  find  a  number  of  essays  for  and 
against  compends  of  the  Bible  in  some  of  the 
volumes  of  the  Predigerjournal. 


BOOK    I. 


DOCTRINE     OF     GOD 


(83) 


THIS  Book  comprises  what  may  be  called  theology  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
term.  The  several  doctrines  belonging  to  it  will  be  considered  in  the  following 
order : — 

PART  I. 

OF  THE  NATURE*  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 

1.  Of  the  existence  and  the  notion  of  God Art.  II. 

2.  Of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God Art.  III. 

3.  Of  the  doctrine  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost Art.  IV. 

PART  II. 

OF  THE  WORKS  OF  GOD. 

1.  Of  the  creation  of  the  world  : 

(a)  The  creation  of  the  world  in  general,  and  of  the  earth      .     .  Art.  V. 

(6)  The  creation,  and  original  condition  of  man Art.  VI. 

(c)  The  doctrine  of  angels Art.  VII. 

2.  Of  Divine  Providence  and  the  preservation  of  the  world     ....  Art.  VIII. 


(84) 


BOOK  I 


DOCTRINE    OF    GOD 


PART  I.— NA1JRE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 


ARTICLE  II. 

OF  THE  EXISTENCE  AND  THE  NOTION  OF  GOD. 

SECTION  XIV. 

OF   THE   NOTION   OF    GOD. 

I.  Can  God  be  defined? 

O  this  question,  which  was 
frequently  asked  by  the 
schoolmen,  some  writers 
have  returned  a  negative 
answer,  for  the  reason  that 
no  definition  can  perfectly 
exhaust  the  idea  in  ques- 
tion. And  if  the  definition  of  a  thipg 
must  necessarily  contain  a  complete  de- 
scription of  its  whole  nature  and  all 
its  attributes,  a  definition  of  God  is 
indeed  impossible.  But  all  which  is 
necessary  in  a  definition  is,  that  it  should  give 
us  so  many  of  the  characteristics  of  the  thing  de- 
fined as  to  enable  us  to  distinguish  it  from  all 
other  things.  And  in  this  sense  God  can  cer- 
tainly be  defined. 

II.  What  is  the  best  definition  of  God  ? 

The  difference  between  the  various  defini-  j 
tions  which  philosophers  have  given  of  God  is,  j 
for  the  most  part,  merely  verbal.     Some  of  the  j 
metaphysical  definitions  are  obscure  and  other-  \ 
wise  objectionable.     This  is  the  case  with  the  ' 
definition  given  by  Wolf:  "God  is  a  self-ex-  ! 
istent  being,  in  whom  the  ground  of  the  reality  j 
of  the  world  is  to  be  found,"  or,  ".God  is  a  | 
being  who  has  the  ground  of  his  existence  in 
himself."     Others  define  God  to  be  an  inde- 
pendent being,  or  an  independent  spirit,  or  an 
infinite,  necessary,   eternal  being.     By  these 
definitions,  which  enumerate  particular  divine 
attributes,  God  is  distinguished  from  all  other 


beings.  As  a  general  thing,  all  the  divine  at- 
tributes may  be  derived  by  inference  from  any 
one  ;  which  may,  therefore,  be  made  the  ground 
of  the  definition  of  the  Divine  Being.  This 
was  done  by  the  ancient  philosophers,  who  de- 
fined God  to  be  Ttdvtuv  atVtov,  to  OVT'COJ  oi>,  ovoia> 


But  the  best  definition  of  God  —  the  one  in 
which  all  the  others  are  comprehended  —  is  the 
following  :  God  is  the  most  perfect  being,  and  is 
the  cause  of  all  other  beings,  (a)  The  first 
clause  of  this  definition  is  comprehensive  of  all 
the  particular  attributes  by  which  God  is  dis- 
tinguished from  other  beings,  such  as  eternity, 
necessity,  independence,  freedom,  and  perfec- 
tion of  will,  &c.  This  definition  may  be  ex- 
pressed in  more  popular  and  scriptural  lan- 
guage, by  saying,  God  is  the  Supreme  Being, 
the  Most  High  (itywr'os),  exalted  over  all,  to 
whom  none  can  be  compared.  (&)  The  second 
clause  of  this  definition  is  added,  because  the 
contemplation  of  all  other  beings,  the  aggregate 
of  which  is  the  world,  facilitates  the  knowledge 
of  this  most  perfect  being  by  rendering  it  obvi- 
ous that  no  other  beings  possess  all  the  perfec- 
tions which  are  united  in  him.  In  this  view, 
God  is  regarded  not  only  as  he  is  in  himself, 
but  also  in  relation  to  other  existing  things. 
But  Kant  has  pronounced  this  definition  of  God, 
and  all  the  common  definitions,  defective,  be- 
cause they  make  no  express  mention  of  moral 
perfection,  which,  in  the  description  of  a  being 
like  God,  should  be  far  more  prominent  than 
mere  metaphysical  perfection.  He  would  there- 
fore connect  with  the  idea  of  the  most  perfect 
being  that  of  a/ree  being,  provided  with  a  pure 
moral  will.  But  the  latter  idea  being  implied 
in  the  former  does  not  require  to  be  expressly 
mentioned  in  a  general  definition. 

But  the  first  clause  of  the  definition  above 
given,  however  intelligible  it  may  be  to  the 
learned,  who  are  accustomed  to  abstract  ideas, 
is  too  transcendental  and  metaphysical  for  an- 


86 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


educated  people.  And  as  the  principal  part  of  our 
knowledge  of  God  is  derived  from  the  contem- 
plation of  the  natural  world,  and  the  conclusions 
to  which  we  arrive  from  this  contemplation ;  the 
second  clause  of  this  definition  will  be  far  more 
generally  intelligible  than  the  first.  In  popular 
instruction  we  should  therefore  define  God  to  be 
the  creator,  preserver,  and  governor  of  all  things  ; 
for  we  always  conceive  of  God  principally  in 
relation  to  ourselves  and  the  world  around  us, 
and  without  the  contemplation  of  the  world  we 
should  not  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  God 
as  the  most  perfect  being ;  so  that  the  first  part 
of  the  definition  is  a  consequence  of  the  last. 

This  is  the  light  in  which  God  is  presented 
to  us  in  the  Bible,  Gen.  i.  1 ;  Jer.  x.  10 — 16; 
Amos,  v.  8 ;  Acts,  xvii.  24,  coll.  Psalm  clxvi. 
6 ;  Isa.  xlii.  5 ;  xlv.  6,  seq. ;  Matt.  xi.  25.  Vide 
Morus,  p.  44.  And  this,  too,  is  the  view  of  God 
which  is  most  calculated  to  inspire  the  minds 
of  men  with  reverence  for  his  character,  which 
is  the  great  object  of  all  religious  instruction. 
Vide  Morus,  pages  43,  44. 

SECTION  XV. 

OF  THE  PROOFS  OF  THE  DIVINE  EXISTENCE. 

I.  Statement  of  the  Proofs  of  the  Existence  of  God. 

THE  belief  in  the  divine  existence  is  always 
presupposed  in  the  Bible,  and  the  truth  of  this 
belief  is  not,  therefore,  formally  proved,  although 
it  is  supported  by  many  convincing  arguments, 
Rom.  i.  19.  On  this  account  Baier  and  some 
other  theologians  contended  that  the  divine  ex- 
istence should  be  presupposed  in  Christian  theo- 
logy, and  that  the  proofs  of  it  should  be  wholly 
omitted ;  and  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  full 
and  scientific  statement  of  these  proofs  belongs 
rather  to  metaphysics  and  natural  theology  than 
here.  The  proofs  of  the  divine  existence  may 
be  divided  into  two  principal  classes. 

1.  Proofs  a  priori.  The  most  celebrated  of 
these  is  that  derived  from  THE  IDEA  of  the  most 
perfect  being,  and  called  the  ontological  or  Carte- 
sian proof.  It  was  first  used  by  Auselmus,  and 
often  repeated  by  the  schoolmen  who  succeeded 
him,  and  only  renewed  by  Des  Cartes.  It  was 
afterwards  improved  by  Leibnitz,  Wolf,  and 
Baumgarten.  It  may  be  briefly  stated  thus : 
The  most  perfect  being  is  possible,  and  therefore 
actually  exists  ,•  for  existence  is  a  reality  or  perfec- 
tion, and  necessary  existence  is  the  highest  perfec- 
tion. Consequently  necessary  existence  must  be 
predicated  of  the  most  perfect  being.  The  vali- 
dity of  this  argument  was  disputed  by  the  monk 
Gaunilo,  a  contemporary  of  Anselmus,  and  by 
many  others  in  succeeding  ages.  In  modern 
times  it  has  at  last  been  proved  by  Kant  to  be 
entirely  futile.  The  mere  supposableness  or 
logical  possibility  of  a  perfect  being  is  no  proof 


of  the  objective  or  real  possibility  of  such  a 
being;  and  existence  cannot  be  inferred  from  a 
mere  idea.  This  proof  a  priori  entirely  sur- 
passes the  comprehension  of  common  minds. 

2.  Proofs  a  posteriori,  or  from  experience. 

(a)  From  the  contingency  of  the  world.  We 
perceive  a  constant  motion  and  change  in  the 
objects  around  us,  from  which  we  conclude  that 
they  are  contingent.  These  contingent  things 
must  have  some  ground  for  their  existence  and 
change  extrinsic  to  themselves.  And  this 
ground  must  be  a  necessary  being,  one  who  has 
the  ground  of  his  existence  in  himself;  and  this 
being  is  God.  Otherwise  we  must  make  the 
absurd  supposition  that  effects  exist  without 
their  causes,  or  that  there  is  an  infinite  series  of 
contingent  causes  (progressum  causarum  in  infi- 
nitum),  which  is  equally  absurd.  This  proof, 
when  stated  in  connexion  with  others,  and  espe- 
cially with  the  moral  proof,  is  well  calculated 
to  produce  conviction.  The  Bible  frequently 
contrasts  the  eternity  and  immutability  of  God 
with  the  perishable  nature  of  the  material  world, 
Psalm  xc.;  cii.  26—28;  Heb.  i.  10,  seq.  And 
this  proof,  when  exhibited  in  this  way,  is  highly 
adapted  to  produce  impression  even  on  the  com- 
mon mind.  [It  is  commonly  called  the  cosmolo- 
gical  proof.] 

Note.  This  argument,  in  its  scientific  form 
and  development,  has  been  ascribed  by  many, 
from  their  ignorance  of  ancient  philosophy,  to 
Thomas  Aquinas.  It  was  used,  however,  by 
Carneades  in  opposition  to  the  stoics,  who 
ascribed  divinity  to  the  world  ;  accwding  to  the 
testimony  of  Cicero,  De  Natura  Deor.  III.  12. 
It  was  also  used  by  many  of  the  ecclesiastical 
fathers.  Vide  Petavius,  Dogm.  Theol.  1.  i. 
c.  2. 

(&)  The  proofs  from  final  causes.  These  may 
be  stated  in  a  very  popular  and  intelligible  man- 
ner, and  are  therefore  best  adapted  to  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  common  people  and  of  the  young. 
They  are  called  by  the  schoolmen  argumenta 
physica.  In  these,  however,  the  proof  from  the 
contingency  of  the  world  is  presupposed.  The 
argument  stands  thus:  If  the  things  of  the 
world  stand  connected  as  means  and  ends,  and 
follow  one  after  another  in  this  relation,  they 
must  be  ordered  by  an  intelligence,  a  being  of 
reason  and  supreme  wisdom.  Now  the  things 
of  the  world  are  found  actually  to  exist  in  this 
relation  and  order,  so  that  we  are  compelled  to 
believe  that  the  world  has  sprung  from  an  intel- ' 
ligent  author. 

The  full  evidence  of  this  conclusion  depends 
upon  the  following  particulars.  (1)  The  world 
exhibits  the  most  astonishing  marks  of  order, 
perfection,  and  design.  Although  we  are  unable 
to  survey  the  boundless  extent  of  the  universe, 
we  find  abundant  proof  of  this  in  the  animate 
and  inanimate  creation  which  surrounds  us. 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


87 


(2)  The  order  and  design  exhibited  in  the  world 
are  not  the  effect  of  blind  chance.  This  cannot 
^e  supposed  without  contradicting  the  most  fun- 
damental principles  of  the  human  mind.  (3) 
This  order,  so  observable  in  the  material  crea- 
tion, is  contingent.  We  may  be  very  easily 
satisfied  that  it  does  not  result  from  anything 
existing  in  the  world  itself.  From  all  this  we 
conclude  that  the  order  exhibited  in  the  material 
world  must  have  a  ground  beyond  the  world 
itself;  and  that  the  author  of  the  visible  creation 
must  be  an  intelligent  being,  who  proposes  to 
himself  certain  ends  to  be  attained  in  the  produc- 
tion and  wise  arrangement  of  contingent  things. 

The  science  by  which  we  attain  the  know- 
ledge of  the  existence  and  attributes  qf  the  Di- 
vine Being  from  the  wisdom  displayed  in  the 
constitution  of  the  natural  world,  is  called  phy- 
sico-theology  ^  and  that  which  develops  the  ends 
or  final  causes  of  this  constitution,  teleology. 
[Hence  this  proof  of  the  divine  existence  is  com- 
monly called  the  physico-theological  or  teleolo- 
gical. 

This  argument,  so  well  adapted  to  common 
apprehension,  was  employed  more  frequently 
than  any  other  by  the  ancient  writers.  Cf. 
Xenophon,  Memorabilia,  I.  4.  IV.  3.  Plato, 
De  Legg.  X.  68.  XII.  229.  Galen,  De.usu 
partiurn.  Philebus,  244.  Cicero,  De  Nat.  Deor. 
II.  2,  38,  seq.  Quaest.  Tusc.  I.  28,  29.  It  was 
likewise  often  employed  by  the  Christian  fa- 
thers. Vide  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Orat.  28. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  De  opificio  hominis.  Lac- 
tantius,  De  opificio  hominis.  Theophilus,  Ad 
Autolychum,  I.  23.  Cf.  Athanasius,  John  of 
Damascus,  and  others.  The  best  modern 
writers  on  the  general  subject  of  physico-theo- 
logy  are,  Fenelon,  Van  Nieuwentyt,  Derham, 
Wolf,  Scheuchzer,  Bonnet,  and  Sander.  Par- 
ticular branches  of  physico-theology  have  also 
been  frequently  laboured  in  modern  times. 
Cf.  Frabicius,  Hydrotheologie.  Lesser,  Litho- 
theologie.  Derham,  Astrotheologie.  Bode,  An- 
leitung  zur  Kenntniss  des  gesternten  Himmels. 
Reimarus,  Ueber  die  Triebe  der  Thiere.  Lesser, 
Insektotheologie,  &c.  This  general  argument 
is  often  exhibited  in  the  holy  scriptures.  Vide 
Ps.  viii.  xix.  civ.;  Is.  xl.  21 — 26;  Job,  xxxvii. 
xli. ;  Matt.  vi.  25,  seq. ;  Acts,  xiv.  15,  seq.  xvii. 
24—28  ;  Rom.  i.  19. 

(c)  The  moral  argument,  lately  elucidated  by 
Kant.  Vide  No.  II. 

(f/)  The  historical  proof,  drawn  from  the 
agreement  of  all,  even  the  most  uncultivated 
nations,  in  the  belief  of  the  divine  existence. 
Against  this  proof  it  has  been  objected,  (1)  that 
the  fact  of  this  agreement  could  not  be  satisfac- 
torily proved  from  history  ;  vide  Introduction, 
s.  4  ;  (2)  that  this  agreement,  even  if  it  could 
be  satisfactorily  established,  would  not  prove 
this  belief  to  be  true ;  since  many  acknowledged 


errors  and  superstitions  have  been  universally 
believed.  But  notwithstanding  these  objec- 
tions, this  almost  universal  agreement  of  men 
with  regard  to  the  divine  existence  must  be  ac- 
knowledged to  furnish  an  argument  of  some 
weight.  It  shews  that  the  common  sense  of 
mankind,  on  a  little  reflection,  leads  to  the  idea 
of  God,  and  that  the  conclusion  from  these  ef- 
fects to  such  a  cause  is  very  obvious  and  natu- 
ral to  the  human  mind.  Acts,  xvii.  27.  It 
should  be  here  remarked,  however,  that  the  be- 
lief of  the  divine  existence  precedes  the  know- 
ledge of  any  theoretic  proof  of  it.  Vide  Intro- 
duction, s.  4,  and  infra  No.  II. 

[This  argument  was  used  by  the  ancient  phi- 
losophers. ttdvt£$  ai^pcoTtot  rtepi  ytewv  t%ovow 
j  Aristotle,  De  Casio,  I.  3.  "Ajtavtss 
a%£obv  "EM-Jpfj  is  xau  )3apj3apot,  vofii- 
v(M  to  &iov,  Sextus  Empiricus,  Adv. 
Mathern.  I.  8.  The  same  writer  mentions  as 
one  of  four  proofs  of  the  divine  existence,  % 
Ttapa  jtdaiv  di^pcortotj  oiyz^wWa,  Adv.  Mathem. 
IX.  60.  'Ev  |3apj3apot$  ovdst,$  tali  tov  ^tovayvowv, 
Maximus  Tyrius,  Dissert.  38.  Cf.  Cicero,  De 
Nat.  Deor.  I.  17,  23.  Seneca,  Epist.  117. 

(e)  The  proof  of  the  divine  existence  from 
miracles.  The  miracles  recorded  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  must  have  afforded  to  those 
who  saw  them  irresistible  proof  of  the  existence 
and  perfections  of  God.  They  were  accordingly 
employed  by  Moses,  and  the  other  ancient  pro- 
phets, to  convince  the  Jews  and  Egpytians  not 
only  that  God  existed,  but  that  Jehovah  was 
the  only  true  and  the  almighty  sovereign  of  the 
universe.  And  these  miracles  are  calculated  to 
produce  the  same  conviction  in  us,  although  we 
have  not  seen  them  with  our  own  eyes,  if  we 
believe  the  truth  of  the  Bible  in  which  they  are 
recorded.  Vide  Storr  and  Flatt,  Elements  of 
Biblical  Theology,  vol.  i.  p.  309,  of  the  trans- 
lation. 

II.  Observations  on  the  Use  of  the  Proof  of  the 
Divine  Existence. 

1.  The  proofs  of  the  divine  existence  have 
been  the  subject  of  much  controversy  among 
the  philosophers  of  modern  times.  Kant  has 
endeavoured  to  shew,  in  his  Kritik  der  reinen 
Vernunft,  der  Urtheilskraft,  and  other  works, 
that  all  the  theoretic  proofs  of  the  divine  exist- 
ence are  imperfect,  and  that  we  do  not  hold  the 
notion  of  God  to  be  true  on  the  ground  of  spe- 
culative reason,  but  because  it  perfectly  agrees 
with  the  principles  of  our  moral  nature.  And 
he  would  therefore  have  our  belief  in  the  exist- 
ence of  God  to  depend  solely  upon  the  moral 
proof,  which  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows : — 
There  is  a  moral  order  of  things  in  the  world, — 
all  things  are  connected  together  as  means  for 
the  attainment  of  moral  ends.  To  this  moral 
order  we  ourselves  belong,  as  we  learn  from  the 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


moral  feeling  which  we  all  possess,  and  which 
is  exerted  in  the  conscience.  Now  we  are  led 
by  our  practical  reason  to  conclude,  that  there 
exists  some  cause,  by  which  alone  this  order 
could  be  established — i.  e.,  that  there  is  a  God. 
Vide  Jacobi,  Priifung  der  Mendelssohn'schen 
Morgenstunden,  oder  aller  speculativen  Be- 
weise  fur  das  Daseyn  Gottes,  Leipzig,  1786, 
8vo.  Cf.  Jacobi,  Ueber  den  moralischen  Be- 
weis  vom  Daseyn  Gottes,  Libau,  1791,  8vo. 

[This  argument  will  be  placed  in  a  clearer 
light  by  the  following  passage  from  Kant  him- 
self. "The  highest  good  of  man  consists  of 
two  parts,  the  greatest  possible  morality  and 
happiness.  The  former  is  the  demand  of  his 
spiritual,  the  latter  of  his  animal  nature.  The 
former  only,  his  morality,  is  within  his  own 
power;  and  while,  by  persevering  virtue,  he 
makes  this  his  personal  character,  he  is  often 
compelled  to  sacrifice  his  happiness.  But  since 
the  desire  of  happiness  is  neither  irrational  nor 
unnatural,  he  justly  concludes,  either  that  there 
is  a  supreme  being  who  will  so  guide  the  course 
of  things  (the  natural  world  not  of  itself  subject 
to  moral  laws)  as  to  render  his  holiness  and 
happiness  equal,  or  that  the  dictates  of  his  con- 
science are  unjust  and  irrational.  But  the  lat- 
ter supposition  is  morally  impossible  ;  and  he  is 
compelled,  therefore,  to  receive  the  former  as 
true."  Kritik  der  reinen  Vernunft,  s.  620,  f.] 

2.  An  impartial  examination  of  this  contro- 
versy leads  us  to  the  following  general  re- 
sult:— 

(a)  The  metaphysical  proofs  of  the  divine 
existence  are  imperfect,  as  well  as  all  proofs  of 
this  nature,  to  whatever  subject  they  may  relate. 
But  they  are  not  requisite  for  the  establishment 
of  our  faith.  If  we  should  begin  with  the  prin- 
ciple of  believing  only  what  we  could  prove  on 
speculative  grounds,  we  should  end  with  doubt- 
ing many  of  the  most  established  truths,  and  our 
own  existence  among  the  rest.  The  demonstra- 
tion which  Spinoza  has  given  of  pantheism  is 
inconclusive,  because  it  is  founded  on  merely 
speculative  grounds,  as  Kant  has  shewn  beyond 
all  dispute.  The  person  who  hopes  to  attain  to 
certainty  in  the  way  of  metaphysical  speculation, 
will  be  disappointed,  and  will  fall  into  the  depths 
of  cheerless  scepticism. 

(6)  It  is  an  established  fact,  that  all  who  be- 
lieve in  the  divine  existence,  are  convinced  of  it 
before  they  come  to  the  knowledge  of  any  theo- 
retic argument  by  which  it  might  be  proved. 
Men  in  general  admit  the  idea  of  God  to  be  true, 
because  it  perfectly  agrees  with  the  principles 
of  their  moral  nature,  and  is  demanded  by  these 
principles;  and  not  because  it  is  proved  by  spe- 
culative reason.  Vide  Introduction,  s.  4. 

(c)  This  moral  proof  is  therefore  very  true 
a  1  just;  and  we  shall  do  well  if  we  search  for 
the  grounds  of  it  in  our  own  minds,  in  order  to 


establish  our  own  personal  conviction.  This 
proof  should  likewise  be  used,  divested  however 
of  technical  language,  in  popular  instruction; 
for  so  it  is  actually  employed  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures. 

(d)  As  soon,  however,  as  the  speculative  rea- 
son is  awakened,  and  in  some  measure  culti- 
vated, the  mind,  agreeably  to  its  nature  and  its 
usual  course,  searches  for  the  theoretic  proofs 
of  the  same  truths  with  which  it  had  become 
previously  acquainted  from  practical  reason. 
But  the  man  deceives  himself  who  supposes  that 
these  theoretic  proofs  alone  would  have  ever  led 
him  to  conviction.  They  are  not,  however,  by 
any  means  to  be  rejected  ;  since  they  result  di- 
rectly from  the  very  constitution  of  the  specula- 
tive reason,  and  serve  to  confirm  our  belief  in 
truths  which  were  before  made  known  to  us  in 
another  way.  If  with  these  views  we  find  im- 
perfection and  inconclusiveness  in  these  theoretic 
proofs,  we  shall  not  be  wavered  in  our  faith, 
knowing  that  it  depends  upon  other  grounds 
than  these.  In  connexion,  therefore,  with  the 
moral  proof,  the  physico-theological  and  teleolo- 
gical  should  also  be  used.  What  God,  the  au- 
thor of  our  nature,  has  joined  together  in  the 
very  constitution  which  he  has  given  us,  let  not 
the  philosopher  or  religious  teacher  put  asunder. 

3.  The  use  to  be  made  of  these  remarks  in 
popular  instruction.  If  the  human  mind  comes 
to  the  knowledge  of  God  in  the  manner  just 
described,  we  must  conform  ourselves  in  our  in- 
structions to  this  natural  progress,  if  we  would 
compass  our  object.  In  so  doing,  we  shall  fol- 
low the  example  of  the  sacred  writers,  who  al- 
ways proceed  in  this  way.  We  must  accord- 
ingly inculcate  upon  our  hearers  the  truth,  that 
the  conscience  of  man  is  the  ground  of  all  our 
knowledge  of  God,  and  the  source  of  all  true 
religion.  Every  man  has  a  law  within  his  own 
bosom,  by  which  he  judges  his  feelings,  actions, 
and  his  whole  moral  character.  This  law  com- 
mands his  obedience  so  imperatively,  that  he  is 
compelled  to  regard  it  as  the  standard,  to  which 
alone  his  conduct  must  be  brought,  and  where 
it  must  be  tried  independently  of  human  opi- 
nions. And  he  acquits  or  condemns  himself, 
according  to  this  law,  as  if  he  stood  before  a  ju- 
dicial tribunal,  Rom.  ii.  12 — 16;  Acts,  xvii. 
27—31 ;  Rom.  i.  19,  20,  32  ;  Cf.  Introduction, 
s.  4.  Now  when  a  person  acknowledges  this 
law,  he  at  the  same  time  acknowledges,  that 
there  is  an  invisible  lawgiver  and  judge,  who 
annexes  rewards  to  what  is  morally  good,  and 
punishment  to  what  is  morally  evil,  to  whom 
therefore  homage  and  obedience  is  due  from  us 
his  subjects.  Vide  loc.  sup.  cit.  In  this  way 
does  man  come  to  the  knowledge  of  a  moral 
order  of  things,  to  which  he  himself  is  conscious 
of  belonging  in  the  nobler  portion  of  his  nature, 
and  from  which  he  cannot  but  infer  the  exist- 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


ence  of  a  cause  upon  which  this  order  de- 
pends— i.  e.,  of  a  free  and  moral  being.  In 
short,  the  conscience  of  man  distinctly  utters  the 
voice  of  an  invisible  and  supreme  judge  of  our 
thoughts  and  actions. 

But  we  do  not  stop  at  this  point.  Though 
this  judge  of  our  hearts  is  invisible,  he  is  yet  the 
object  of  our  knowledge.  His  existence  is  made 
known  to  us  by  his  works,  which  we  see  with 
our  eyes,  and  perceive  by  all  our  bodily  senses, 
(voovptva,  3ec£oparat,  Rom.  i.  20 ;)  for  as  long  as 
the  world  exists  (drto  xtlotus  xoopov}  we  may 
find  proof  of  the  divine  existence,  and  revelation 
of  the  divine  attributes,  in  the  works  of  his  hand. 
Here,  then,  according  to  the  example  of  the  sa- 
cred writers,  we  may  introduce  the  proofs  from 
the  contingency  of  the  world,  arid  the  marks  of 
design  which  it  exhibits,, in  all  their  force. 

If  we  impart  religious  instruction  in  this  man- 
ner, we  shall  proceed  both  psychologically  and 
scripturally ;  for  conscience  within,  and  nature 
without  us,  furnish  a  twofold  source  of  the  know- 
ledge of  God.  But  if  we  follow  the  example  of 
the  Bible,  we  shall  connect  with  these  truths, 
derived  immediately  from  the  human  conscience, 
the  more  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
system;  such,  for  example,  as  the  doctrine  that 
Christ  will,  at  a  future  day,  sit  in  judgment  upon 
all  the  actions  of  our  lives,  Rom.  ii.  16.  It  fol- 
lows from  the  views  here  expressed,  that  we 
should  begin  to  instruct  children  in  the  know- 
ledge of  God  at  a  very  early  period ;  as  soon, 
indeed,  as  they  shew  the  movings  of  moral  feel- 
ing, or  begin  to  reflect  upon  the  things  which 
surround  them,  or  to  reason  from  effect  to  cause. 

Vide  Jacobi,  Leichter  und  iiberzeugender  Be- 
weis  von  Gott,  und  von  der  Wahrheit  der  christ- 
lichen  Religion;  also,  Versuch  eines  Beweises 
eines  in  der  menschlichen  Seele  von  Natur 
liegenden  Eindrucks  von  Gott,  und  einem  Leben 
uach  dem  Tode. 

III.  Of  Atheism. 

The  error  of  those  who  deny  the  existence  of 
God  is  called  atheism.  Atheists  are  such  either 
theoretically  or  practically.  Practical  atheists 
are  those  who  derive  the  motives  of  their  con- 
duct from  the  denial  of  the  divine  existence.  In 
the  common  sense,  however,  they  are  those  who, 
while  they  profess  religion,  live  in  reality  like 
atheists.  It  is  of  such  that  the  Bible  speaks, 
Psa.  xiv.  1 ;  Ephes.  ii.  12.  But  we  shall  here 
treat  only  of  theoretic  atheism.  Some  have  de- 
nied that  theoretic  atheism  is  possible.  This 
opinion,  so  contradictory  to  all  experience  and 
history,  is  generally  entertained  by  those  who 
believe  in  innate  ideas,  or  who  would  prove  the 
existence  of  God  from  the  common  consent  of 
all  mankind;  but  notwithstanding  this  opinion, 
there  have  always  been  those  who  have  denied 
the  being  of  God.  Some,  like  Sextus  the  Em- 
12 


piric,  and  Hume,  are  sceptical  atheists,  and  con- 
sider the  evidence  against  the  divine  existence 
as  equivalent  to  that  in  its  favour,  and  therefore 
leave  the  question  undecided.  Others  are  de- 
cided, dogmatical  atheists,  and  think  the  argu- 
ments against  the  divine  existence  prepon- 
derate. 

But  we  must  here  notice  a  species  of  atheism 
which  is  more  refined,  and  which  has  been  bet- 
ter received,  than  any  other.  God,  as  we  con- 
ceive of  him,  is  the  most  perfect  being  distinct 
from  the  world  which  is  dependent  on  him. 
Whoever,  therefore,  believes  that  the  world 
itself,  or  any  part  or  power  of  it,  is  God,  is  an 
atheist.  But  there  have  always  been  some  phi- 
losophers who  have  held  that  the  world  itself, 
or  that  the  air  or  fire,  or  some  other  portion,  or 
that  the  power  of  motion,  (which  was  the  opi- 
nion of  many  of  the  Stoics  and  Epicureans), 
was  God  himself.  But  this  atheism  was  for 
the  first  time  thoroughly  systematized  by  Bene- 
dict Spinoza,  in  his  Ethics,  published  among 
his  posthumous  works  in  1677.  According  to 
him,  there  is  but  one  substance,  which,  however, 
is  variously  modified.  It  has  two  principal  at- 
tributes, infinite  extension  (matter)  and  infinite 
thought  (intelligence.)  Spinoza  speaks  indeed 
of  God ;  his  God,  however,  is  not  personally 
distinguished  from  the  world,  but  is  the  uni- 
verse itself,  I'D  jtwv.  Hence  the  name  of  pan- 
theism, which  is  given  to  his  system.  He  is 
commonly  supposed  to  have  derived  his  views 
from  Xenophanes  of  Colophon,  and  from  Parme- 
nides  and  Zeno  of  Elea.  He  did  not,  however, 
agree  so  well  with  the  principles  of  that  school 
as  with  the  ideas  of  the  system  of  emanation, 
which  he  enlarged,  refined,  and  adapted  to  his 
own  theory.  The  weakness  and  inconclusive- 
ness  of  the  reasoning  of  Spinoza  has  been  ex- 
posed with  great  sagacity  by  Kant.  The 
whole  subject  is  fully  considered  in  the  writings 
of  Jacobi,  Heydenreich,  and  Herder,  respecting 
Spinoza. 

Very  similar  to  the  system  of  Spinoza  is  that 
of  many  theosophists.  Pantheism  has  likewise 
been  received  into  favour,  in  modern  times,  by 
many  philosophers  in  Italy  and  France ;  and  in 
Germany,  the  visible  tendency  of  many  of  the 
adherents  of  the  critical  philosophy  is  to  derive 
atheism  from  the  ideas  of  Kant,  and  thus  esta- 
blish it  on  a  new  foundation.  This  appears  to 
be  the  case  particularly  with  Fichte,  Nietham- 
mer,  Forberg,  and  Schelling.  Vide  Fichte's 
and  Nietharnmer's  Philosophisches  Journal,  St. 
I.  Fichte  is  very  unwilling  to  be  thought  an 
atheist ;  and,  to  be  sure,  he  speaks  of  God ;  but 
he  cannot  speak  of  him  in  the  sense  in  which 
others  do,  for  he  denies  the  existence  of  a  being 
who  is  self-existent  and  independent  of  our  con- 
ceptions; and  such  a  being  is  intended  by  every 
one  who  speaks  of  God.  The  term  God,  accord- 
H2 


90 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY". 


ing  to  Fichte,  means  nothing  more  than  the 
moral  order  of  things;  and  this  order,  according 
to  his  system,  exists  only  in  relation  to  us,  and 
as  belonging  to  ourselves,  and  not  at  all  inde- 
pendent of  our  conceptions.  Vide  the  Essay, 
Ueber  Fichte's  Lehre  von  Gott,  und  der  gott- 
lichen  Weltregierung,  in  Flatt's  Magazin  fur 
christliche  Dogtnatik  und  Moral,  St.  5,  s.  1 — 83, 
and  174 — 239;  and  Briefe  iiber  Kant's,  For- 
berg's  und  Fichte's  Religionslehre,  St.  6,  s. 
184—210.  Cf.  the  Essays  of  Dr.  Vogel,  in  the 
Neue  Theol.  Journal,  1799  and  1800.  Also  two 
treatises  in  Siiskind's  Magazin,  St.  11,  12,  No. 
8,  Ueber  die  Griinde  des  Glaubens  an  eine 
Gottheit  als  ausserweltliche  und  fur  sich  beste- 
hende  Intelligenz;  and  No.  9,  Ueber  das  Fun- 
dament des  Glaubens  an  die  Gottheit.  For 
remarks  respecting  Schelling's  doctrine  of  reli- 
gion, vide  Dr.  Vogel's  Essay  in  Gabler's  Jour- 
nal fur  auserlesene  theol.  Litteratur,  Bd.  V.  St. 
1,  s.  1,  ff.,  and  Suskind's  Magazin,  St.  17. 

[JVb/e. — The  name  atheism  would  seem  to  be 
improperly  given  to  the  error  of  those  who  in 
any  way  allow  the  idea  of  God,  however  much 
their  conceptions  of  him  may  vary  from  the 
truth.  These  different  conceptions  may  be  de- 
signated by  names  more  appropriate  and  less  in- 
jurious than  that  of  atheism.  Thus  the  doctrine 
of  Fichte,  who  allows  the  subjective  validity  of 
the  idea  of  God,  though  he  denies  its  objective 
'reality,  is  properly  called  idealism;  the  doctrine 
of  Spinoza,  who  removes  the  individual  exist- 
ence of  nature,  and  transfers  it  to  God,  while 
he  retains  unaltered  the  idea  of  God  as  a  self- 
conscious  individual,  would  be  properly  called 
ideal  pantheism ;  and  that  of  Schelling,  who 
transfers  the  individual  being  of  God  into  na- 
ture, natural  pantheism.  These  remarks  are 
confirmed  by  the  following  quotation  from 
Henke:— 

"  Summa  injuria  omnes  illi  Atheorum  numero 
accensentur,  qui  summum  numen  ab  hoc  uni- 
verso  secretum  ac  disperatum  cogitare  nesciunt, 
maluntque  Deum  rerum  omnium  causam  imma- 
nenteni,  quam  transeuntem,  dici,  nee  tamen  id 
quod  perpetuo  est,  commiscent  cum  illo  quod 
perpetuo  fit :  quorum  error,  profecto  magis  fana- 
ticus  quam  impius,  Pantheismus  et  Spinosismus 
vocatur."  Lineam.  Inst.  fidei  Christ.,  p.  54. 

Among  the  ancient  Greek  philosophers  to 
whom  the  name  of  atheist  would  truly  apply, 
we  may  mention,  Leucippus,  Diagorasof  Melos, 
Protagoras  of  Abdera,  Critias  of  Athens,  Prodi- 
cus,  and  Theodorus  of  Gyrene;  among  the 
Romans,  Lucretius;  among  modern  writers,  De 
la  Mettrie,  Von  Holbach,  or  La  Grange,  (the 
author  of  the  System  of  Nature),  Helvetius, 
Diderot,  and  D'Alembert,  (the  authors  of  the 
French  Encyclopaedia,)  and  Joseph  Priestly. 
Mandeville,  Edelmann,  and  Voltaire,  appear  to 


have  been  rather  promoters  of  atheistical  princi- 
ples than  themselves  decided  atheists.] 

SECTION  XVI. 

OF  THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. 

I.  Proof  of  the  Divine  Unity. 

1.  THE  unity  of  God  is  proved  from   the 
idea   of  absolute  perfection,  which  cannot  be 
conceived  as  divided,  or  as  residing  in  different 
subjects.     This  proof  was  sometimes  employed 
by  the  ecclesiastical  fathers — e.  g.,  Tertullian, 
Contra  Marcionem,  I.  3. 

2.  From  the  unity  of  the  world.     All  the  ob- 
jects existing  extrinsically  to  God  himself  com- 
pose  one   great  whole.     And  since   the   most 
perfect  being  affords  sufficient  ground  for  the 
existence  of  the  world,  the  supposition  of  an- 
other being  is  unnecessary.  This  metaphysical 
proof  was  used  by  Ambrosias,  De  fide,  I.  1. 

3.  From  the  creation  and  preservation  of  the 
world.     This  proof  may  be  stated  in  the  most 
popular  manner.     If  many  deities  participated 
in  the  creation  and  preservation  of  the  world, 
we  must  suppose,  (a}  either  that  they  divided 
the  powers  among  themselves,  one  possessing 
one  power,  and  another  a  different  power, — to 
which  it  might  be  said  that  the  supposition  of  a 
God  with  only  one  power  is  a  contradiction,— 
or  (6)  that  one  among  them  possessed  more 
power  than  the  rest;  in  which  case  he  alone  is 
worthy  of  the  name  of  God,  and  the  others  are 
unnecessary,  or  at  most  are  only  subservient  to 
the  supreme  God ;  or  (c)  that  they  all  possessed 
equal  powers  and  perfections ;  in  which  case, 
either  one  among  them  created  the  world,  and 
is,  therefore,  alone  entitled  to  the  name  of  God  ; 
or  they  all  united  their  powers  in  the  work  of 
creation,  which  implies  that  their  single  powers 
were  insufficient,  and  that  their  united  powers 
alone  constitute  God,  and  thus  leads  us  back  to 
unity,  (^ovaj.)     On  the  supposition  that  many 
different  gods  participate  in  the  goverment  of  the 
world  we  could  hardly  avoid  the  conclusion  that 
they  would  disagree  in  their  views  and  plans, 
and  thus  introduce  disorder  and  confusion  into 
the  world.     This  argument  was  formerly  em- 
ployed by  Abelard. 

For  a  more  full  discussion  of  the  proofs  of  the 
unity  of  God  the  student  may  consult  the  fol- 
lowing works :  Tollner,  Versuch  eines  neuen 
strengen  Beweises  von  der  Einheit  Gottes,  in 
his  Vermischten  Aufsatzen,  Samml.  I.  Num.  3, 
1766.  Just.  Christ.  Henning,  Die  Einigkeit 
Gottes,  nach  verschiedenen  Gesichtspunkten 
gepriift;  Altenburg,  1779,  8vo.  Plainer,  Phi- 
losophische  Aphorismen,  th.  i. 

The  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  is  taught  in 
the  most  clear  and  explicit  manner  in  the  Old 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


91 


and  New  Testaments.  "Jehovah  is  God,  Jeho- 
vah is  ONE"  (ins) — i.  e.,  one  God,  Deut.  vi.  4; 
iv.  35,  39 ;  xxxii.  39.  "  I  am  God,  and  there  is 
none  else,"  Isaiah,  xlv.  5,  21,  22;  Ps.  Ixxxvi. 
10.  The  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God  was  at 
the  foundation  of  the  whole  Mosaic  religion 
and  institute,  and  also  of  the  Christian  religion. 
«« And  this  is  eternal  life,  that  they  might  know 
thee,"  fbv  fiovov  ahrj&vbv  OEOV,  John,  xvii.  3. 
'H/itv  flj  &tbg  6  rta-r^p,  **  we  believe  in  one  God," 
1  Cor.  viii.  4 — 6;  James,  ii.  19,  seq. 

II.  Historical  Illustrations  of  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Divine  Unity. 

1.  The  error  of  those  who  maintain  that  the 
universe  was  created,  and  is  sustained  and  go- 
verned by  more  than  one  God,  is  called  poly- 
theism.    And    those  who  had  fallen   into  this 
error  being  the  great  body  of  the  nations  of  the 
ancient  world,  were  called  by  the  Jews,  D?ia  (fa 
2^-wf,  gentes)  ;  rendered  by  Luther,  Heiden  (lit. 
Volker)  and  by  our  translators,  heathen,  (lit. 
gentiles,  pagans.)     Hence  polytheism  is  called 
by  Luther  Heidenthum,  and  by  our  translators, 
heathenism. 

2.  The  notion  of  the  unity  of  God  is  com- 
monly supposed  to  be  very  obvious  to  the  mind 
of  every  one.     But  if  it  is  as  clear  and  compre- 
hensible to  the   human  understanding  as  the 
idea  of  the  divine  existence,  for  example,  how 
comes  it  to  pass  that  so  many  nations,  even 
those  who  must  be  allowed  to  have  possessed 
the  highest  mental  cultivation,  should  have  been 
from  the  first  so  decidedly  inclined,  and  so  ob- 
stinately attached,  to  polytheism1?     The  Israel- 
ites themselves,  who  in  the  times  of  the  patri- 
archs had  been  taught  the  truth  on  this  subject 
by  immediate  revelation,  relapsed   afterwards 
into  the  errors  of  the  surrounding  nations.   The 
idea  of  the  unity  of  God  cannot,  therefore,  as 
Grotius  justly  observed  (De  jure  belli  et  pacis), 
be  so  obvious  to  the  mind  as  is  commonly  sup- 
posed.    In  fact,  it  presupposes  an  acquaintance 
with  many  subjects  far  too  abstract  and  trans- 
cendental for  the  uncultivated  mind.     But  if 
this  necessary  knowledge  is  previously  acquired, 
this  idea  results  very  naturally,  and  when  it  is 
once  obtained  it  is  not  easily  surrendered.   This 
point  has  been  ably  illustrated  by  Meiners,  His- 
toria  doctrinae  de  deo  vero ;  Lemgo,  8vo. 

Note. — The  remarks  just  made  strikingly 
confirm  the  observation,  that  it  is  very  easy  to 
establish  by  proofs  drawn  from  reason  any  truth 
which  is  once  made  known,  but  often  very  dif- 
ficult to  discover  in  the  first  instance  even  the 
most  simple  truth.  When  we  consider  that  the 
writers  of  the  Old  Testament  taught  the  doc- 
trine of  the  unity  of  God  at  a  time  when  all  the 
nations  of  the  world  were  sunken  in  polytheism, 
we  must  regard  them  with  great  veneration. 
Could  they,  in  the  situation  in  which  they  were 


placed,  have  obtained  this  truth  by  their  own 
reflection1?  The  neglected  writers  of  the  Old 
Testament  speak  on  this  subject  with  more 
truth  and  clearness  than  the  enlightened  philo- 
sophers of  Greece  and  Rome.  And  to  whom 
are  we  indebted  for  our  just  apprehensions  on 
this  subject1?  Our  conduct  with  respect  to  the 
Bible,  to  which  we  owe  so  much,  resembles 
that  of  ungrateful  children  and  scholars  with 
respect  to  their  parents  and  instructors. 

3.  But  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  God  which 
the  great  multitude  of  the  Jews  entertained  be- 
fore the  Babylonian  exile  was  very  imperfect, 
which  accounts  for  their  inclination  to  idolatry. 
They  regarded  Jehovah  as  merely  the  first  and 
greatest  among  the  gods,  as  their  God,  and  the 
God  of  their  fathers  and  their  country.  They 
admitted  the  real  existence  of  the  deities  of  the 
heathen,  and  only  claimed  for  their  God  a  pre- 
cedence over  the  rest.  Such,  doubtless,  were 
the  conceptions  of  the  great  multitude  of  the 
Jews,  although  Abraham,  Moses,  the  prophets, 
and  the  more  enlightened  part  of  the  nation, 
were  in  possession  of  better  views.  Vide  No. 
I.  ad  finem.  If  it  were  not  so,  how  could  they 
have  revolted  so  frequently  from  the  worship 
of  the  true  God  to  idolatry,  in  order  to  make 
trial  as  it  were  of  another  god  who  might  please 
them  better  "?  Jacob  himself  appears  to  have 
entertained  opinions  like  this  at  first,  (Genesis, 
xxviii.  16;)  and  his  family  were  therefore,  for 
a  long  time,  in  the  practice  of  idolatry.  He  at 
least  permitted  it  in  his  wives.  And  Moses 
was  compelled  to  ask  God  for  the  name  by 
which  he  would  be  known  to  the  Israelites,  so 
imperfect  were  their  conceptions  with  respect 
to  his  unity,  Exodus,  iii.  13.  Solomon,  too, 
permitted  his  concubines  to  practise  idolatry 
even  in  the  holy  land,  not,  however,  so  much 
from  the  want  of  sufficient  theoretical  know- 
ledge on  this  subject  as  from  a  false  toleration, 
resulting  from  weakness  and  a  misplaced  plia- 
bility. 

But  it  was  not  till  after  the  Babylonian  exile 
that  the  Jews  became  the  zealous  professors 
and  stanch  advocates  of  this  doctrine.  Then, 
however,  and  especially  after  they  came  under 
the  yoke  of  the  Persians,  who  were  at  that  time 
the  avowed  haters  of  polytheism,  the  unity  of 
God  became  the  prevailing  belief  of  the  Jewish 
nation.  But  the  establishment  and  diffusion  of 
Christianity  has  done  more  than  anything  else 
to  propagate  this  doctrine,  which  is  now  re- 
ceived by  a  great  majority  of  mankind.  To 
this  result  the  spread  of  the  Mahommedan  re- 
ligion has  contributed  not  a  little;  for  Moham- 
med was  one  of  the  most  zealous  advocates  of 
the  unity  of  God.  He,  however,  was  indebted 
for  his  purest  views  on  religion  to  Judaism  and 
Christianity. 

4.  The  question  has  been  asked  whether 


92 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


there  were  any  among  the  heathen  nations  who 
entertained  just  conceptions  respecting  the  unity 
of  God? — to  whfch  various  and  contradictory 
answers  have  been  given.  The  following  ob- 
servations may  be  of  use  in  deciding  the  contro- 
versy : 

(a)  Pythagoras,  Socrates,  Plato,  Aristotle, 
and  other  sages  of  the  heathen  world,  either  ex- 
pressly asserted  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of 
God,  or  (which  is  the  case  with  most  of  them) 
regarded  it  as  highly  probable.  Vide  Hennings, 
Die  Einigkeit  Gottes  nach  verscheidenen 
Gesichtspunkten  gepriift,  Altenburg,  1779,  8vo. 
Some  of  them,  however, — the  philosophers  of 
Elea  for  example, — formed  different  conceptions 
of  the  unity  of  God  from  those  which  we  derive 
from  the  Bible,  and  were  rather  inclined  to  pan- 
theism than  to  monotheism. 

(6)  There  have  always  been  various  systems 
of  polytheism  among  the  heathen  nations ;  and 
in  judging  of  them,  two  extremes  should  be 
avoided.  They  should  not  be  so  much  depre- 
ciated as  they  sometimes  are  by  modern  writers, 
nor  should  they,  on  the  other  hand,  be  so  much 
extolled  as  they  were  by  many  of  the  church 
fathers,  (Justin  the  Martyr,  Athenagoras,  Cle- 
mens of  Alexandria,  and  others,)  who  supposed 
that  by  giving  such  favourable  representations 
of  the  established  religions  of  the  heathen,  they 
might  induce  them  the  more  easily  to  embrace 
Christianity.  Cudworth,  in  modern  times,  has 
fallen  into  the  same  extreme. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  many  heathen  nations 
acknowledged  a  supreme  God.  But  besides 
him,  they  believed  in  many  subordinate  deities, 
to  whom  the  government  of  the  world  was  com- 
mitted. Such  we  find  was  the  belief  of  most 
of  the  oriental  nations.  They  supposed  that  the 
supreme  God  lived  in  rest  and  inaction,  uncon- 
cerned with  the  affairs  of  the  world,  and  in  all 
respects  like  an  eastern  despot,  and  who,  as  for 
any  influence  beyond  himself,  might  as  well 
cease  to  exist.  This  being  they  conceived  to 
be  one,  and  yet  material.  And  in  general,  the 
pure  idea  of  spirit  is  far  too  transcendental  for 
the  infancy  of  the  world,  and  we  see  from  the 
description  of  God  in  all  the  ancient  languages, 
the  Hebrew  not  excepted,  that  he  was  supposed 
to  exist  as  a  subtile,  corporeal  essence. 

The  manner  in  which  these  unjust  concep- 
tions originated  may  be  best  explained  as  fol- 
lows:— When  man  is  in  a  savage  state  and  ig- 
norant of  the  powers  of  nature,  he  ascribes  every 
effect,  the  cause  of  which  is  unknown  to  him, 
to  some  invisible  being  like  himself,  whom  he 
imagines  to  be  more  or  less  powerful,  good  or 
bad,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  effect  which 
which  he  witnesses.  In  every  body  there  is  a 
superior  being,  from  which  its  motion  and  ex- 
istence depend.  This  led  naturally  to  the  wor- 
ship of  this  being;  and  hence  philosophy,  when 


it  afterwards  arose,  abstracted  the  system  of 
emanation ;  which,  accordingly,  is  one  of  the 
oldest  philosophical  systems.  Vide  Meiners' 
Essay  concerning  the  origin  and  differences  of 
false  religions,  in  Comment.  Soc.  scient.  Get- 
ting, vol.  vii.  page  58,  seq.  1784—85.  Cf. 
Kleuker's  Zend-Avesta. 

[Note.— The  following  quotations  from  Lac- 
tantius  shew  the  manner  in  which  this  subject 
was  treated  by  the  Christian  fathers  in  their  con- 
troversies with  the  early  enemies  of  Christianity. 
In  defending  the  monotheism  of  Christians 
against  the  polytheism  of  the  heathen  world,  he 
says,  "  Sed  omittamus  sane  testimonia  prophe- 
tarum — et  eos  ipsos  ad  probationem  veri  testes 
citemus,  quibus  contra  nos  uti  solent,  poetas  dico 
et  philosophos.  Poets  igitur,  quamvis  Deos 
carminibus  ornaverint,  et  eorum  res  gestas  arn- 
plificaverint  summis  laudibus,  ssepissime  tamen 
confitentur,  spiritu  velmente  UNA  contineriregique 
omnia."  He  then  passes  to  the  philosophers, 
"  quorum  gravior  est  auctoritas  certiusque  judi- 
cium,"  and  after  enumerating  several  who  had 
given  intimations  of  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of 
God,  adds,  "  Nunc  satis  est  demonstrare,  sum- 
mo  ingenio  viros  attigisse  Veritatem  et  prope  te- 
nuisse,"  Institutt.  1.  i.  c.  5.  In  a  similar  man- 
ner, M.  Minuc.  Felix  concludes  his  defence  of 
Christian  monotheism  by  the  somewhat  extra- 
vagant result,  "  aut  nunc  Christianas  philosophos 
esse,  aut  philosophos  fuisse  jam  tune  Christianos" 
Cap.  XX.] 

5.  Some  sects  even  of  the  Christian  church 
have  been  accused  of  receiving  a  number  of 
gods,  and  especially  of  believing  in  a  good  and 
an  evil  being,  or  the  doctrine  of  dualism,  which 
was  held  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  by 
many  Persian  and  other  oriental  phiosophers. 
Such  was  the  doctrine  of  Carpocrates,  Marcion, 
and  many  other  Gnostics,  and  especially  of 
Manes  and  his  followers  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries.  These  sects,  however,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  Beausobre,  did  not  suppose  that 
these  beings  were  themselves  the  supreme  God, 
but  that  they  were  dependent  upon  him,  and 
that  the  evil  principle  could  not  in  any  sense  be 
properly  denominated  God.  In  fine,  Christians 
in  general  have  been  charged  by  Jews  and  Ma- 
hommedans  with  believing  in  a  tritheism.  And 
it  must  be  confessed  that  too  much  ground  for 
this  charge  has  been  afforded  by  the  incautious 
expressions  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  which  were  common,  especially  among 
the  ancient  teachers  of  Christianity.  And  even 
at  the  present  day  there  are  many  common  and 
unenlightened  Christians  who  fall  into  the  same 
error.  They  make  profession  with  their  mouth 
of  their  faith  in  one  God,  while  at  the  same 
time  they  conceive  of  him  in  their  minds  as 
three. 

Morus,  s.  5,  p.  44. 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


SECTION  XVII. 

OF   THE    SCRIPTURAL   NAMES    OF    GOD. 

THERE  is  no  way  so  good  for  ascertaining  the 
manner  in  which  anything  is  regarded  as  by 
considering  the  names  by  which  it  is  called. 
We  may,  accordingly,  find  in  what  light  God 
was  regarded  by  the  Hebrews  by  examining 
the  names  by  which  they  called  him.  In  this 
view,  the  subject  of  the  present  section  is  very 
important.  It  shews  how  proper,  worthy,  and 
elevated,  were  the  ideas  which  the  Jews  enter- 
tained of  God. 

I.  General  names  applied  to  Deity,  without  distinc- 
tion of  true  or  fake. 

1.  niSs,  augustus,  the  one  to  be  revered,  syno- 
nymous with    trhp.     It  is    derived  from    the 

Arabic  4*31,  colere,  venerari,  which  is  still  ex- 
tant. Hence  it  comes  to  pass  that  it  is  fre- 
quently applied  to  kings,  magistrates,  judges, 
and  others  to  whom  reverence  is  shewn,  and 
who  are  regarded  as  representatives  of  the  Deity 
upon  earth.  Vide  Psalm  Ixxxii.  6;  Exodus, 
vii.  1.  It  is  almost  always  rendered  in  the 
Sept.  version,  even  when  it  occurs  in  the  plural, 
by  the  words  ®?oj,  ©god,  which  are  also  applied 
by  the  Grecian  Jews  to  other  subjects  besides 
the  supreme  God.  Vide  John,  x.  34—36.  The 
plural  of  this  word,  D^riSs,  although  it  denotes 
but  one  subject,  is  appropriately  used  to  desig- 
nate Jehovah  by  way  of  eminence.  In  this  fact, 
many  theologians  have  thought  they  perceived 
an  allusion  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  though 
they  have  no  sufficient  ground  for  supposing  that 
this  doctrine  was  known  at  so  early  a  period. 
And  without  resorting  to  this  supposition,  the 
application  of  this  plural  name  to  a  singular 
subject  may  be  explained  from  an  idiom  of  the 
ancient  oriental  and  some  other  languages,  by 
which  anything  great  or  eminent  was  expressed 
in  the  plural  number,  (pluralis  dignitatis,  or  ma- 
jestaticus.)  Vide  Glass,  Philol.  Sacra,  p.  58, 
seq.  ed  Dathe.  Accordingly  rviSs,  augustus,  may 
be  considered  as  the  positive  degree,  of  which 
Dv-iSs,  augustissimus,  is  the  superlative.  Cf. 
Genesis,  xxix.  3  ;  Exodus,  xxi.  4,  9. 

2.  SN.  ©EOJ,  sometimes  literally  rendered  in 
the  Septuagint  and  in  the  version  of    Aquila, 
o  t<j#upoj,  the  Almighty. 

3.  jiis,  Sscrrtor^j,  xvp«>j,  dominus.     This  is  a 
name  of  dignity,  applied  to  rulers,  leaders,  and 
persons  of  distinction,  and,  like  the  word,  Sj?3, 
sometimes  given  even  to  heathen  deities.    Psalm 
cxxxvi.  3 ;  Numbers,  xxxii.  25,  27,  coll.  1  Cor. 
viii.  5.     The  form  -onx,  however,  is  the  appro- 
priate designation  of  the  supreme  God.     It  is  an 
ancient  form  of  the  plural  found  in  several  other 
Hebrew  words,  and  still  preserved  in  the  Syriac. 
Here,  as  in  the  case  of  o^nSs,  the  plural  WIN  is 


doubtless  superlative,  and  signifies  lord  of  lords  , 
or  supreme  lord. 

II.  Names  giren  to  the*true  God  by  way  of 
distinction. 

1.  The  most  ancient  name,  by  which  the  su- 
preme God  was  distinguished  from  the  gods  of 
the  heathen,  is,  ntr  Ss,  which  first  occurs  in  the 
history  of  Abraham,  (Gen.  xvii.  1  ;)  and  after- 
wards in  Exodus,  vi.  3,  where  God  expressly 
says,  "  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac, 
and  unto  Jacob,  by  the  name  nf  Ss."  From  a 
false  etymology  this  title  has  been  supposed  to 
signify  the  Jill-sufficient.  But  it  is  derived  from 


the  Arabic 


robustus,  potens  esse,  and  in 


the  plural  signifies,  potentissimus,  and  is  there- 
fore rendered  in  the  Septuagint,  Ttavroxpafcop, 
omnipotens, 

2.  nin\  When  the  Israelites  lived  in  Egypt, 
in  the  midst  of  an  idolatrous  people,  to  whose 
practices  they  themselves  were  inclined,  Moses 
was  commanded  (Exodus,  iii.  13,  seq.)  to  an- 
nounce to  them  the  true  God  as  the  same  Being 
who  had  been  worshipped  by  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob,  and  who  would  prove  himself  equally 
powerful  and  gracious  to  the  children  as  to  the 
fathers.  God  therefore  called  himself  nyw,  / 
will  be  —  namely,  the  God  of  the  Jews  as  well 
as  of  their  ancestors;  and  directed  Moses,  when 
he  addressed  the  Israelites,  to  call  him  mrp  —  i. 
e.,  he  shall  be,  from  rvn,  or  rather,  mn,  fuif, 
according  to  a  form  which  afterwards  became 
obsolete  in  Hebrew,  but  which  was  preserved, 
and  in  common  use  in  Chaldaic.  Such  was  the 
origin  and  occasion  of  this  appellation. 

With  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  it.  was 
pronounced,  as  it  is  the  third  person  future,  it 
would  be  uttered,  according  to  grammatical  ana- 
logy, nifT  or  nin.  Accordingly,  the  Samari- 
tans, Epiphanius,  and  Theodoret,  pronounced  it 
Jave.  But  the  Jews  believed  that  this  name 
was  not  to  be  uttered,  and  Josephus  said,  Antiq. 
II.  12,  that  he  dared  not  to  communicate  it.  In 
place  of  it,  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  enun- 
ciate Dvfoi  or  ••JIN;  from  the  latter  of  which  its 
common  punctuation  is  borrowed.  It  is  always 
rendered  by  the  Alexandrine  translators  by  the 
wordKvpcoj.  The  Talmud  says  that  the  angels 
themselves  dared  not  to  utter  it,  and  denounces 
all  who  should  be  so  presumptuous  with  fright- 
ful curses.  The  Jews  went  so  far  as  to  believe 
that  it  could  not  be  uttered  by  man,  or  that  one 
who  jnight  speak  it  would  be  able,  by  its  enun- 
ciation, to  work  miracles.  Such  a  superstitious 
regard  for  this  name  does  not  seem  to  have  ex- 
isted before  the  Babylonian  exile,  for  we  meet 
with  the  names  Jehoiakim,  Jehoiadah,  Jeho- 
zadak,  &c.,  in  which  the  word  nyr  evidently 
makes  a  part  of  the  composite  proper  noun.  But 


94 


CHRJSTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


these  names  were  afterwards  altered,  in  conform- 
ity with  this  superstition,  into  Eliakim,  &c. 
And  in  Daniel,  Esther,  and  other  of  the  latest 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  this  name  is  wholly 
omitted.  For  this  mystery,  as  well  as  many 
others  relating  to  divine  things,  the  Jews  are 
indebted  to  the  Chaldeans.  Vide  Reland,  Diss. 
de  vera  pronuntiatione  nominis  Jehovah;  Ultra- 
jecti,  1705,  8vo. 

This  name  is  appropriated  to  the  supreme  God, 
and  is  never  applied  to  the  gods  of  the  heathen. 
Vide  1  Kings  xviii.  21,  24;  Isa.  xlii.  8;  xliii.  11. 
It  has  been  asserted,  however,  that  this  name 
was  sometimes  given,  by  way  of  metonomy,  to 
such  things  as  were  consecrated  to  the  service 
of  God,  and  especially  to  the  ark  of  the  covenant. 
This  was  urged  by  Socinus  and  his  followers, 
and  has  been  repeated  in  modern  times  as  an 
answer  to  the  argument  for  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
drawn  from  the  application  to  him  of  the  name 
nirp.  They  refer  to  the  passage,  Numbers,  x. 
35,  36,  "  When  the  ark  set  forward,  Moses  said, 
Rise  up,  JEHOVAH  !  And  when  it  rested,  he 
said,  Return,  JEHOVAH."  Cf.  Ps.  Ixviii.  1 ; 
cxxxii.  8.  But  in  this  passage  Moses  does  not 
address  the  ark,  but  God  himself,  who  was  sup- 
posed to  dwell  or  sit  upon  it. 

3.  n\  This  name  occurs  only  in  the  poetical 
portions  of  the  Bible,  and  is  frequently  ren- 
dered in  the  Septuagint  by  the  word  Kvpto$.    It 
is  derived  by  many  from  nx%  decuit,  (Jeremiah, 
X.  7,)  and  thus  signifies,   the  magnificent,  the 
majestic ;  but  this  derivation  is  contrary  to  ana- 
logy, and  the  word,  more  probably,  is  a  mere 
abbreviation  of  the  name,  nirv. 

4.  fvSp,  from   rhy,  6  <£>4/icrT'o$,  Luke,  i.  35,) 
Deus  supremus,  the  Most  High.     God  was  sup- 
posed to  dwell  in  the  highest  heaven,  which 
was  called  OTTO,  ta  v-^iatu.     Hence  the  name 
O'ctf  is  sometimes  given  to  God  himself,  Luke, 
xv.  18,  21. 

5.  m>o>f  nirp,  x   ^riStf,  xvpioj  <?aj3au£,   jtavto- 
xpar'cop,  x.  t.  ?i.     This  title  is  explained  in  va- 
rious ways.      Some  translate  it  God  of  gods, 
others,   God  of  hosts,    (the  stars  of  heaven;) 
others  still,  and  with  more  probability,  Lord  of 
the  universe,  and  Governor  of  the  world,  rtavto- 
xpaT'wp  ;  since  tax  frequently  denotes  all  crea- 
tures, so  far  as  they  are  employed  by  God  in 
his  service,  Psalm  ciii.  21.     Cf.  s.  45. 

6.  Several  other  titles,  which  will  be  hereaf- 
ter enumerated  in  connexion  with  the  subject  of 
the  divine  attributes,  Art.  III.,  are  used  by  the 
sacred  writers  to  distinguish  the  true  God  from 
the  imaginary   deities   of  the  heathen   wwld. 
Among  these  we  may  mention  the  title  ->n  Sx, 
®tb$  6  £wv,  6  fjiovog  ahy^ivos  ©?6j,  the  living  and 
true  God,  in  opposition  to  the  gods  of  the  hea- 
then, who  are  called  pd-tawi, 


ARTICLE  III. 

OF  THE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 

SECTION  XVIII. 

INTRODUCTION    TO   THE    DOCTRINE    RESPECTING 
THE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  GOD. 

I.  What  is  meant  by  the  Nature  and  Attributes  of 
God. 

THE  nature  of  God  is  the  sum  of  afl  the  di- 
vine perfections ;  the  attributes  of  God  are  the 
particular  distinct  perfections  or  realities  which 
are  predicable  of  the  divine  nature,  (prsedicata 
dei  necessaria,  ob  essentiam  ei  tribuenda,  Mo- 
rus,  p.  58,  note  1.)  The  divine  attributes  do 
not  therefore  differ  materialiter  from  the  divine 
nature,  but  only  formaliter,  [i.  e.,  the  difference 
between  nature  and  attribute  is  not  objective,  or 
does  not  appertain  to  God  himself;  but  is  sub- 
jective, formal,  or,  as  the  older  theologians  say, 
secundum  nostrum  concipiendi  modum.]  The 
attributes  of  God  are  merely  our  notions  of  the 
particular  distinctions  which,  taken  together, 
compose  the  divine  nature.  We  are  unable  to 
take  in  the  whole  object  at  a  single  glance,  and 
are  compelled,  in  order  to  accommodate  the 
weakness  of  our  understanding,  to  consider  it 
in  separate  portions.  It  should  be  remarked, 
moreover,  that  from  any  one  of  the  divine  attri- 
butes all  the  rest  may  be  derived.  Vide  s.  14. 

Note — (1)  Cf.  Morus,  p.  57,  s.  22.  The 
attributes  of  God  were  called  by  the  Jews 
at?,  met?,  nomina  dei ;  for  a  thing  is  usually 
named  from  the  attributes  which  it  is  seen  to 
possess.  (2)  The  divine  attributes  are  called 
by  the  Greeks  cxp^at',  (1  Pet.  ii.  9,)  answering 
to  the  Latin  virtutes,  and  the  Hebrew  rnSnn, 
(Isaiah,  xlii.  8;  xliii.  21,)  laudes  dei,  rendered 
apstai  in  the  Septuagint.  They  are  called  by 
the  ecclesiastical  fathers  (e.  g.,  by  Cyrill  of 
Alexandria),  dljtat,  altio^uara,  also  tvvotai,  iiti- 
voat,  vor^ata,  whence  the  Latins  have  their 
conceptus.  In  the  western  church  they  are 
called  virtutes,  attributa,  proprietates,  qualitatcs. 
(3)  The  whole  sum  of  the  divine  attributes  is 
called  by  the  Hebrews  nyv  1122,  8d|a  &BOV,  inas- 
much as  they  are  admired  and  revered  by  men, 
Psa.  xix.  1;  cxlviii.  13.  The  phrase,  to  do 
anything  FOR  THE  GLORY  OF  GOD,  often  means 
therefore  nothing  more  than  to  live  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  testify  the  reverence  we  owe  to 
God  and  his  glorious  perfections,  Phil.  ii.  11. 
And  hence  the  phrase,  /  will  not  give  mine  ho- 
nour to  another,  (Isa.  xlviii.  11;  xlii.  8,)  con- 
veys the  idea,  I  will  not  permit  that  other  gods 
should  be  regarded  with  as  much  reverence,  or 
supposed  to  possess  the  same  attributes,  as  be- 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


95 


long  to  me.  Accordingly,  the  terms  1133,  "  ar 
nrv,  6o|a  ©sou,  majestas  Dei,  are  mere  peri- 
phrases for  God,  or  the  nature  of  God,  which 
Paul  expresses  by  ^to^j,  Rom.  i.  20.  Some- 
times the  term  6d|a  is  used  in  a  more  limited 
sense  ;  as,  Rom.  vi.  4,  Xpifffos  ^ys'p^?  8ia  86fy$ 
•rov  Tto/fpo?,  x.  T.  >..,  where  So|ct  signifies  power. 


II.   WAa/  tt?e  foioiy  respecting  the  Nature  and  At- 

tributes of  God,  and  whence  we  derive  our  In- 
formation. 

I  .  The  nature  of  our  knowledge  respecting  God. 
On  a  subject  of  this  kind  it  is  impossible  that 
we  should  have  perfectly  clear  and  distinct  no- 
tions. For, 

(a)  All  our  notions  are  sensible,  and  therefore 
inadequate.  We  indeed  acknowledge  that  when 
we  conceive  of  God  we  must  abstract  everything 
sensible  from  our  notions;  but  to  do  this  is  very 
difficult,  and  often  quite  impossible.  And  after 
all  our  attempts  at  abstraction.,  our  knowledge 
of  God  will  ever  remain  anthropopathic  and  an- 
thropomorphic, as  the  philosophers  and  theolo- 
gians say  —  i.  e.,  we  shall  ever  transfer  to  God 
the  notions  and  expressions  which  we  derive 
from  human  things,  attributes,  actions,  &c. 
These  expressions,  borrowed  from  human 
things,  very  naturally  give  rise  to  gross  con- 
ceptions of  God,  especially  among  those  who 
have  but  few  words  to  express  abstract  ideas, 
or  but  few  ideas  of  this  nature  to  be  expressed. 
This  was  the  case  with  the  language  of  all  the 
sacred  writers,  and  especially  those  of  the  Old 
Testament  ;  and  this  observation  should  always 
be  kept  in  mind  by  those  who  undertake  to  ex- 
plain their  meaning.  In  order  to  be  intelligible, 
they  must  needs  have  adopted  the  language  of 
the  rude  and  uncultivated  people  whom  they 
were  called  to  address;  and  in  the  first  place 
must  have  condescended  to  the  capacity  of  their 
hearers,  in  order  to  raise  them  gradually  to  their 
own  level.  But  in  this  more  improved  period 
we  must  understand  the  gross  expressions  which 
the  sacred  writers  were  thus  compelled  to  use, 
in  the  purer  and  more  correct  sense  which  they 
themselves  attached  to  their  language.  Hence 
the  rule  laid  down  by  the  older  theologians, 
Dicta  anthropopathica  et  anthropomorphica  Deo 
digne  (^sortp*  rtwj)  sunt  explicanda.  Vide  Morus, 
p.  45,  s.  7,  n.  4. 

Note.  —  In  popular  instruction,  the  terms  em- 
ployed should  be  neither  wholly  anthropopathic 
and  anthropomorphic,  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
wholly  proper  and  literal,  but,  according  to  the 
example  of  the  Bible,  should  be  wisely  selected 
from  both  of  these  classes,  as  the  circumstances 
of  those  to  be  instructed  may  require.  In  for- 
mer times,  the  teachers  of  religion  inclined  too 
much  to  the  use  of  figurative  expressions,  which 
they  employed  without  any  explanation  ;  but  at 
the  present  day  the  reverse  of  this  is  true.  The 


modern  teachers  of  religion  carefully  avoid  every 
figurative  expression,  in  the  hope  of  rendering 
their  discourse  very  clear  and  interesting  to  their 
hearers,  while,  in  fact,  they  make  it  in  this  way 
extremely  dry  and  powerless.  The  same  may 
be  said  respecting  many  of  the  sacred  songs  of 
modern  composition,  which,  for  the  same  reason, 
are  far  less  interesting,  and  far  more  obscure,  to 
the  common  people,  than  those  formerly  used. 
God,  as  he  appears  in  the  discourses  of  many 
modern  teachers,  is  a  mere  metaphysical  being, 
who,  in  all  his  intercourse  with  men,  acts  in  a 
manner  wholly  unlike  anything  which  we  wit- 
ness among  ourselves.  How,  then,  is  it  possible 
that  men  should  feel  love  for  him,  or  confidence 
in  him1?  Such  a  mode  of  expression  and  repre- 
sentation is  extremely  adverse  to  the  interests 
of  the  common  people  and  of  the  young.  It 
gives  rise  to  doubts  respecting  the  providence 
of  God,  the  hearing  of  prayer,  and  other  con- 
soling truths  of  religion,  which  should  be  ex- 
hibited in  a  manner  consisting  indeed  with  the 
perfections  of  God,  and  yet  figuratively,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  analogy  of  human  affairs,  or  their 
whole  effect  will  be  lost.  On  this  subject  the 
teacher  of  religion  may  learn  a  useful  lesson 
from  that  neglected  book — the  Bible.  He  will 
there  find  nothing  of  this  abstraction,  but  an  ex- 
ample of  the  only  correct  and  of  the  most  ap- 
proved method  of  practical  instruction.  The 
sermon  on  the  mount,  the  parables,  and  other 
discourses  of  Christ,  should  be  particularly  stu- 
died with  reference  to  this  subject. 

(6)  We  reason  mostly  from  the  constitution 
of  the  world  to  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God  ; 
but  in  ourselves,  in  the  first  instance,  do  we  ob- 
serve the  perfections  which  we  ascribe  to  him, 
nor  can  we  form  an)'  conception,  or  even  ima- 
gine the  existence,  of  any  attribute  or  perfection 
which  we  ourselves  do  not  to  a  certain  extent 
possess.  A  man  who  had  never  seen  could  form, 
no  conception  of  the  sense  of  sight,  nor  would 
he  ever  suppose  that  there  was  such  a  sense, 
unless  informed  of  it  by  others.  The  case  is 
the  same  with  regard  to  the  divine  perfections. 
We  can  form  no  conception  of  any  attributes 
belonging  to  the  Divine  Being  for  which  we 
cannot  find  at  least  some  analogy  in  ourselves. 
We  must  therefore  give  the  same  names  to  the 
divine  perfections  which  we  are  accustomed  to 
give  to  those  of  which  we  ourselves  are  con- 
scious, in  some  humble  degree ;  but  for  this  very 
reason  our  views  of  the  divine  nature  must  be 
extremely  poor  and  imperfect.  We  may  indeed 
have  some  right  apprehensions  with  regard  to 
the  quality  of  some  perfections  of  God, — such 
as  his  goodness  and  wisdom ;  but  our  concep- 
tions as  to  their  quantity — their  extent  and 
greatness — ever  remain  in  the  highest  degree 
imperfect  and  infantile.  The  ideas  which  the 
child  forms  of  the  sun  and  its  attributes  are  just 


96 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


as  to  quality,  inasmuch  as  he  conceives  of  it  as 
a  round,  luminous,  and  hot  body;  but  they  are 
incorrect  as  to  quantity,  inasmuch  as  he  sup- 
poses that  its  size  is  less  than  it  actually  is,  its 
light  no  clearer  than  he  beholds  it,  and  its  heat 
no  more  intense  than  he  feels  it. 

In  conformity  with  these  views  are  the  pas- 
sages, Prov.  xxx.  3 ;  Is.  xl.  22,  xlvi.  5.  When 
speaking  of  this  pure  knowledge  of  God,  David 
says,  Psalm  cxxxix.  6,  "  it  is  high,  I  cannot  at- 
tain unto  it."  And  Paul  says,  1  Tim.  vi.  16, 
that  God  dwells  in  light  inaccessible,  (<j>u»£  drtpo 
•roi/,) — i.  e.,  the  infinite  and  perfect  God  is  ex- 
alted above  the  comprehension  of  our  feeble  and 
limited  faculties.  Parallel  with  these  passages 
is  that  in  John,  i.  18,  U0f6i>  ovSftj  Iwpaxf  jt^jtotf, 
but  the  Messiah  has  revealed  to  us  as  much  of 
him  as  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  know." 

With  respect  to  the  true  nature  of  the  objects 
even  of  the  visible  world,  we  can  have  no  dis- 
tinct knowledge,  owing  to  the  inadequacy  of  our 
senses ;  and  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  human 
soul,  we  are  in  equal  ignorance.  We  may 
therefore,  with  Simonides,  reasonably  decline 
to  give  an  answer  to  the  question  concerning 
the  true  nature  of  the  Divine  Being.  When  he 
was  asked,  Quid  aut  quale  sit  Deus  ?  he  replied, 
quanta  diutius  considero,  tanto  mihi  res  videtur 
obscurior.  Cicero,  De  Nat.  Deor.  I.  21.  Con- 
siderations like  these  should  not,  however,  deter 
us  from  the  investigation  of  truth,  but  only  ren- 
der us  humble  and  cautious.  In  the  exercise 
of  this  temper,  it  is  our  duty  to  make  constant 
advances  in  divine  knowledge,  and  to  render 
our  conceptions  of  God  as  pure  and  just  as  pos- 
sible. 

Note. — The  representations  which  were  com- 
mon in  any  particular  nation  respecting  the  cha- 
racter and  employments  of  their  gods,  discover 
the  degree  of  cultivation  and  of  moral  improve- 
ment to  which  that  nation  had  attained  at  the 
time  when  these  representations  prevailed.  The 
mythology  of  the  Greeks,  the  histories  in  which 
their  gods  are  described  as  licentious,  violent, 
and  deceitful,  originated  among  them  at  a  time 
when  the  practical  reason  was  as  yet  but  imper- 
fectly developed,  and  when  the  morals  of  the 
nation  agreed  perfectly  with  these  representa- 
tions. At  a  later  and  more  improved  period,  a 
new  meaning  was  given  to  these  ancient  histo- 
ries by  means  of  allegorical  interpretation. 

2.  Sources  of  our  knowledge  respecting  the  na- 
ture and  attributes  of  God. 

(a)  The  instructions  of  the  holy  scriptures. 
God  is  described  in  the  Bible  in  different  ways. 
He  is  sometimes  described  in  plain  and  literal 
language,  without  tropes  or  figures ;  or  (as  these 
are  sometimes  unavoidable  both  in  popular  and 
scientific  discourse)  at  least  by  such  as  are  level 
to  the  common  capacity.  Of  this  kind  are  the 
descriptions  of  the  immutability  of  God  con- 


tained in  Psalm  xc.,  cii.,  cxxxix. ;  Job  xxxvii. 
In  the  New  Testament,  the  figures  employed 
in  the  description  of  God  are  still  more  intelli- 
gible, and  still  better  adapted  to  general  use. 
But  God  is  also  sometimes  described  in  the  Bi- 
ble in  a  symbolical  or  typical  manner,  the  sym- 
bols and  types  employed  being  in  a  good  mea- 
sure derived  from  the  taste  and  mode  of  thinking 
peculiar  to  the  early  age  and  the  oriental  coun- 
tries in  which  the  sacred  writers  lived.  But 
these  symbolical  representations,  however  im- 
portant they  may  be  in  the  history  of  the  mode 
of  thought  and  representation  common  in  early 
ages,  are  of  very  little  importance  in  elucidating 
the  ideas  themselves  which  we  entertain  of  the 
Divine  Being.  Among  these  symbols  we  may 
mention  that  of  fire  (Ex.  iii.  2,  seq.),  of  a  gen- 
tle wind  (1  Kings,  xix.  12),  of  an  eastern  ruler 
and  judge  (Is.  vi.  1),  and  those  exhibited  in 
Ezek.  i.  coll.  Rev.  i.  These  are  all  symbolical 
representations,  shadowing  forth  some  real  per- 
fections of  the  Divine  Being,  and  should  there- 
fore be  explained  by  the  teacher  of  religion.  He 
must  not  be  content  with  saying  that  these  are 
symbols,  but  must  also  shew  what  attributes  of 
God  they  are  intended  to  represent.  He  should 
shew,  for  example,  that  by  the  symbol  of  fire, 
the  activity  of  God,  his  power  to  restore  and 
destroy,  the  moral  purity  of  his  dispositions,  are 
exhibited  ;  by  the  symbol  of  a  gentle  wind,  his 
goodness  and  mildness ;  by  the  symbol  ofzprince 
or  ruler,  his  supremacy  and  power,  and  his  jus- 
tice in  bestowing  rewards  and  punishments. 

(6)  Nature  is  another  source  of  our  know- 
ledge of  God.  (1)  Internal,  moral  nature.  In 
s.  15,  II.,  we  have  shewn  how  the  idea  of  the 
character  and  law  of  God  is  derived  from  the 
conscience  of  man.  (2)  External  nature,  or  the 
sensible  world.  Here  we  argue  from  the  effect 
to  the  cause,  from  the  attributes  of  the  creature 
to  those  of  the  Creator;  and  for  so  doing,  we 
have  the  authority  of  the  Bible.  Vide  s.  15,  I. 
II.  A  very  important  passage  in  this  connex- 
ion is  Psalm  xix.,  in  the  former  part  of  which 
the  visible  creation  is  commended  as  a  source 
of  the  knowledge  of  God  ;  and  in  the  latter  part, 
direct  revelation.  Cf.  Ps.  civ. ;  Job,  xxxvii. ; 
Is.  xl. ;  Matt.  vi.  26,  and  especially  Rom.  i.  20, 
21.  There  are  three  methods  of  arriving  at  the 
knowledge  of  the  divine  attributes  from  the 
contemplation  of  nature.  Vide  Morus,  p.  43, 
s.  2,  note  2.  (a)  We  abstract  all  defects, 
weaknesses,  and  imperfections,  from  the  attri- 
butes which  we  ascribe  to  God.  In  this  way 
we  pass  from  the  imperfect  degrees  of  power 
and  wisdom  which  we  possess  to  the  omnipo- 
tence and  omniscience  of  God ;  from  the  frail 
and  perishing  nature  of  man,  and  of  all  created 
things,  to  the  eternity  and  immutability  of  God. 
Cf.  Ps.  cii.  25—28.  This  method  is  denomi- 
nated by  the  schoolmen  via  negationis,  and  by 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


97 


Dionysius  the  Areopagite 
(j3)  We  conclude  that  God  must  possess,  in  a 
peculiar  and  extraordinary  degree,  all  the  per- 
fections which  we  perceive  in  ourselves  or  in 
other  creatures.  Here  we  employ  the  argument 
a  minori  ad  majus.  By  this  mode  of  reasoning 
especially  do  we  obtain  our  notions  of  the  moral 
attributes  of  God,  his  justice,  wisdom,  and  good- 
ness. Cf.  Ps.  xciv.  9.  This  is  called  by  the 
schoolmen  via  eminentiae.  (y)  There  is  a  third 
method  of  reasoning:  since  the  production  of 
certain  effects  can  be  accounted  for  only  by 
ascribing  certain  attributes  to  their  cause,  these 
attributes  must  truly  belong  to  this  cause. 
Thus  we  conclude  that  the  author  of  the  world 
possesses  supreme  power,  wisdom,  and  know- 
ledge, because  these  attributes  are  requisite  for 
the  production  and  government  of  the  world. 
This  mode  of  reasoning  is  called  via  causalitatis, 
or  causae.  It  might  also  be  called  via  positiva, 
in  opposition  to  via  negativa,  because  we  thus 
obtain  positive  ideas  and  direct  knowledge  of 
the  divine  attributes.  Thus  it  appears  that  all 
our  knowledge  of  God  is  drawn  from  analogy. 
We  ascribe  to  God  the  perfections  which  we 
observe  in  ourselves,  after  abstracting  from 
them  whatever  of  limitation  or  imperfection  they 
may  possess,  as  existing  in  us.  Cf.  No.  I. 

III.  Division  of  the  Divine  Attributes. 

All  the  divisions  of  the  attributes  of  God, 
which  have  been  adopted  by  philosophers  and 
theologians,  are  in  some  respects  imperfect  and 
inconvenient,  but  not  equally  so.  The  follow- 
ing are  some  of  the  most  common  : — 

1.  Negative,  and  positive  or  affirmative.  The 
negative  attributes  are  those  by  which  we  re- 
move from  God  certain  imperfections  of  which 
we  are  conscious.  Thus  we  ascribe  to  God 
infinity,  independence,  eternity,  in  opposition 
to  the  limitations  of  our  own  being.  The  posi- 
tive attributes,  on  the  contrary,  are  those  divine 
perfections  for  which  we  find  some  analogy  in 
ourselves — e.  g.,  holiness,  justice,  wisdom.  We 
derive  our  knowledge  of  the  negative  attributes, 
via  negationis ;  of  the  positive,  via  causalitatis  et 
eminentise.  The  ground  of  this  division,  how- 
ever, does  not  exist  in  God  himself,  (for  all  his 
attributes  are  positive,)  but  in  the  imperfection 
of  our  conceptions. 

%  2.  Active  (attributa  operativa,  or  transeuntia, 
Ivfpy^rtxa,)  and  passive,  (quiescentia,  or  imma- 
nentia,  dv? wpy^rixa.)  The  active  attributes  are 
those  which  involve  the  idea  of  action;  the  qui- 
escent are  those  which  imply  rest  and  inaction. 
Omnipotence,  justice,  and  goodness,  belong  to 
the  former  class ;  immensity,  eternity,  &c.,  to 
the  latter.  But  from  this  division  mistaken  no- 
tions respecting  God  might  easily  result.  For 
rest,  properly  speaking,  cannot  be  predicated 
of  God.  Besides,  the  passive  attributes  are, 
13 


for  the  most  part,  only  the  modes  in  which  the 
active  attributes  exist.  Thus  infinity  and  im- 
mensity are  only  the  maniere  d'etre  of  the  om- 
nipotence, wisdom,  holiness,  and  other  attri- 
butes of  God. 

3.  Physical  or  natural,  and  moral.  We  are 
conscious  of  two  principal  powers,  understand- 
ing and  will;  and  accordingly  we  ascribe 
these  to  the  Supreme  Being.  But  whatever 
analogy  may  subsist  between  the  divine  and 
human  intelligence,  the  former  is  infinitely  dif- 
ferent from  the  latter.  Now  the  attributes 
which  we  conceive  to  be  connected  with  the 
divine  will  are  called  by  theologians  moral ,• 
the  others,  standing  in  no  connexion  with  the 
will,  but  belonging  to  the  understanding  and  to 
the  power  of  God  as  a  spirit,  natural  or  physical. 
These  terms  are  indeed  inconvenient,  since  the 
moral  attributes  of  God  belong  to  his  nature. 
Still  there  is  ground  for  the  division  itself, 
where  it  is  correctly  stated  ;  which  may  be  done 
by  substituting  the  phrase  not  moral  for  natural. 

The  natural  attributes  of  God  are  beyond  the 
reach  of  our  attainment;  but  we  may  be  con- 
formed to  his  moral  character.  And  this  is  the 
conformity  which  the  Bible  intends  when  it  re- 
quires us  to  resemble  God,  Matt.  v.  45,  48 ;  Col. 
iii.  10.  Through  this  moral  perfection  it  is  that 
we  are  as  it  were  related  to  him,  Acts,  xvii.  28  ; 
and  by  which  we  first  obtain  our  idea  of  him. 
Vide  s.  14,  and  s.  15,  II.  He  is  a  free  being, 
possessed  of  the  purest  moral  will. 

Morus  (p.  45,  s.  7)  adopts  this  third  division 
of  the  divine  attributes  as  the  most  useful.  To 
this  opinion  we  assent,  and  shall  accordingly 
treat  (1)  of  the  spirituality  of  God,  (for  most 
of  his  physical  and  moral  attributes  are  founded 
in  this,)  s.  19  ;  (2)  of  his  eternity  and  immuta- 
bility, s.  20;  (3)  of  his  omnipotence,  s.  21; 
(4)  his  omniscience,  s.  22 ;  (5)  omnipresence, 
s.  23;  (6)  supreme  wisdom,  (though  perhaps 
this  attribute  should  be  ascribed  to  the  divine 
will,  as  has  sometimes  been  done,)  s.  24 ;  (7) 
the  nature  and  the  perfections  of  the  divine  will, 
Introduction,  s.  25 ;  its  freedom,  immutability, 
and  efficiency,  s.  26.  In  connexion  with  the 
divine  will  are  the  following  moral  attributes, 
which  are  cursorily  described  in  s.  27 — viz., 
(8)  truth,  and  (9)  goodness,  s.  28;  (10)  holi- 
ness, s.  29;  (11)  justice,  s.  30,  31.  The  Ap- 
pendix, s.  32,  exhibits  the  doctrine  of  divine, 
decrees,  (de  decretis  divinis,  sive  predestina- 
tione,)  which  is  directly  derived  from  the  attri- 
butes of  the  divine  will. 

Morus,  p.  58,  note,  extr. 

SECTION  XIX. 

OF   THE    SPIRITUALITY    OF    GOD. 

I.  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 
BY  the  word  spirit  we  mean  to  denote  a  na- 
ture possessed  of  intelligence  and  a  free  moral 


98 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


will  (natura  intelligens  et  moralis.)  A  mate- 
rial or  corporeal  substance  acts  only  by  motion ; 
a  spiritual  substance,  on  the  contrary,  by  thought, 
or  free  will.  Now,  as  we  perceive  that  God 
possesses,  and  that  too  in  the  highest  perfection, 
those  qualities  of  intelligence  and  will  which 
constitute  a  spiritual  existence,  we  justly  con- 
clude that  he  is  a  Spirit.  Hence  it  follows, 
that  all  the  attributes  which  he  possesses  as  a 
Spirit  are  connected  either  with  his  understand- 
ing or  his  will.  And  as  he  possesses  these  at- 
tributes in  the  highest  perfection,  he  is  the  most 
perfect  Spirit.  Among  the  attributes  which  be- 
long to  God  as  a  Spirit,  the  following  may  be 
enumerated : — 

1.  Simplicity,  (simplicitas,  immaterialitas.) 
Nothing  of  a  material  or  bodily  nature  can  ap- 
pertain to  spirit.     Matter  possesses  no  power 
of  thought  or  will,  and  is  governed  by  laws  en- 
tirely different  from  those  which  prevail  in  the 
sphere  of  spirit.    The  former  is  governed  by  the 
law  of  necessity,  the  latter  by  that  of  freedom. 
If  this  is  so,  and  spirit  is  so  wholly  unlike 
matter,  it  cannot  be  compounded,  and  is  there- 
fore  simple.     The  Grecian   philosophers  call 
God  artXovj  scat  (Lvtjov,  expers  materise ;  and  with 
this  description   the   sacred   writers  perfectly 
agree.     John,  iv.  24,  HvfVjua  6  ©EOJ.     Here  be- 
long those  texts  which  teach  that  God  cannot 
be  represented,  Isa.  xl.  25;  Exod.  xx.  4. 

2.  Invisibility.     Whatever  is  immaterial  is 
also  invisible,  for  our  bodily  sight  acquaints  us 
only  with  the   objects  of  the  material  world. 
Accordingly,  God  is  called  by  the  sacred  writers 
doparoj,  Col.  i.  15  ;  Rom.  i.  20;  1  Tim.  i.  17. 
We  are  indeed  told  in  the  Bible  that  we  shall  see 
God.     But  by  this  phrase  we  are  to  understand 
merely  that  we  shall  know  God,  or  that  he  will 
honour  us  with  his  favour  and  intimacy.    Thus 
Moses  was  said  to  have  seen  God  face  to  face, 
and  the  righteous  are  promised  as  their  reward 
in  eternal  life  that  they  shall  see  God — e.  g., 
1  John,  iii.  2.     This  figure  is  taken  from  a  cus- 
tom of  eastern  courts,  in  which  it  was  regarded 
as  a  great  privilege  to  stand  in  the  presence,  or 
enjoy  the  intimacy,  of  the  king.     Cf.  Matt.  v. 
8;  xviii.  10;  Heb.  xii.  14. 

3.  Indestructibility.     Whatever  is  composed 
of  divisible  parts  may  be  destroyed ;  but  spirit, 
which  is   uncompounded  and   simple,  cannot 
be  divided  or  destroyed.     Hence  the  attribute 

is  ascribed  to  God,  and  he  is  called 
j,  1  Tim.  i.  17,  and  acp^aptfoj  ©go?,  in  op- 
position to  ^aptoj  ai^pcortoj,  Rom.  i.  23. 

From  these  attributes  which  belong  to  God 
as  a  Spirit  we  may  deduce  the  following  con- 
clusions— viz. : 

(a)  God  cannot  be  represented,  since  he  is 
both  immaterial  and  incorporeal.  The  attempt 
to  exhibit  him  by  means  of  sensible  images 
always  leads  to  gross  and  unworthy  conceptions 


of  his  nature.  For  this  reason  Moses  forbade 
the  Israelites  to  make  any  images  of  God, 
Exod.  xx.  4 ;  and  with  this  prohibition  all  the 
sacred  writers  agree,  Isa.  xlvi.  5;  Acts,  xvii. 
29 ;  Rom.  i.  23,  &c.  The  worship  of  images 
is  not  necessarily  connected  with  that  of  idols. 
The  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  worshipped 
their  own  God,  Jehovah,  under  the  image  of  a 
golden  calf;  and  this,  properly  speaking,  was 
not  idolatry;  but  experience  shews  that  the 
transition  is  easy  from  the  worship  of  images  to 
idolatry  ;  and  such  was  the  case  even  with  the 
Israelites.  The  fact  that  Moses  and  other 
writers  of  the  Old  Testament,  notwithstanding 
their  zeal  against  the  gross  representations  of 
God,  still  described  him  in  terms  which  were 
highly  figurative,  may  be  accounted  for  by  the 
consideration  that  the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  were 
extremely  rude  and  uncultivated,  and  had  no 
words  in  their  language  for  the  expression  of 
abstract  ideas  and  spiritual  things.  The  sacred 
writers  accordingly,  in  speaking  to  them  of  God 
and  divine  things,  were  compelled  to  use  terms 
which  had  before  been  applied  only  to  material 
objects  in  a  metaphorical  sense;  and  these 
terms,  whenever  they  occur  in  the  Bible,  must 
therefore  be  interpreted  ^£07tp£rtw$.  Vide  s.  18. 
When  we  undertake  to  speak  of  God  to  uncul- 
tivated men,  we  can  make  ourselves  understood 
in  no  other  way  than  by  the  use  of  the  words 
descriptive  of  the  organs  which  men  employ  in 
their  affairs,  or  by  which  they  exhibit  their  va- 
rious powers.  To  denote  the  commandment  of 
God,  we  must  speak  of  his  mouth ;  to  denote 
his  knowledge  of  the  actions  of  men,  we  must 
speak  of  his  eyes  and  ears ;  we  must  describe 
his  power  by  speaking  of  his  hand  ,•  his  dispo- 
sition and  feelings  by  speaking  of  his  heart,  &c. 
(6)  A  merely  external  and  bodily  service  is 
of  no  avail  with  God,  who  is  a  Spirit.  So  we 
are  taught  by  Christ  himself,  John,  iv.  21 — 24. 
One  reason  why  so  many  believe  that  God  will 
be  satisfied  with  an  outward  form  of  worship  is, 
that  they  entertain  low  conceptions  of  his  na- 
ture, and  regard  him  as  like  themselves. 

II.  Historical  Sketch  of  this  Doctrine. 

1.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the 
same  pure  and  abstract  ideas  which  are  attached 
to  the  word  spirit  in  our  metaphysics  were  as- 
sociated with  it  in  the  minds  of  the  ancient  Is- 
raelites. Ideas  of  such  a  nature  were  far  too 
high  and  transcendental  for  so  early  a  period. 
The  Hebrew  word  nn,  which  is  translated  spi- 
rit, signified,  properly  and  originally,  wind, 
breath,  (and  so  speech,}  and  life.  Vide  s.  9. 
The  power  of  the  wind  is  great,  and  yet  the 
wind  itself  is  invisible.  Hence  in  nearly  all 
the  ancient  languages  every  power  which  was 
at  the  same  time  great  and  invisible  was  de- 
noted by  some  word  which  in  its  literal  signifi- 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


cation  stood  for  the  wind, — e.  g.,  rrn, 
spiritus.  That  invisible  power  which  moves 
and  animates  our  bodies  is  indicated  by  the  mo- 
tion of  the  air,  or  breath,  and  thence  derives  its 
name ;  for  as  soon  as  we  cease  to  inhale  the 
air,  we  cease  to  move  and  to  live.  Hence  even 
this  invisible  power,  which  gives  motion  and 
life  to  our  bodies,  is  also  called  nn;  cf.  Eccles. 
viii.  8;  xii.  7.  The  body,  which  serves  as  the 
organ  through  which  this  power  acts,  is  called 
•vb'3,  and  is  thus  widely  distinguished  from  the 
power  itself  by  which  it  is  moved.  In  this 
way,  nn  and  -tira  are  always  opposed  one  to  the 
other.  According  to  this  analogy,  the  Hebrews 
gave  the  name  nn  to  all  the  invisible  powers, 
whether  physical  or  moral,  which  they  saw  in 
operation  in  the  universe,  and  consequently  to 
God  himself,  who  is  possessed  of  all  conceiva- 
ble powers  in  the  highest  possible  degree. 
Thus  nn  and  nvr  nn  came  to  signify  (a)  the 
nature  of  God  in  general ;  (5)  his  invisible 
power,  as  exercised  both  in  the  material  world, 
in  its  creation  (Gen.  i.  2),  &c.,  and  in  the  soul 
of  man,  in  promoting  its  moral  improvement,  in 
the  act  of  inspiration,  and  in  various  other  ways. 
Vide  2  Sam.  xxiii.  1,  2 ;  cf.  s.  9.  But  the  an- 
cient Hebrews  justly  ascribed  thought  and  will 
to  the  same  principle  which  moves  and  animates 
us,  and  so  denominated  them  nn,  rtrsvpa'  which 
term  they  then  applied,  by  way  of  analogy,  to 
the  divine  intelligence  and  will.  Now,  since 
the  body,  when  destitute  of  this  animating  prin- 
ciple, is  incapable  of  will  and  action,  the  term 
nfe>3  was  made  to  stand  for  whatever  is  weak 
and  powerless,  and  the  term  nn,  for  whatever  is 
great  and  strong,  both  in  the  material  and  moral 
world.  Vide  Isa.  xxxi.  3.  Hence  it  appears 
that  the  Hebrews  made  sufficient  distinction  be- 
tween spirit  and  body,  although  in  their  notions 
respecting  spirit  they  may  not  have  agreed  ex- 
actly with  modern  metaphysics.  Their  views 
on  this  point  were  sufficiently  distinct  for  all 
practical  purposes;  and  of  anything  more — of 
whatever  possesses  a  merely  speculative  inte- 
rest— they  were  as  well  ignorant  as  are  the  com- 
mon people  of  our  own  day.  Many  among 
them  did  indeed  suppose  that  God,  like  man, 
was  of  a  corporeal  as  well  as  spiritual  nature, 
as  appears  from  many  of  the  ancient  terms  em- 
ployed in  their  language;  and  this  accounts,  in 
some  measure,  for  their  strong  and  invincible 
propensity  to  the  worship  of  images.  The  same 
thing  is  found  to  be  true  in  regard  to  other  nations 
who  have  worshipped  God  under  some  human 
resemblance,  respecting  which  there  is  a  remark- 
able passage  in  Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  I.  27,  seq. 

2.  But  even  among  Christians  there  have 
been  some  who  have  conceived  of  God  as  mate- 
rial and  corporeal.  The  Ebionites  of  the  second 
century,  Audaeus  the  Syrian,  and  a  great  part  of 
the  Egyptian  monks  of  that  period,  are  accused 


of  entertaining  this  error.  .Even  some  of  the 
fathers,  as  we  find,  ascribed  somewhat  corpo- 
real to  God.  Tertullian  asks,  Quis  negabit 
Deum  CORPUS  esse,  etsi  Deus  spiritus  est?  Me- 
lito  and  many  others  expressed  the  same  opi- 
nions. They  were  opposed,  however,  by  Ori- 
gen  and  others,  who  earnestly  contended  for 
the  truth,  that  God  is  oww^afoj.  In  the  seven- 
teenth century,  Hobbes,  and  in  the  eighteenth, 
Priestley,  contended  that  God  possessed  a  body, 
as  otherwise  he  could  stand  in  no  relation  to 
bodily  things.  Accordingly  they  ascribed  to 
him  the  attribute  of  extension. 

This  opinion  may  be  traced  to  various  causes. 
(1)  With  some  it  was  mere  ignorance,  or  the 
use  of  unguarded  expressions,  like  those  em- 
ployed by  illiterate  people  at  the  present  day. 
This  was  probably  the  case  with  the  Ebionites, 
Audagus,  and  some  of  the  fathers.  (2)  Others 
seem  to  assert  these  views  when  they  do  not  in 
reality  entertain  them,  the  mistake  arising  from 
the  different  use  of  language.  Such  is  the  case 
with  Tertullian,  who  meant  to  denote  by  the 
word  corpus  nothing  more  than  substance  and 
individuality.  He,  however,  believed  extension 
to  be  an  attribute  of  spirit.  (3)  Others  still  are 
gross  materialists,  and  deny  the  possibility  of 
simple  substances.  Such  are  Hobbes,  Priest- 
ley, and  others.  (4)  Some  of  the  mystics  ascribe 
extension  to  God,  and  consequently  somewhat 
of  a  material  nature.  This  may  be  said  of  the 
Egyptian  monks;  and,  as  a  general  thing,  the 
my  slid  impuri  have  been  very  much  inclined  to 
pantheism. 

Morus,  p.  45,  s.  7,  extr.  et  not.  4. 

SECTION  XX. 

OF  THE  ETERNITY  AND  IMMUTABILITY  OF  GOD. 

I.   What  Eternity  is,  and  upon  what  it  depends. 

THE  word  eternity  is  used,  as  philosophers 
observe,  in  a  figurative  and  a  literal  sense.  In 
the  figurative  or  popular  sense  it  denotes  an  ex- 
istence which  may  indeed  have  had  a  beginning, 
but  will  have  no  end ;  like  that  of  the  angels, 
of  the  human  soul,  &c.  Instead  of  eternity  in 
this  sense,  the  shoolmen  use  the  words  seviter- 
nitas,  sempiternitas.  In  the  literal  sense  it  de- 
notes an  existence  which  has  neither  beginning 
nor  end,  like  that  of  God.  The  eternity  of  God, 
considered  as  without  beginning,  is  called  by 
the  schoolmen  seternitas  &  parte  ante,  or  a  priori, 
and  sometimes  pritnitas  Dei ;  considered  as 
without  end,  it  is  called  xternitas  a  parte  post, 
or  a  posteriori,  more  commonly  called  immor- 
tality, d<j£op<j(,'a,  c&avotfteu  This  immortality  of 
God,  however,  unlike  that  of  created  spirits,  is 
necessary ;  with  him  there  is  necessitas  absoluta 
vivendi ;  nor  can  he,  like  the  creatures  of  his 
power,  ever  cease  to  exist. 


100 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


The  eternity  of  God  depends  upon  the  neces- 
sity of  his  existence;  since  we  cannot  suppose 
that  there  ever  was,  or  will  be,  a  period  in 
which  a  necessary  being  did  not  or  will  not 
exist.  To  suppose  this  would  be  contradictory, 
and  equivalent  to  saying  that  a  necessary  being 
is  not  necessary.  Such  was  the  reasoning  of 
Plato  in  Timaeus;  of  Proclus  in  his  Commen- 
tary on  the  same ;  of  Parmenides  and  Plotinus. 

The  question  is  sometimes  asked  in  this  con- 
nexion, whether  the  notion  of  the  eternity  of 
God  implies  the  exclusion  of  all  succession  of 
time  in  his  existence,  so  that  in  him  the  past, 
present,  and  future  are  indistinguishable.  Cle- 
ricus  and  other  Socinian  and  Arminian  theolo- 
gians, and  some  philosophers,  have  contended 
for  a  succession  of  time  in  God.  This  subject 
lies  so  wholly  beyond  the  circle  of  our  know- 
ledge, and  is  so  little  analogous  to  anything 
with  which  we  are  acquainted,  that  at  first  sight 
it  might  seem  not  to  admit  of  a  definite  determi- 
nation. At  least,  we  are  incapable  of  forming 
any  conception  on  this  subject,  as  we  can  never 
contemplate  an  object  as  without  time  and  space. 
In  everything  in  the  material  world  around  us, 
and  even  in  ourselves,  there  is  a  constant  suc- 
cession of  time;  and  however  much  we  may 
strive  to  lift  our  minds  above  this  necessity,  we 
shall  still  find  ourselves  compelled  to  conceive 
of  any  event — for  example,  the  creation  of  the 
world — which  with  us  is  past,  as  past  also  with 
God,  and  as  future  with  him  before  it  took 
place.  Most  writers,  however,  will  admit  of  no 
succession  of  time  in  God;  they  justly  consU 
der  that  this  succession  as  it  exists  in  us  in- 
volves imperfections  of  various  kinds,  and  espe- 
cially dependence  and  limitation,  and  cannot 
therefore  be  admitted  to  have  existence  in  the 
divine  nature.  But  it  is  best  to  pass  by  this 
metaphysical  subtlety,  and  to  represent  God  to 
our  minds  as  existing  without  beginning  or 
end,  as  coeval  through  all  time,  past,  present, 
and  future,  with  all  the  creatures  of  his  hand. 
In  intimate  connexion  with  this  doctrine  is  that 
of— 

II.  The  Immutability  of  God. 

Since  the  existence  of  God  is  necessary,  we 
cannot  suppose  that  his  nature  possesses  any 
attribute  at  one  time  of  which  it  is  destitute  at 
another.  If  he  changes,  it  must  be  for  the  bet- 
ter or  for  the  worse ;  neither  of  which  can  be 
supposed  with  regard  to  him.  Accordingly,  his 
relation  to  his  creatures,  which  first  arose  on  the 
creation  of  the  world,  can  have  produced  no  al- 
teration in  God  himself;  he  continues  the  same 
amidst  all  the  changes  of  created  things.  To 
doubt  this  truth  would  involve  us  at  once  in 
contradiction.  We  must  therefore  believe  it, 
although  we  have  no  analogy  for  it,  and  of 
course  cannot  form  any  clear  conception  of  it. 


This  immutability  relates  to  the  decrees  and  the 
actions,  as  well  as  to  the  nature,  of  God.  Cf. 
Morus,  p.  53,  s.  15,  n.  1.  The  immutability  of 
God  in  respect  to  his  actions  is  most  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  Bible ;  nor  is  this  attribute 
denied  by  those  passages  which  affirm  that 
God  repents,  &c.  When  God  appears  to  be 
displeased  with  anything,  or  orders  it  differ- 
ently from  what  we  expected,  we  say,  after  the 
manner  of  men,  that  he  repents.  That  this  is 
the  meaning  is  plain  from  other  texts,  in  which 
the  immutability  of  the  divine  decrees  is  ex- 
pressly asserted.  Vide  s.  25,  which  treats  of 
the  will  of  God,  and  Morus,  p.  45,  n.  5. 

In  these  attributes  which  have  just  been 
named,  two  others  are  involved — viz.,  self-exist' 
ence  (aseitas),  by  which  is  meant  that  God  has 
the  ground  of  his  existence  in  no  other  being 
than  himself;  and  independence,  by  which  is 
meant  that  God  cannot  be  determined  or  con- 
trolled, either  as  to  his  existence,  his  will,  or 
his  actions,  by  any  other  being.  Morus,  p.  45, 
s.  8. 

III.  The  Biblical  representation  of  these  Attributes. 

The  pure  idea  of  eternity  is  too  abstract  to 
have  been  conceived  in  the  early  ages  of  the 
world,  and  is  not  accordingly  found  expressed 
by  any  word  in  the  ancient  languages.  But  as 
cultivation  advanced,  and  this  idea  was  more 
distinctly  developed,  it  became  necessary,  in 
order  to  express  it,  either  to  invent  new  words, 
or  to  employ  old  words  in  a  new  sense,  as  was 
done  with  the  words  seternitas,  perennitas,  &c. 
The  Hebrews,  like  other  nations,  were  destitute 
of  any  single  word  to  express  the  idea  of  eter- 
nity. The  word  oSijr,  like  atwv  and  CHU>VM>J,  sig- 
nifies any  duration,  especially  a  long  period, 
whether  past,  present,  or  future.  They  were 
compelled,  therefore,  to  have  recourse  to  circum- 
locution. To  express  seternitas  a  parte  ante, 
they  said,  before  the  world  was;  seternitas  & 
parte  post,  when  the  world  shall  be  no  more. 

Some  of  the  principal  texts  of  scripture  re- 
specting these  attributes. 

1.  Respecting  the  eternity  of  God.  God  is 
said  to  be  the  first  and  the  last — i.  e.,  the  being 
who  existed  before  the  world  began,  and  who 
will  continue  when  it  shall  be  destroyed,  Isaiah, 
xliv.  6,  coll.  xli.  4.  The  same  meaning  is  con- 
veyed when  God  is  said  to  be  A  xai  Jl,  ajj£*7  xa^ 
T'f^o?,  Rev.  i.  8 ;  or,  as  the  Rabbins  say,  from 
N  to  n — i.  e.,  ab  initio  usque  ad  extremum.  In 
Psalm  xc.  the  eternity  of  God  is  described  in  a 
very  sublime  manner.  The  length  of  human 
life,  which  had  previously  been  from  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  to  one  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  had  been  suddenly  abridged  in  the  desert 
to  seventy  or  eighty  years.  Moses  hence  takes 
occasion  to  compare  the  perishable  nature  of 
man  with  the  eternal  nature  of  God.  The 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


101 


phrase  "before  the  mountains  were  brought 
forth"  is  a  periphrasis  for  aeternitas  aparteante, 
like  rtpo  xaraj3ok»?j  xdcr^ov,  John,  xvii.  24.  In 
the  phrase  n^y  ny  n^iyp,  the  former  word  denotes 
past,  the  latter,  future  time  ;  like  art'  cuwvwv,  £t$ 
tfouj  cuwvas,  in  the  New  Testament,  John,  vi. 
51,  seq.  The  meaning  of  the  Psalmist,  ver.  3, 
seq.,  is  briefly  this  :  short  and  transitory  is  the 
life  of  man;  but  it  is  otherwise  with  God  :  the 
being  who  made  us  mortal  is  himself  immortal. 
Of  the  same  import  is  the  passage,  Ps.  cii. 
24 — 28.  "Thy  years  are  throughout  all  gene- 
rations (onn  11-13)."  "Of  old  (epjoS)  hast  thou 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth" — i.  e.,  God 
existed  before  the  creation  of  the  world.  Verse 
27,  "Thou  art  the  same" — i.  e.,  God  himself  is 
immutable  amidst  the  alterations  of  the  world ; 
he  changes  not  with  the  changing  universe. 
"Thy  years  shall  have  no  end" — i.  e.,  God  is 
immortal — a  periphrasis  for  seternitas  a  parte 
post.  So  Paul  describes  God,  1  Tim.  vi.  16, 
as  o  jitows  Z%uv  c&avowi/'av — i.  e.,  immortal  in 
a  peculiar  sense,  necessarily  so — a  being  who 
can  have  no  end.  Cf.  1  Tirn.  i.  17.  The  pas- 
sage, Roin.  i.  20,  dUSc-oj  av-r'ou  8vvap.i,$  xai  ^C.OT'JJS, 
belongs  in  this  connexion. 

2.  Respecting  the  immutability  of  God.  This 
attribute  is  described  by  the  text  before  quoted, 
Ps.  cii.  28,  (Kin  nns,  avto$,  semper  idem.}  It  is 
also  implied  in  the  names  rvav  nt^x  rmv,  and 
nvr>  in  the  Pentateuch.  Vide  s.  17.  In  Ps.  xc. 
4,  it  is  expressly  said,  that  time  produces  no 
alteration  in  God,  as  it  does  in  creatures:  "A 
thousand  years  pass  away  before  thee  like  yes- 
terday, or  like  a  watch  in  the  night."  Vide 
Uebersetzung  der  Psalmen.  Parallel  with  these 
texts  is  that  in  2  Pet.  iii.  8,  9,  "  Be  not  ignorant 
of  this  orre  thing,  that  one  day  is  with  the  Lord 
as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as 
one  day."  If  it  appears  (ver.  9)  that  God  does 
not  immediately  accomplish  his  promises  and 
threats,  we  may  yet  be  certain  that  he  will  not 
forget  to  accomplish  them.  For  (ver.  8)  he  is 
not  mutable.  Length  of  time  makes  no  altera- 
tion in  him,  that  he  should  forget  anything,  as 
we  do.  What  took  place  a  thousand  years  ago, 
is  as  new  and  as  present  to  him  as  what  takes 
place  to-day.  This  is  the  proper  practical  view 
of  this  subject.  In  other  texts  the  immutability 
of  the  divine  decrees  is  spoken  of,  and  they  are 
called  djUfr'a^tojT'a,  Rom.  xi.  29 ;  also,  ?b  a/j-std- 
Sftov  trfi  povhrj  avvov,  Heb.  vi.  17,  18  ;  Mai. 
iii.  6;  Ps.  xxxiii.  10, 11.  The  passage,  James, 
i.  17,  may  be  connected  with  these,  as  it  does 
not  properly  treat  of  the  immutability  of  the  na- 
ture, but  of  the  purposes  and  dispositions  of 
God.  He  is  there  said  to  be  the  creator  and 
preserver  of  the  lights  of  heaven, 

)  with  whom  is  no  variableness 
nor  shadow  of  alteration  (^port? 
i.  e.,  his  favour  is  not  changeable,  lik 


that  of  a  prince,  but  he  is  always  equally  gra- 
cious to  men. 

3.  Respecting  the  self-existence  of  God.  The 
passages  Ps.  xc.  cii.  &c.,  which  speak  of  the 
eternity  of  God,  teach  this  attribute  implicitly, 
and  by  way  of  consequence.     Vide  also  Acts, 
xvii.  24, 25.     Cf.  Philo,  De  Opif.  mundi,  p.  28, 
ed.  Pf.     M^Stvos  TtpoaSfOjiui/oj  aM.oi>. 

4.  Respecting  the  independence  of  God.  Here 
belongs  the  text  just  quoted  from  Acts.     This 
attribute  is  also  exhibited  very  intelligibly  and 
plainly   in   Rom.   xi.   33 — 36.     Tt's    ov-^ovXoj 
avtov  eyzvsto ;  yj  ti$  Ttpol&oxsi/  a/uf^,  xai  avtarto- 
So^tfsT'cu,  avtct.    Cf.  Isaiah,  xl. ;  13,  seq.    Mo- 
ms, p.  46,  note. 

Morus,  p.  44,  s.  6,  coll.  p.  53,  s.  15. 

SECTION  XXI. 

THE  OMNIPOTENCE  OF  GOD. 

I.  Definition,  Ground,  and  Proof  of  this  Attribute. 

THE  omnipotence  of  God,  defined  in  philoso- 
phical language,  is  that  attribute  by  which  he 
can  bring  to  pass  everything  which  is  possible. 
It  is,  then,  nothing  else  than  an  exertion  of  the 
divine  will.  But  since  its  object  is  rather  phy- 
sical than  moral  good,  it  is  here  placed  among 
the  physical  attributes  of  God.  The  ground  of 
this  attribute  lies  in  the  supreme  perfection  and 
infinity  of  the  divine  nature.  Since  God  is  in- 
finite, his  power  cannot  admit  of  bounds  or 
limitations.  But  that  God  can  do  only  what  is 
possible,  as  they  say  in  the  schools,  is  still  true  in 
itself,  and  perfectly  consistent  with  his  infinity. 
For  an  impossibility,  in  the  philosophical  sense 
of  the  word,  is  something  which  implies  a  con- 
tradiction, and  is  a  nonentity.  One  who  should 
contend  that  God  could  perform  what  is  impos- 
sible, would  contend  that  he  could  act  contra- 
dictorily, which  would  be  an  imperfection  not 
ascribable  to  the  most  perfect  being.  This 
metaphysical  definition  should,  however,  never 
be  used  in  popular  instruction,  since  it  can  never 
be  made  sufficiently  intelligible;  and  the  words 
possible  and  impossible  are  not  used  in  the  same 
sense  in  common  life,  and  in  the  schools  of  phi- 
losophers. Common  people,  who  are  unaccus- 
tomed to  reflection,  will  always  find  difficulty 
in  the  assertion,  that  God  can  do  only  what  is 
possible.  To  them,  therefore,  this  attribute 
should  be  described,  according  to  the  language 
of  scripture,  to  be  that  by  which  God  can  do 
everything  which  he  will.  This  definition  com- 
prehends the  whole,  since  God  can  never  will 
anything  which  is  impossible. 

In  proof  of  the  unlimited  power  of  God,  we 
may  here  mention  the  greatness  of  his  works. 
Vide  Rom.  i.  20;  Job,  xl.  41. 

The  omnipotence  of  God  is  divided,  in  the 
philosophical  and  theological  schools,  into  ai- 


102 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


solitta  and  ordinata.  The  absolute  omnipotence 
of  God  is  that  immediate,  miraculous  exertion 
of  his  power,  which  is  seen  in  the  creation  of 
the  world,  &c.  His  omnipotentia  ordinata.  is 
that  common,  regular  exercise  of  his  power,  by 
which  he  makes  use  of  the  course  of  nature, 
which  he  himself  has  established  for  the  promo- 
tion of  his  own  designs.  Thus  he  produces  the 
warmth  of  the  atmosphere,  not  per  potentiam  ab- 
solutam,  but  ordinatam,  in  causing  the  sun  to 
shine.  The  same  thing  is  expressed  by  saying, 
he  acts  per  causas  secundas. 

II.  The  Biblical  Representations  of  the  Omnipotence 
of  God. 

1.  The  common  literal  representations  which 
the  Bible  gives  of  the  omnipotence  of  God,  are 
rvo  and  rryo.),  £i>£pyfta,  Svya/tij,  fiovo$,  8wdatrj^, 
the  Almighty.     Jer.  x.  12,  "  He  created  the  earth 
by  his  power  (ni3)."     The  plural  rvniaj  is  ap- 
plied to  the  actual  exertions  of  the  divine  power, 
and  so,  like  8vi/a/mj,  signifies  miracles. 

2.  Besides  these  literal,  there  are  many/g-u- 
rative,  anthropomorphical  representations  of  the 
divine  power  contained  in  the  Bible.     Among; 
these  are  the  following :  the  hand,  strong  Jiand, 
right  hand,  of  God;  also,  the  arm,  the  long  arm 
((Uaxpo^ftp),  of  God,  in  opposition  to  a  short  arm, 
the  index  of  weakness,  &c.     Vide  Deut.  xxxii. 
39;  Isa.  lix.  1,  seq.     The  representation  that 
God  works  by  speaking,  by  his   word,  or  his 
command,  is  also  figurative.     Vide  the  history 
of  the  creation,  Gen.  i.  3,  seq.     In  Ps.  xxxiii. 
6,  it  is  said,  "  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  the  hea- 
vens were  formed  ;"  and  in  ver.  9,  "  He  spake, 
and  it  was  done;  he  commanded,  and  it  stood 
fast."     In  this  sense  ^rtua  Qfov  is  used,  Heb.  xi. 
3  ;  and  /j^ta  8vvdu.tu>$  (Sfj-afoi')  avtov,  the  word 
of  his  power,  his  command,  Heb.  i.  3.    All  these 
are  figurative  expressions,  intended  to  shew  the 
ease  and  certainty  with  which  God  performs  his 
works  and  executes  his  will.     He  is  represent- 
ed by  this  image  as  a  powerful  ruler,  to  whose 
mere  word  and  command  everything  is  subjpct. 
He  does  not  need  to  give  bis  own  hand  to  the 
work  :  it  costs  him  only  a  word.     In  other  pas- 
sages, we  find  that  what  is  done  is  ascribed  more 
directly  to  the  will  of  God  (for  the  language  of 
the  Bible  is  wisely  varied) — e.  g.,  Rev.  iv.  11, 
"  Thou  hast  created  all  things,  xai  8ta  rb  ^sx^a 
GOV  ^<jav,"  i.  e.,  they  owe  their  existence  to  thy 
mere  will. 

3.  The  following  are  some  of  the  texts  in 
which  unlimited  power  is  ascribed  to  God  in  the 
clearest  manner:  Ps.  cxv.  3,  "Our  God  is  in 
heaven;  he  does  whatsoever  he  will."     Rom. 
iv.  17,  KaXouvroj  ta  (u^  ov-r'a,  tbj  ovfa,  he  called 
them  from  nothing;  he  created  what  did  not 
exist.     Jer.  xxxii.  17,  "Thou  hast  made  the 
heaven  and  the  earth  with  thy  great  power,  and 


thine  outstretched  arm."  In  Ephes.  iii.  20,  Paul 
describes  the  infinity  of  the  divine  power  by 
saying  that  God  is  able  vrtep  itdv-ta,  rto^oai  vrtsp 
sx  Ttfpiaaov  u>v  voovfifv — i.  e.,  to  do  infinitely  more 
than  all  that  we  imagine.  In  Ephes.  i.  19,  he 
speaks  of  vrttpfidKhov  ^tlyt^oj  Swdfitcdf  avtov. 
The  phrase  ovx  a8vva,T?r}G£i  Ttapa  T'O  ©£9  Jtav  fopa, 
Luke,  i.  37,  is  to  be  classed  among  the  preceding. 
It  is  a  proverbial  phrase,  which  conveys  the 
meaning  that  God  can  perform  what  may  ap- 
pear to  us  impossible,  or  rather,  that  God  is 
never  unable  to  fulfil  his  promise,  (/r/Jua  "vn.) 
Cf.  Gen.  xviii.  14,  whence  these  words  are 
taken. 

Morus,  p.  50,  s.  13. 

SECTION  XXII. 

OF  THE  OMNISCIENCE  OF  GOD. 

THIS  attribute  is  ascribed  to  God,  to  denote 
that  he  possesses  the  most  perfect  knowledge. 
That  it  is  rightly  ascribed  to  him  may  be  easily 
shewn,  even  by  reasoning  a  priori.  Since  God 
is  a  Spirit,  he  possesses  cognitive  power,  and 
of  course  knowledge.  And  since  he  is  the  most 
perfect  Spirit,  he  possesses  the  most  perfect  in- 
tellect and  intellection,  which  is  called  omni- 


I.  The  Extent,  or  the  Objects  of  the  Divine 
Knowledge. 

How  the  divine  intelligence  can  comprehend 
and  survey  so  vast  a  number  and  exhaustless  a 
variety  of  objects,  is  quite  inconceivable  to  our 
finite  and  feeble  capacities.  Paul  speaks  of  the 
j3c&o$  yycowcos  ®sov,  Rom.  xi.  33.  The  Bible 
often  says,  "there  is  no  searching  of  his  under- 
standing," Is.  xl.  28  ;  "  his  understanding  is  in- 
finite," Ps.  cxlvii.  5.  The  ancient  Grecian 
philosophers  frequently  express  very  just  and 
pure  conceptions  of  the  omniscience  of  God. 
When  Thales  was  asked  if  some  of  the  actions 
of  men  were  not  unknown  to  God,  he  answered, 
«*  Not  even  their  thoughts."  Xenophop  records 
similar  sentiments  of  Socrates,  which  are  re- 
peated by  Plato  in  Parmenides.  The  objects 
of  the  divine  knowledge  have  sometimes  been 
divided,  in  accommodation  to  the  weakness  of 
human  understanding,  into  several  classes. 

1.  His  own  nature  is  one  object  of  the  know- 
ledge of  God.  And  from  this  knowledge  it  re- 
sults that  he  must  have  had  from  all  eternity  the 
ideas  of  the  things  which  he  has  made,  and 
which  were  then  only  possible.  This  know- 
led  o-e  is  called  by  theologians  cognitio  natura- 
Hs — (i.  e.,  naturae  suae.)  It  is  this  of  which 
Paul  speaks  in  1  Cor.  ii.  11,  "No  man  know- 
eth  the  thoughts  of  a  man,  but  the  spirit  of  a  man 
which  is  in  him.  OvVo  xai  ?d  rov  ®sov 
oiSsv,  ft  [A1?}  to  rtvtvpa  tov  0£ov." 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


103 


2.  Jill  objects  EXTRINSIC  to  himself  are  also  in- 
cluded in  the  knowledge  of  God.  These  may 
be  divided  into 

(a)  Possible  things,  which  are  known  by  God, 
although  they  may  never  become  real.  The 
knowledge  which  respects  these  subjects  is 
called  scientia  simplicis  intelligentiae,  because  it 
remains  in  the  mind  of  God,  without  calling 
forth  the  exercise  of  his  will.  In  close  con- 
nexion with  this  knowledge  is  what  is  called 
scientia  Dei  media,  or  conditionata,  or  scientia  de 
futuro  conditional,  the  knowledge  of  what  is 
conditionally  possible — i.  e.,  the  knowledge  of 
those  things  which,  although  they  have  never 
come  to  pass,  might  have  taken  place  under 
certain  presupposed  possible  conditions.  For 
example :  God  foresees  that  this  youth,  if  he  had 
lived  to  a  certain  age,  would  have  become,  under 
particular  circumstances  and  in  a  particular  situ- 
ation, a  very  bad  man.  He  therefore  takes  him 
from  life  at  an  early  period,  or  brings  him  into 
a  situation  in  which  he  is  unable  to  do  the  in- 
jury foreseen.  This  injury,  therefore,  never 
becomes  real;  but  God  foresaw  it  per  scientiam 
mediarn,  and  prevented  it  from  taking  place. 
This  scientia  media  must  necessarily  be  ascribed 
to  God,  since  many  other  divine  attributes  de- 
pend upon  it— e.  g.,  the  wisdom  of  God,  which 
j  consists  in  his  determining  which  is  the  best 
among  many  possible  things,  and  his  choosing 
according  to  this  determination.  Examples  of 
the  exercise  of  this  scientia  media  are  furnished 
in  the  Bible,  Jer.  xxxviii.  17 — 20;  1  Sam.  xxiii. 
5 — 14 ;  Matt.  xi.  21 — 23.  The  term  media  was 
first  employed  by  Fonseca,  a  Portuguese  Jesuit, 
and  an  Aristotelian,  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
But  its  use  in  theology  was  principally  author- 
ized by  Lud.  Molina,  a  Spanish  Jesuit  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  a  disciple  of  Fonseca, 
in  his  book,  De  concordia  gratiae  et  liberi  arbitrii. 
He  intended,  by  the  introduction  of  this  term, 
to  obviate  the  objections  which  had  arisen  to  the 
doctrine  of  Augustine  concerning  predestination. 
The  thing  itself,  however,  which  is  designated 
by  this  term,  did  not  originate  with  him,  but  is 
found  in  the  writings  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
Augustine,  (De  dono  perseverentias,  c.  9,)  and 
other  of  the  ecclesiastical  fathers. 

(6)  Real  things.  God,  accordingly,  knows 
the  nature  of  all  things,  animate  and  inanimate, 
physical  and  moral.  He  knows  the  thoughts 
and  desires  of  the  human  heart.  This  know- 
ledge is  called  scientia  libera,  or  visionis — im- 
mediate, intuitive  knowledge.  It  is  involved 
in  the  idea  of  the  most  perfect  being;  it  was  re- 
quisite in  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  is  essen- 
tial to  the  rule- and  providence  which  God  exer- 
cises over  the  works  of  his  hand.  He  who  cre- 
ated, constructed,  and  preserves  the  universe, 
must  necessarily  understand  it  perfectly;  and 
especially  the  moral  Governor  of  the  world  must 


perfectly  understand  the  moral  character  of  his 
subjects,  in  order  to  the  just  distribution  of  re- 
wards and  punishments.  This  doctrine  is  one, 
therefore,  of  the  highest  practical  importance. 
It  is  calculated,  on  the  one  hand,  to  impart  con- 
solation to  the  pious,  and,  on  the  other,  to 
awaken  a  salutary  dread  in  the  thoughtless  and 
impure,  and  to  urge  them  to  repentance.  On  this 
account  it  is  often  exhibited  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures. We  read  in  1  John,  iii.  20,  ©«6j  yw^oxtt, 
and  in  Heb.  iv.  13,  rcdvfa  ds  yvpva  xai> 
T'otj  6$$otyioc$  avtov.  The  Bible 
frequently  enters  into  a  specific  enumeration  of 
the  different  classes  of  objects  which  are  com- 
prehended in  the  knowledge  of  God.  He  knows 
things  animate  and  inanimate,  Matt.  vi.  2(5 ;  x. 
29;  the  destinies  of  men,  Matt.  vi.  32;  their 
thoughts  and  secret  purposes,  Jer.  xi.  18 — 20  ; 
Psa.  xciv.  11 ;  their  sufferings  and  sorrows,  Psa. 
Ivi.  8 ;  their  virtues  and  vices,  1  Pet.  iii.  12,  &c. 
One  of  the  most  sublime  descriptions  of  the 
knowledge  of  God  is  contained  in  Psa.  cxxxix. 

But  in  consequence  of  the  form  of  time  which 
is  inherent  in  our  constitution,  we  are  compelled 
to  regard  objects  as  past,  present,  and  future; 
and,  the  same  being  transferred  to  God,  his 
knowledge  has  been  differently  denominated,  as 
it  respects  the  first,  second,  or  third  of  these 
classes,  reminiscentia,  visio,  and  prsescientia. 
That  God  should  possess  recollection  and  vision, 
we  may  easily  understand,  from  the  analogy 
which  we  find  for  these  attributes  in  our  own 
minds.  But  he  also  possesses  prescience,  and 
this  relates  to  future  objects  of  three  different 
classes.  (1)  Futura  necessaria — those  things 
which  result  from  the  established  course  of  na- 
ture, or  from  a  fixed  divine  decree ;  (2)  futura 
conditionata — those  things  which  will  take  place 
only  on  certain  conditions, — the  evil  or  good 
that  will  be  done  by  a  person  under  given  cir- 
cumstances; (3)  futura  contingentia — those 
events  which  depend  on  the  free  will  of  man, 
or  other  rational  beings,  and  therefore  may  or 
may  not  come  to  pass.  The  knowledge  of  God 
relating  to  the  last  of  these  classes  is  called  xcw' 
E|O^V,  his  prescience. 

This  divine  foreknowledge  of  the  events  de- 
pending upon  the  free  will  was  denied  by  some 
of  the  ancient  philosophers.  [Cicero  uses  the 
following  argument: — "  Si  prsescita  sunt  omnia 
futura,  hoc  ordine  venient,  quo  ventura  esse 
praescita  sunt.  Et  si  hoc  ordine  venient,  certus 
est  ordo  rerum  praescienti  Deo.  Et  si  est  certus 
ordo  rerum,  est  certus  ordo  causarum  ;  non  enim 
aliquid  fieri  potest,  quod  non  aliqua  efficiens 
causa  praecesserit.  Si  autem  certus  est  ordo 
causarum,  quo  fit  omne  quod  fit,  fato  fiunt  om- 
nia, quse  fiunt.  Quod  si  ita  est,  nihil  est  in 
nostra  potestate,  nullumque  est  arbitrium  volun- 
tatis."  De  Divinatione,  II.  5 — 7.]  The  same 
ground  is  taken  by  some  of  the  schoolmen,  and 


104 


HRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


by  Socinus  and  his  followers.  [Socinus  says : 
— "Animadvertendum  est,  infallibilem  istam  Dei 
prae  notionem  a  nobis  non  admitti,  nisi  prius 
probetur." — "  Quasdam  sunt  quae  Deus  scire 
nulla  ratione  dici  potest,  nee  tamen  ipsius  omni- 
scientiae  quidquam  derogatur." — "  De  futuris 
contingentibus  non  est  determinata  veritas." 
Praelec.  Theol.  c.  8 — 11.]  The  common  argu- 
ment is  briefly  this  :  the  foreknowledge  of  God, 
which  is  contended  for,  invades  the  freedom  of 
the  will  in  man  and  other  moral  beings.  For 
if  God  foreknows  all  things,  and  is  infallible  in 
his  knowledge,  whatever  he  foreknows  must 
take  place,  is  therefore  necessary,  and  no  longer 
dependent  on  the  freedom  of  man. 

But  this  reasoning  is  fallacious;  for  man  does 
not  perform  one  action  or  another  because  it  was 
foreknown  by  God ;  but  God  foreknew  the  ac- 
tion, because  man,  in  the  exercise  of  his  free  will, 
would  perform  it.  Our  own  knowledge  of  the 
future  bears  some  analogy  with  this,  since  it  is 
always  founded  upon  a  knowledge  of  the  past 
and  present.  But  on  account  of  the  imperfection 
and  limitation  of  our  view,  the  future  is  to  us 
only  probable,  and  our  knowledge  of  it  only 
conjectural;  while  to  God  the  future  is  certain, 
and  his  knowledge  with  respect  to  it  infallible. 
[The  same  answer,  in  substance,  was  given  by 
Augustine  to  the  passage  above  cited  from  Ci- 
cero:  "Non  est  consequens,  ut  si  Deo  certus 
est  omnium  ordo  causarum,  ideo  nihil  sit  in  nos- 
trae  voluntatis  arbitrio;  et  ipsx  quippe  voluntates 
nosfrse  in  causarum  ordine  sunt,  qui  certus  est 
Deo,  ej  usque  praescientia  continetur,  quoniam 
et  humanae  voluntates  humanorum  operum  cau- 
sae  sunt.  Atque  ita,  qui  omnes  rerum  causas 
praescivit,  profecto  in  iis  causis  etiam  nostras 
voluntates  ignorare  non  potuit.  Interim  nullo 
modo  cogimur,  aut  praescientij,  Dei  retentl  tol- 
lere  voluntatis  arbitrium,  aut  retento  voluntatis 
arbitrio  Deum  negare  praescium  futurorum,  sed 
utrumque  amplectimur,  illud,  ut  bene  credamus, 
hoc,  ut  bene  vivamus."  Augustine,  De  Civ.  D. 
V.  c.  9,  10.  The  same  distinction  between 
foreknowing  and  foreordaining  is  also  suggested 
by  John  of  Damascus:  "  Xpjj  ywuxtxeiv,  wj 
rtdvta  /.LEV  Ttpoytvuxjxst  o  0f6j,  ov  rtoWa  8e  Ttpoopc- 
^£i.  npcoyti'aKjxft  yap  xai  fa  £$'  i^utv,  ov  rtpoopt'^f  t 
8e  avra,  ov  yap  ^t'tet  trjv  xaxiav,  yij/£<5^ai,  ov6f 
j3ta£Wat  "frjv  apeitinv  uxyts  -trtf  ^ft'aj  rtpoyvcotft ixrjs 
xiXsvaacoj  tpyov  ea-tiv  o  7tpoopW|u6$.  npoopt^st,  $e 
fa  ovx  £<j)  yuiv  xara  tr^v  rtpoyvcocftv  avfov1  r5^ 
yap  xa-ta  -tr}v  Ttpoyrcooij'  av-fov  Ttpoaxptvs  rtdWa  o 
©565  xata  "tr[v  dya^ot^ta  xai  -tr[v  8<,xaioavvrjv 
avfou.'"  "Ex8o<3i$  aspics,  x.  *.  7,.  L.  ii.  c.  30.] 

Besides,  the  free  actions  of  men  are  never 
wholly  arbitrary,  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  per- 
formed in  view  of  some  motive,  which,  however 
concealed  it  may  be  from  our  short-sighted  eyes, 
is  visible  to  God,  who  knows  intuitively  the 
whole  extent  of  the  present  and  future ;  who  is 


the  author  of  the  laws  by  which  we  act;  and 
who,  without  this  knowledge,  would  be  incom- 
petent to  the  government  of  the  world,  which 
must  then  be  abandoned,  in  a  great  measure,  to 
the  control  of  chance.  [This  appears  to  be  the 
most  perfect  solution  of  the  difficulty  in  question. 
So  long  as  liberty  was  supposed  to  consist  in  a 
choice  undetermined  by  motives,  there  remained 
an  irreconcilable  disagreement  between  the  di- 
vine prescience  and  human  freedom ;  and  con- 
sistent writers  saw  themselves  compelled  to  re- 
ject the  one  or  the  other.  But  when  freedom 
came  to  be  considered  more  justly,  as  the  power 
which  we  possess  of  determining  our  actions  by 
the  ideas  of  reason,  this  disagreement  was  re- 
moved. Cf.  Bretschneider,  Dogmatik,  b.  i.  s. 
406;  Leipzig,  1828.] 

This  doctrine  must  therefore  be  admitted  to 
be  true,  although  the  mode  of  it  must  be  for  ever 
unintelligible  to  us,  who  look  at  everything  un- 
der the  limitations  of  time  and  space.  The  mis- 
takes into  which  we  fall  on  this  subject  are  owing 
to  the  words  which  we  employ,  and  to  the  po- 
verty of  our  conceptions.  The  terms  chance  and 
contingent  may  facilitate,  to  our  minds,  the  under- 
standing of  certain  ideas,  and  are  intended  for 
the  illustration  of  certain  attributes  of  things ; 
but  to  the  divine  intelligence,  in  which  there 
is  no  succession  of  time,  and  by  which  the  past, 
present,  and  future  are  immediately  compre- 
hended, nothing  can  appear  contingent.  Since 
every  event  takes  place  according  to  fixed  laws, 
the  infinite  intelligence  must  perceive  what  is 
free  and  contingent  to  be  as  certain  in  the  course 
of  future  events  as  what  is  necessary  or  less  con- 
tingent. The  Stoics  were  accustomed  to  say 
that  the  actions  of  men  were  rendered  certain, 
but  not  necessary,  by  the  divine  foreknowledge. 
[On  this  subject  Augustine  inquires,  "Quid 
est  praescientia,  nisi  scientia  futurorum  ]  Quid 
autem/u/wrwm  est  Deo,  qui  omnia  supergreditur 
tempora  ?  Si  enim  scientia  Dei,  res  ipsas  habet, 
non  sunt  eifuturse  sed  prassentes  ,•  ac  per  hoc  non 
jam  preescientia,  sed  tantum  scientia  dici  po- 
test," De  diversis  quaest.  1.  ii.  Cf.  Boethius, 
De  consol.  philos,  1.  v.  pr.  6.  "  Scientia  Dei 
omnem  temporis  supergressa  motionem,  in  suae 
manet  sirnplicitate  prsesentiae,  infinitaque  prse- 
teriti  ac  futuri  spatia  complectens,  omnia  quasi 
jam  gerantur  in  sua  simplici  cognitione  consi- 
derat.  Itaque  si  praescientiam  pensare  veils, 
qua  cuncta  dignoscit,  non  esse  praesoientiam, 
quasi  futuri,  sed  scientiam  nunquam  deficientis 
instantiae,  rectius  aestimabis.  Unde  non  prae- 
videntia,  sed  p-ovidentia  potius  dicitur,  qtiod 
porro  ab  rebus  infimis  constituta,  quasi  ab 
excelso  rerum  cacumine  cuncta  prospiciat."] 
Vide  Leibnitz,  Theodicee,  under  the  titles,  pre- 
vision and  science  de  Dieu.  Cf.  Eherhard,  Ver-  j 
mischte  Schriften,  Num.  5,  Verschiedene  Aufsatzt 
uber  die  Freyhdt  des  Wilkns;  Halle,  1778,  8vo. 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


105 


Callisen,  Beytrag  die  Lehre  von  der  Allwissen- 
heit  Gottes,  und  die  Lehre  von  der  menschlichen 
Freiheit  in  Harmonie  zu  bringen,  in  Schmidt's 
Bibliothek  der  theologischen  Literatur,  b.  viii. 
s.  247;  Giessen,  1805,  8vo. 

We  can  therefore  bring  no  objection  against 
the  Bible,  when  it  ascribes  to  God  this  scientia 
futurorum  contin gentium.  Vide  Psalm  cxxxix. 
1 6,  «*  Thou  knewest  the  whole  course  of  my  life, 
when  thou  sawest  me  in  the  first  stages  of  ex- 
istence." Cf.  v.  2,  "Thou  understandest  my 
thought  afar  off," — i.  e.,  before  I  myself  think 
it.  Isaiah  adduces  it  as  a  proof  of  the  greatness 
of  God,  that  he  foresees  and  announces  to  his 
prophets  those  future  contingent  things  which 
are  beyond  the  reach  of  the  human  understand- 
ing, ch.  xli.  26 ;  xliv.  8 ;  xlviii.  4 — 8. 

II.  The  Mode  of  the  Divine  Knowledge. 

The  faculties  which  we  possess  for  the  acqui- 
sition of  knowledge  are  very  limited,  and  the 
knowledge  which  we  acquire  in  the  use  of  them 
is  very  imperfect.  In  forming  conceptions, 
therefore,  of  the  divine  intelligence,  we  must  ab- 
stract all  those  limitations  which  relate  to  time 
and  space;  and  in  this  way  we  obtain,  for  the 
most  part,  merely  negative  ideas.  The  difference 
between  our  understanding  and  that  of  God  may 
be  rendered  evident  by  the  following  particu- 
lars : — 

1.  Our  knowledge  is  mostly  derived  from  sen- 
sation, from  which  we  obtain,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  all  our  ideas.     This  is  a  limit  beyond 
which  we  cannot  pass;  and  being  such,  it  is 
wholly  inapplicable  to  the  mind  of  God.      Our 
souls,  in  the  present  life,  act  and  feel  through 
the  body  and  its  senses.     But  as  these  do  not 
belong  to  God,  he  cannot  be  supposed  to  have 
either  sensation  or  passions.     Vide  Morus,  p. 
54,  s.  15,  not.  extr. 

2.  Our  knowledge  is  obtained  gradually.  We 
first  receive  our  notions   from   sensation;  we 
then  treasure  them  in  our  memory ;  and  after- 
wards compare  them  with  one  another,  and  form 
judgments  concerning  them.     We  then  proceed 
gradually,  by  means  of  the  conclusions  to  which 
we  have  arrived,  from  one  truth  to  another,  at- 
taining sometimes  to  a  probability  in  our  know- 
ledge, but  remaining  often  uncertain  and  wholly 
uninformed.     But  this  process  of  acquisition  is 
in  various  ways  imperfect,  and  cannot,  therefore, 
be  attributed  to  God.     He  does   not  recollect 
what  is  past,  nor  form  images  or  symbols  in  his 
mind,  nor  come  to  the  conclusions  of  reason. 
He  does  not  form  abstract  ideas ;  for  to  his  mind 
each  particular  thing  is  equally  present;  he  re- 
gards all  things  with  immediate  intuition  ;  and 
is  independent  of  the  aid  of  memory.     Every- 
thing like   succession  in  knowledge  must  be 
absolutely  excluded  from  the  knowledge  of  God. 
This  is  called  scientia  simultanea ;  and  God  is 

H 


said  by  the  schoolmen  to  know  immediate,  sine 
discursu,  uno  actu.  Vide  Castner,  WTie  die  allge- 
meinen  Begriffe  im  gottlichen  Verstande  sind  ; 
Altenburg,  1768. 

W7hen  every  imperfection  is  abstracted  from 
the  divine  understanding,  it  appears,  from  what 
has  been  said,  to  surpass  human  understanding 
in  the  following  respects: — (a)  It  is  simulta- 
neous,— God  knows  by  one  act  ,•  (6)  most  true, 
without  error  or  mistake  ;  (c)  most  clear, — with- 
out darkness  or  confusion;  (rf)  most  certain, — 
without  doubt  or  ambiguity. 

But  those  who  live  in  the  sphere  of  sense, 
and  are  limited  by  time  and  space,  are  unable  to 
form  distinct  conceptions  of  the  perfection  and 
immeasurableness  of  the  divine  understanding. 
There  is,  therefore,  in  all  the  languages  of  men, 
especially  the  more  ancient,  an  entire  destitution 
of  terms  which  literally  express  these  ideas ; 
and  even  had  such  terms  existed  in  former 
times,  they  would  have  been  unintelligible. 
There  is  no  way,  therefore,  when  this  subject  is 
mentioned,  but  to  take  language  borrowed  from 
the  objects  of  sense,  and  to  employ  it  with  a 
purer  and  more  refined  meaning.  This  is  the 
method  of  the  Bible.  It  speaks  of  God  as  re- 
membering either  in  a  good  sense,  meaning  that 
he  bestows  favours  after  he  has  for  a  long  time 
inflicted  punishments,  (e.  g.,  Gen.  viii.  1 ;  Acts, 
x.  4 ;)  or  in  a  bad  sense,  meaning  that  he  calls 
to  mind — i.  e.,  punishes,  the  sins  of  men,  (e.  g., 
Psalm  xxv.  7 ;  ciii.  9.)  In  the  same  manner  it 
speaks  of  God  as  forgetting — i.  e.,  leaving  men 
without  help,  or  suffering  their  sins  to  pass  un- 
punished. It  speaks  too  of  his  hoping  and  ex- 
pecting, and  finding  his  hope  and  expectation, 
as  it  seems  to  us,  disappointed.  On  the  same 
principle,  the  terms  taken  from  the  bodily  or- 
gans, through  which  we  obtain  all  our  know- 
ledge, are  applied  to  God— e.  g.,  nsn,  jjrtf 
axomiv,  which  are  synonymous  with  yy, 
xsw,  "\*>n,  Jpfwav,  &c. 

Morus,  p.  46,  s.  10. 

SECTION  XXIII. 

OF  THE  OMNIPRESENCE  OF  GOD. 

I.  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

THE  omnipresence  of  God  is  that  power  by 
which  he  is  able  to  act  everywhere.  This  attri- 
bute, when  correctly  viewed,  cannot  be  distin- 
guished from  the  divine  omnipotence  and  omni- 
science taken  in  connexion;  and  so  it  is  exhibit- 
ed by  Morus.  We  justly  conclude,  that  he  who 
knows  all  things  (s.  22),  and  whose  power  is 
so  unlimited,  that  he  does  whatsoever  he  will 
(s.  21),  must  be  present  in  all  things,  and  can- 
not be  separated  from  them  by  time  or  space. 

In  thinking  on  this  subject,  we  have  need  to 
guard  against  gross  conceptions,  and  especially 


106 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


against  the  danger  of  predicating  of  God  what 
can  only  be  said  of  the  presence  of  body.  This 
caution  is  particularly  necessary  here,  since  we 
are  apt  to  transfer  the  forms  of  time  and  space, 
which  are  applicable  only  to  the  sphere  of  sense, 
into  the  world  of  spirits ;  and  in  so  doing,  to 
come  to  conclusions  which  are  false  and  contra- 
dictory, and  dishonourable  to  the  purely  spi- 
ritual nature  of  God.  Vide  s.  20,  I.  The  fol- 
lowing points  should  be  considered  in  reference 
to  this  subject: — 

1.  Extension  is  not  predicable  of  God,  who 
is  a  Spirit.  To  say,  therefore,  that  he  is  in  infi- 
nite space,  or,  with  Philo,  the  Cabbalists,  and 
many  modern  writers,  that  he  is  himself  infinite 
space,  is  altogether  erroneous.  Such  expres- 
sions necessarily  involve  a  material  and  limited 
nature.  Space  is  a  mode  of  thought,  in  which, 
as  in  a  frame,  we  must  range  everything  which 
belongs  to  the  sphere  of  sense,  but  within  which 
nothing  relating  to  the  spiritual  or  moral  world 
can  be  brought.  The  omnipresence  of  God  was 
often  mentioned  by  the  ancient  philosophers 
who  ascribed  to  him  a  corporeal  nature,  or  who 
regarded  him  and  the  world  as  composing  one 
whole.  He  was  called  by  Novatianus  and 
other  Grecian  writers,  •r'ortoj  -rw  okwv,  or  tov 
6tot>,  locus  omnium  rerum ;  and  by  the  Rabbins, 
OipE,  spatium  universak.  But  this  is  an  incor- 
rect notion  of  the  divine  omnipresence.  Baier 
and  many  of  our  older  theologians  spoke  of  the 
omnipresence  of  God  as  subslantialis,  or  essen- 
ttalis,  in  opposition  to  that  which  was  merely 
operativa,  or  actualis.  This  substantial  presence 
of  God  they  called  dStad-r'aaria,  or  in  Latin,  in- 
distantia,  or  adessentia  substantial  divinx.  These 
expressions,  however,  convey  no  distinct  idea, 
and  often  lead  to  erroneous  conceptions. 

[Note. — Some  of  the  older  theologians  enter- 
tained the  more  scriptural  opinion,  that  both  the 
substantial  and  efficient  presence  of  God  were 
involved  in  his  omnipresence.  Thus  Calovius 
defines  the  omnipresence  of  God  to  be  that  attri- 
bute, "  vi  cujus  ille,  non  tantum  substantia?  pro- 
pinquitate,  sed  etiam  efficacia  ac  operatione, 
adest  creaturis  omnibus."  System,  torn.  ii.  p. 
612.  He  adds,  p.  613,  »  Omnipraesentia  Dei 
est  attributum  svfpy^-r't.sov,  nee  solum 
crtav,  indistctntiam  adessentise,  sed 
operationem  preesentis  Dei,  subinfert."  In  this 
view  of  the  subject  Calovius  was  followed  by 
Quenstedt,  who  writes  that  this  attribute,  "  non 
solum  essentiae  divinae  propinquitatem,  sive 
adessentiam  Dei  ad  creaturas,  sed  etiam  opera- 
tionem quandam,  importet."  He  therefore  dis- 
tinguishes between  the  immensity  and  the  omni- 
presence of  God,  the  former  of  which  he  supposes 
to  be  absolute  and  eternal,  the  latter  relative, 
and  coeval  only  with  the  creation. 

Hahn  remarks,  that  from  the  history  of  the 


various  opinions  which  have  prevailed  respect- 
ing the  omnipresence  of  God,  it  appears  that 
most  of  the  errors  have  arisen  from  confound- 
ing the  ideas  of  body  and  substance.  In  doing 
this,  our  author  has  followed  the  example 
of  Reinhard,  Morus,  Doederlein,  and  others, 
who  adopted  the  philosophy  of  Leibnitz  and 
Wolf.  In  denying  to  God  a  body,  and  thus 
avoiding  the  errors  of  pantheism,  they  seemed 
at  the  same  time  unconsciously  to  deny  him 
substance,  and  to  transmute  him  into  an  unessen- 
tial thought,  and  then  to  locate  him  somewhere 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  universe,  from  whence 
he  looks  forth,  and  exerts  his  power  upon  all 
his  works  ;  in  which,  therefore,  he  is  no  other- 
wise present  than  by  his  knowledge  and  agency."] 
2.  By  the  presence  of  a  spiritual  being  with 
us,  we  mean,  that  he  thinks  of  us,  and  in  this 
way  acts  upon  us.  But  in  order  to  this,  we  need 
not  suppose  his  local  presence,  or  the  approxima- 
tion of  the  spiritual  substance.  We  are  present 
in  spirit  with  an  absent  friend,  when  we  think 
of  him,  and  thus  act  upon  him.  Paul  says,  1 
Cor.  v.  3,  drtwv  ^9  tfwjtaT'fc,  rtapwv  8s  ^9  rtvsvparfc,, 
cf.  v.  4.  We  see  thus  that  our  minds  have  an 
agency,  and  an  agency  different  from  that  of 
matter,  though  we  are  ignorant  of  the  mode  of 
their  operation.  How,  then,  can  we  hope  to 
understand  the  manner  in  which  God  acts'? 
From  what  we  observe  of  the  operation  of  our 
own  minds,  we  may,  however,  reason  with  re- 
spect to  God,  if  we  are  on  our  guard  against 
transferring  to  him  the  imperfection  and  limita- 
tions which  we  perceive  in  ourselves.  He  sees 
and  knows  all  things ;  nor  is  he  removed  from 
objects  extrinsic  to  himself  in  respect  either  of 
time  or  space,  as  we  are,  the  operation  even  of 
whose  minds  is  limited  by  the  sphere  of  sense, 
to  which  we  are  chained  by  our  connexion  with 
our  bodies.  The  power  of  his  Spirit,  or  rather, 
the  power  of  him,  as  the  most  perfect  Spirit,  is 
infinite;  that  of  our  spirits,  finite.  He  therefore 
understands  and  controls  all  things;  which  is 
the  same  as  to  say,  he  is  present  in  all  things. 
If  we  attempt  to  go  beyond  this,  we  fall  at  once 
into  fruitless  subtilties.  We  should  be  content 
to  say  with  Morus,  Deus  rebus  prassens,  est  Deus 
in  res  a  gens. 

II.  The  Scriptural  Representations. 
These  are  accordant  with  the  views  which  we 
have  here  expressed.  The  Bible  exhibits  this 
attribute  of  God  in  such  a  manner  as  to  lead  us 
to  reverence  his  character,  to  place  our  confi- 
dence in  him,  and  to  walk  circumspectly  before 
him.  And  it  accomplishes  this  practical  end 
without  the  aid  of  metaphysical  subtilties.  In 
Psalm  cxxxix.  7 — 10,  the  knowledge  and  power 
of  God  are  mentioned  in  close  and  inseparable 
connexion  with  his  presence — "  Whither  shall 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


107 


I  go  from  thy  spirit  1  If  I  ascend  up  into  hea- 
ven, thou  art  there ;  if  I  dwell  in  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  sea,  even  there  shall  thy  hand  lead 
me,  and  thy  right  hand  shall  hold  me."  The 
omniscience  and  omnipresence  of  God  are  con- 
nected in  the  same  manner  in  Jer.  xxiii.  23,  24, 
*'  Am  I  a  God  who  is  near,  and  far  from  no  one ; 
and  can  any  hide  himself  in  secret  places  that  I 
shall  not  see  him  ?"  For  other  passages,  cf. 
Morus,  p.  52,  and  Hahn,  S.  188,  s.  43. 

The  Bible  contains  some  figurative  represen- 
tations of  the  omnipresence  of  God,  which  are 
indeed  perfectly  adapted  to  popular  discourse, 
but  which  seem,  if  not  properly  understood,  to 
contradict  the  true  idea  of  this  attribute.  Among 
these  representations  we  may  mention  the  fol- 
lowing:— 

1.  God  fills  (N'TO)  heaven  and  earth — i.  e.,  the 
universe.  Vide  Jer.  xxiii.  24.    This  representa- 
tion does  not  involve  the  notion  of  that  spiritual 
extension  of  which  the  Rabbins  and  some  of  the 
schoolmen  speak,  but  is  intended  to  expose  the 
error  then  prevalent  in  the  east,  that  God  dwelt 
in  heaven,  removed  from  the  affairs  of  the  world, 
and  unconcerned  in  what  might  befal  the  chil- 
dren of  men. 

2.  He  dwells  in  heaven,  or  in  his  temple.    We 
find  it  very  difficult  to  conceive  that  it  should 
be  otherwise  with  the  presence  of  God  than  with 
our  bodily  presence.     We  cannot  understand 
how  it  is,  that  his  presence  should  not  bear 
some  relation  to  a  particular  place,  or  how  it 
should  be  possible  for  him  to  be  at  the  same 
time  in  different  places.  We  are  under  the  neces- 
sity of  using  expressions  borrowed  from  space, 
because  it  is  a  form  of  thought  inherent  in  our 
minds..     But  we  should  always  remember  that 
these  expressions,  in  application  to  God   and 
divine    things,    are    figurative.     Accordingly, 
we  represent  God,  in  general,  as  at  least  more 
present  in  one  place  than  in  another ;  we  make 
him  in  our  apprehensions  to  resemble  ourselves ; 
and  are  unable  to  conceive  that  he  should  act 
upon  nature,  when  at  a  great  remove,  or  that  he 
should  not  be  materially  present,  although  invi- 
sible,  wherever    his   power  is    exerted.     W'e 
therefore  assign  to  him  an  abode,  where  he  is 
at  least  eminently  present. 

(a)  He  dwells  IN  HEAVEN.  There  he  gives 
the  most  awful  displays  of  his  power,  in  the 
lightnings  and  flying  tempests,  and  thence  he 
sends  down  the  most  visible  marks  of  his  favour 
in  the  light  and  vital  warmth  of  the  sun.  The 
heavens  are  therefore  called  the  palace,  throne,  or 
temple  of  God;  and  the  earth,  in  contradistinction, 
\\isfootstool.  For  this  reason,  the  face  and  hands 
were  directed  heavenwards  in  prayer,  and  the 
temples  and  altars  of  God  were  built  upon 
mountains  and  hills.  What  is  intended  by  these 
figurative  representations  may  be  literary  ex- 


pressed after  the  example  which  is  given  even 
in  the  scriptures,  by  the  phrase,  God  is  exalted 
over  all.  We  sometimes  find  the  phrase,  he  dwells 
on  high,  instead  of  the  phrase,  he  dwells  in  hea- 
ven. Vide  Psalm  cxv.  3  ;  Job,  xvi.  19. 

(6)  He  dwells  IN  HIS  TEMPLE,  which  is  some- 
times called  his  dwelling-place.  The  Jews  be- 
lieved that  prayer  offered  there,  where  they  sup- 
posed God  to  be  specially  present  among  his 
worshippers,  would  be  more  certainly  heard 
than  when  offered  elsewhere;  and  they  there- 
fore turned  their  faces  and  hands  thitherward 
when  absent  from  Jerusalem.  They  represent- 
ed God  as  sitting  on  a  throne  above  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  and  placing  his  feet  upon  its  lid. 
This  representation,  which  occurs  frequently  in 
the  Bible,  and  especially  in  the  Old  Testament, 
was  doubtless  believed  literally  by  some  of  the 
Jews.  The  prophets,  however,  improved  every 
opportunity  of  teaching  them  to  raise  their 
thoughts  above  the  mere  sensible  representation, 
and  to  connect  with  these  figures  those  just  and 
worthy  apprehensions  of  God  which  they  were 
intended  to  convey.  At  the  consecration  of  the 
temple,  (1  Kings,  viii.  27,)  Solomon  inquires, 
"  But  will  God  indeed  dwell  on  the  earth  ?  Be- 
hold the  heaven  and  heaven  of  heavens  cannot 
contain  thee  ;  how  much  less  this  house  that  I 
have  builded  1"  Cf.  Is.  Ixvi.  1,  and  Acts,  xvii. 
24,  ovx  sv  #£tpo7toMj7'(H$  vootj  xatoixsi.  Even 
Homer  appears  to  have  had  some  just  views  of 
the  presence  of  God.  In  IL.  xvi.  515,  Glaucus 
thus  addresses  Apollo  : 


aj/a£,  05  irov  Awa'rjf  cv  iriovi  (Jjy/nw 
Etj,  fl  ivi  Tpoiy  fovaom  &t  ai>  TTUVTOS'  aKoveiv. 

The  opinion  of  some  of  the  Jews  that  God 
could  be  rightly  worshipped  only  at  Jerusalem, 
which  was  contradicted  by  Christ,  (John,  iv. 
20  —  24,)  originated  partly  from  their  erroneous 
views  of  the  presence  of  God,  and  partly  from 
that  prejudice  so  dishonourable  to  him,  that  they 
alone  had  any  title  to  his  love  and  favour. 

3.  He  approaches  his  people,  or  withdraws 
from  them.  These  also  are  figurative  expres- 
sions, adapted  to  popular  discourse.  WThen  they 
wished  to  describe  God  as  knowing  anything 
perfectly,  they  said,  he  drew  near,  and  closely  in- 
spected it.  The  representation  that  God  draws 
near  to  any  one,  or  dwells  with  him,  is  also  used 
to  designate  the  support,  love,  and  special 
favour  of  God,  Psalm  xci.  15  ;  Matt,  xxviii.  20  ; 
John,  xiv.  23,  24.  It  likewise  denotes  the 
hearing  of  prayer,  Matt,  xviii.  20.  On  the 
other  hand,  when  God  is  said  to  withdraw  from 
his  people,  and  to  be  far  off,  the  meaning  is, 
that  he  withholds  his  assistance  and  support, 
and  leaves  them  helpless.  Cf.  s.  22,  ad  finem, 
and  Morus,  p.  52,  note  4.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  51, 
seq.  s.  14. 


108 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


SECTION    XXIV. 

THE  WISDOM  OF  GOD. 

I.  Statement  of  the  Doctrine. 

THIS  attribute  of  God,  as  well  as  his  omni- 
presence, stands  in  the  closet  connexion  with 
his  omniscience,  and  can  be  directly  derived 
from  it.  The  omniscience  of  God  implies  that 
he  possesses  the  clearest  knowledge  of  the  con- 
nexion of  all  things,  and  therefore  of  their  rela- 
tions as  means  and  ends,  and  this  knowledge  is 
commonly  called  wisdom.  And  because  God  pos- 
sesses the  most  perfect  knowledge  of  this  kind 
he  is  said  to  possess  supreme  wisdom.  He  is  ac- 
cordingly styled  by  Paul,  (1  Tim.  i.  17),  povos 
cro<j>6$,  the  all-wise,  sapientissimus  ;  cf.  Jude,  v. 
25.  The  wisdom  of  God  implies  two  things : — 

1.  God  proposes  to  himself  the  best  ends 
(fines,  consilia.)  The  question  is  here  asked, 
what  is  the  end  of  God  in  the  creation  and  pre- 
servation of  the  world  ?  The  earlier  theologians 
generally  assign  the  glory  and  majesty  of  God  as 
the  final  cause  of  the  creation,  and  refer  to  the 
texts  which  speak  of  him  as  doing  everything 
for  his-own  glory — i.  e.,  that  it  might  be  seen 
and  acknowledged.  And  we  may  say,  indeed, 
that  in  relation  to  men  and  other  rational  beings, 
who  are  bound  to  acknowledge  the  glory  of  God, 
this  is  one  end  of  the  creation.  But  glory,  in 
itself  considered,  cannot  be  looked  upon  as  the 
sole,  universal  end,  for  which  the  world  exists. 
For  God  himself  can  be  in  nothing  dependent 
on  the  glory  which  others  ascribe  to  him,  nor 
can  he  receive  any  increase  of  honour  from  their 
praises.  Other  theologians,  therefore,  say  that 
the  welfare  of  men  was  the  object  of  God  in  the 
creation  of  the  world.  This  may  be  true,  if  it 
is  not  understood  to  mean  that  God  created 
everything  solely  for  this  object.  It  were  judg- 
ing very  proudly  concerning  ourselves  and  very 
poorly  concerning  God  to  suppose  that  he  pro- 
posed to  himself  no  other  object  than  this,  and 
had  created  everything  for  our  sake  who  consti- 
tute so  small  a  part  of  the  boundless  universe. 
We  prefer  the  following  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion :  The  end  of  God  in  the  creation  of  the  world 
was  to  impart  to  all  his  creatures  that  degree  of 
perfection  of  which  they  are  severally  suscepti- 
ble; in  accomplishing  this  end  he  employs  the 
most  suitable  means,  and  thus  displays  before 
our  eyes  his  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness. 
This  is  what  is  meant  when  it  is  said  in  the 
scriptures,  he  made  everything  for  his  own  glory. 
We  should  learn  the  majesty  and  glorious  attri- 
butes of  the  Creator  from  the  creatures  of  his 
hand.  But  this  can  be  done  only  by  moral 
beings  like  ourselves.  Vide  Psalm  xix.,  et 
alibi.  Cf.  s.  18,  I.  Note.  Also  s.  48,  IV. 
Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  271.  Bretschneider,  Hand- 
buch,  band.  i.  s.  584. 


2.  He  chooses  the  best  means  (media,  instru- 
menta)  for  the  attainment  of  these  ends.  He 
not  only  knows,  as  omniscient,  what  the  best 
means  are,  but  is  able,  as  omnipotent,  to  employ 
them.  In  the  choice  of  means  he  cannot  be  de- 
ceived, since  he  is  omniscient,  and  consequently 
infallible.  Hence  he  will  never  choose  unsuit- 
able, ineffective,  or  injurious  means;  nor  will 
he  employ  means  which  are  superfluous,  or 
more  than  are  necessary  for  the  attainment  of 
his  object  in  the  shortest  way.  To  suppose  this 
would  be  to  impeach  his  omniscience.  This  is 
sometimes  expressed  as  follows  :  God  acts  by 
the  rule  of  economy,  (ex  lege  aeconomiae;)  Deum 
ire  via  brevissimd ;  according  to  the  axiom : 
Quud  fieri  potest  per  pauca,  non  debet  fieri  per 
plura.  That  God  acts  upon  this  maxim,  both 
in  the  material  and  moral  world,  we  see  from 
innumerable  observations.  But  since  we  are 
unable  to  survey  the  whole  system  of  things  we 
cannot  and  should  not  presume  to  decide  in 
given  cases  what  might  be  the  shortest  way  and 
what  might  be  the  best  means  for  attaining  the 
divine  ends.  Many  things  appear  to  us  useless, 
unsuitable,  or  superfluous.  The  observation  of 
Paul,  (1  Corinthians,  i.  25,)  that  even  those 
actions  and  works  of  God  which  appear  to  us 
foolish  and  unwise  far  surpass  all  human  wis- 
dom is  abundantly  confirmed  both  in  the  physi- 
cal and  moral  world.  Vide  Reimarus,  Abhand- 
lungen  iiber  die  Wahrheiten  der  natiirlichen 
Religion,  s.  206  ;  and  Jacobi,  Betrachtungen 
iiber  die  weisen  Absichten  Gottes,  4  thle.  Hano- 
ver, 1765,  8vo.  The  science  in  which  the  ends 
and  objects  of  God  are  investigated  is  called 
teleology.  Vide  s.  15,  68,  ad  finem. 

II.  Scriptural  Representations. 

The  doctrine  of  the  wisdom  of  God  is  in  a 
high  degree  practical.  It  is  calculated  to  inspire 
our  hearts  with  pious,  thankful,  and  reverential 
feelings  towards  God.  It  offers  to  us  an  unfail- 
ing source  of  consolation  and  peace  in  the 
midst  of  our  cares  and  sufferings,  and  is  there- 
fore frequently  exhibited  by  the  sacred  writers. 
The  most  important  texts  relating  to  this  attri- 
bute may  be  divided  into  two  classes. 

1.  The  texts  which  treat  of  our  knowledge 
of  the  wisdom  of  God  derived  from  the  creation 
and  preservation  of  the  physical  world.     These 
are,  Psalm  civ.,  especially  ver.  24 ;  Prov.  iii. 
19,   seq. ;   Is.   xl.    13,  seq. ;   also   Prov.   viii. 
22 — 30,  where  the  wisdom  of  God  is  personi- 
fied, and  in  which  Solomon  bestows  upon  it  all 
possible  praises,  and  shews  that  it  is  that  attri- 
bute by  which  God  so  especially  glorifies  him- 
self in  the   creation   and   preservation  of  the 
world.     In  the  preceding  and  succeeding  con- 
text he  describes  folly  and  ignorance  by  way  of 
contrast. 

2.  The  texts  which  treat  of  the  wisdom  of 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


109 


God  as  displayed  in  the  various  institutions  of 
the  moral  world,  especially  those  which  he  has 
established  to  promote  the  moral  perfection  and 
happiness  of  the  human  race.  For  moral  per- 
fection, and  the  happiness  which  stands  in  an 
immediate  connexion  with  it,  are  the  ultimate 
destination  of  men  and  of  all  moral  creatures. 
The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  especially 
love  to  dwell  upon  these  great  plans  of  God. 
Christ  says,  (Matt.  xi.  19,)  ^  <ro$ta  (©sov)  e8i- 
xatwjty  drto  T'UIV  r'txwov  WVT!^ — i.  e.,  the  wisdom 
of  God  (as  displayed  in  the  calling  and  prepara- 
tion of  teachers,  and  in  the  publication  of  their 
doctrines)  is  approved  by  all  the  wise.  Paul 
says  the  same  respecting  the  wisdom  of  God  as 
displayed  in  the  Christian  doctrine  so  generally 
condemned  at  that  time,  1  Cor.  i.  ii.  Those 
very  doctrines  which  appeared  the  most  revolt- 
ing to  Jews  and  heathen  contained,  in  his 
view,  the  greatest  proof  of  the  divine  wisdom. 
He  calls  the  doctrine  of  redemption  co<j>ta,  by 
way  of  eminence,  (1  Cor.  1.  25,  seq.  coll.  Rom. 
xi.  33  ;)  although  it  appeared  foolishness  to  men. 
Morus,  p.  47,  note  7.  A  taste  for  these  moral 
subjects,  and  a  perception  of  the  wisdom  of  God 
in  the  provisions  he  has  made  for  the  moral 
improvement  and  for  the  recovery  of  our  race, 
is,  as  it  were,  the  test  by  which  we  can  judge 
of  the  degree  of  moral  improvement  to  which 
any  one  has  attained.  He  who  has  no  taste  for 
these  objects  has  made  as  yet  but  little  pro- 
gress; for  the  Bible  assures  us  that  the  most 
pure  and  perfect  of  the  moral  creatures  of  God 
— the  angels  in  heaven,  admire  the  wisdom  dis- 
played in  his  plan  for  the  redemption  of  men, 
and  ponder  them  with  delight,  and  inquire  into 
them  with  earnestness,  Ephes.  iii.  10;  1  Pet. 
i.  12.  In  Col.  ii.  3,  Paul  says  that  in  this  plan 
lie  concealed  all  the  treasures  of  the  wisdom  of 
God. 

Note. — The  Hebrew  o^n,  and  the  Greek  ffo$oj, 
signified  originally,  skilful,  expert,  and  were 
applied  especially  to  artificers;  cf.  Ex.  xxxi.  3; 
Homer.  II.  xv.  412.  They  signified,  seconda- 
rily, able  and  knowing  in  any  way.  Thus 
D^pan  are  docti,  Eccl.  i.  18;  Is.  xix.  11 ;  1  Cor. 
i.  20,  (rtov  <jo<}>6f ;  rtov  ypctytjUor'ivj.)  They  came 
gradually  to  have  that  more  general  significa- 
tion which  belongs  to  them  in  all  the  ancient 
languages.  The  same  is  true  of  the  correspond- 
ing substantives  nrDn,  and  ao$ta. 

SECTION  XXV. 

INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS    RESPECTING   THE    NA- 
TURE AND  PERFECTIONS  OF  THE  DIVINE  WILL. 

I.  What  is  meant  by  the  Will  of  God. 

WE  derive  our  notions  and  expressions  re- 
specting this  divine  attribute,  as  well  as  the 
oth<  rs,  from  what  we  know  of  the  human  soul ; 


rejecting  here,  as  before,  all  imperfection. 
This  is  the  only  way  in  which  we  can  come  to 
a  knowledge  of  God.  Vide  s.  18,  ad  finem. 
Now  we  ascribe  to  the  human  soul  two  powers, 
or  rather,  a  twofold  modification  and  exercise  of 
its  power — viz.,  thinking  and  choosing,  or  intel- 
ligence and  will.  And  we  call  the  attributes  of 
God  which  are  analogous  to  these  by  the  same 
name.  Of  the  understanding  of  God,  and  of 
the  attributes  in  which  it  is  principally  deve- 
loped, we  have  before  treated.  We  now  come 
to  speak  of  the  divine  will,  and  the  attributes 
which  belong  to  it.  The  will  with  us  is  de- 
pendent upon  the  understanding.  We  are  said 
to  will,  when  we  feel  an  inclination  for  any- 
thing which  appears  agreeable,  and  disinclina- 
tion for  anything  which  appears  disagreeable. 
And  it  is  the  same  with  God.  What  the  will 
either  of  men  or  of  God  is,  must  be  learned 
from  its  effects,  or  by  the  actions. 

The  following  words  are  used  in  the  Bible  to 
designate  the  will  of  God.  xcn  and  the  sub- 
stantive xon;  also  rwn,  and  the  substantive  pin. 
The  former  words  are  translated  in  the  Septua- 
gint  by  ^'AM,  jSovTio^at,  ^c'typa,  jSoutoj,  and  the 
latter  by  tvboxtiv  and  evfioxt'a.  The  last  word 
often  denotes  the  sovereignty,  or  rather,  the 
freedom  of  the  divine  will  (nirp  i"fin.)  These 
are  the  senses,  therefore,  in  which  these  words 
are  used  by  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  and  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament.  Cf.  Ephes.  i. 
11 ;  Ps.  cxv.  3.  These  words,  moreover,  often 
designate  the  thing  itself  which  God  reveals  as 
his  will,  or  which  he  commands  by  his  pre- 
cepts ;  as,  yfv^rjr'w  TO  §ei#iiM  oov,  Luke,  xi.  2. 
Cf.  Ephes.  v.  17  ;  Romans,  xii.  2.  Eov^rj  ®tov 
(nirv  Xjpn,  Is.  liii.  10,)  means  the  decree  of  God, 
or  his  plan  for  the  good  of  men ;  and  so  denotes, 
by  way  of  eminence,  the  dispensation  of  grace 
through  Christ,  Acts,  xx.  27,  coll.  ver.  20.  Con- 
nected with  this,  there  is  one  more  signification 
of  these  words,  which  deserves  to  be  noticed. 
When  the  verbs  volendi  and  eligendi  are  con- 
strued, in  Hebrew  with  3,  or  in  Greek  with  iv 
or  ft?,  (as  o  3  sen  or  ina,  and  ev&oxew  iv  tivi,} 
they  signify,  to  be  well-disposed  towards  any  one, 
to  love  him,  to  shew  him  favour ;  i.  q.,  bene  cupere, 
velle,  to  wish  well ;  also,  to  like  to  do  anything  ; 
in  short,  i.  q.,  <j>o.£tv.  Indeed,  the  latter  word 
is  used  in  Luke,  xx.  46,  instead  of  ^exstv,  which 
occurs  in  the  parallel  text,  Mark,  xii.  38.  The 
same  meaning,  to  love,  to  have  pleasure  in  a  thing, 
belongs  also  to  ^E'XEH/  with  the  accusative,  Matt, 
xxvii.  43.  Hence  ^eto^a,  jSo-uArj,  ev&oxia,  often 
signify  the  GRACIOUS  will  of  God,  his  benevolence, 
the  proofs  which  he  gives  us  of  his  friendship. 

II.  Divisions  of  the  Will  of  God,  and  Divine 

Decrees. 

The  will  of  God  that  anything  exterior  to  him- 
self should  take  place,  is  called  his  determina- 
K 


110 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


tion,  or  decree.  Morus,  p.  51,  note.  The  ob- 
jects of  the  divine  will  are  as  many  and  various 
as  the  objects  of  the  divine  knowledge.  Cf.  s. 
22, 1.  For  God,  like  all  rational  beings,  chooses 
only  such  things  as  are  perceived  by  his  under- 
standing to  be  good.  His  will,  therefore,  as  well 
as  that  of  others,  depends  always  upon  his  know- 
ledge. And  he  chooses  or  rejects,  as  the  objects 
which  are  presented  to  his  mind  appear  in  his 
judgment  desirable  or  otherwise.  Since  now 
his  knowledge  is  the  most  perfect,  his  will  must 
be  the  best. 

God  is  frequently  represented  in  the  Bible  as 
favourably  inclined  towards  all  men,  and  as  de- 
siring their  happiness.  But  in  some  passages 
it  seems  to  be  intimated  that  he  does  not  desire 
the  welfare  of  some  men,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
their  condemnation.  Now,  many  things  which 
we,  in  our  philosophical  style,  should  say  took 
place  under  the  divine  permission,  or  with  the 
distant  concurrence  of  his  will,  were  ascribed 
by  the  ancient  world  to  the  immediate  agency 
and  express  decree  of  God.  Traces  of  this  com- 
mon opinion  appear  in  Homer  and  other  ancient 
writers.  Passages  occur  which  exhibit  the  most 
exalted  and  worthy  conceptions  of  the  Deity, 
vv.iile  other  passages  ascribe  to  him  the  design- 
ing and  performance  of  such  actions  as  are  in- 
consistent with  his  perfections.  Those  of  the 
latter  kind,  which  occur  in  the  holy  scriptures, 
being  taken  by  themselves,  and  considered  by 
those  who  were  unacquainted  with  this  ancient 
mode  of  thinking  and  speaking,  were  made  to 
contain  a  sense  which  was  never  intended  by 
the  original  writers.  This  mistake  gave  rise  to 
the  vehement  controversies  respecting  predesti- 
nation, which  continued  in  the  Romish  church 
from  the  fifth  even  to  the  eighteenth  century, 
and  which  raged  with  great  violence  between 
the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches,  especially 
during  the  seventeenth  century.  In  the  progress 
of  these  controversies  it  was  found  convenient, 
in  order  to  remove  the  apparent  contradiction  in 
these  texts,  and  to  render  the  whole  subject  more 
intelligible,  to  introduce  various  divisions  into 
the  divine  will.  The  following  are  the  most 
common  : — 

1 .  Jlntecedens  and  consequens.  Voluntas  ante- 
cedens  is  also  called  prima,  or  primitiva ;  and 
voluntas  consequens  is  called  secunda,  finalis,  or 
decretoria.  This  division  is  very  ancient,  and 
occurs  not  only  in  John  of  Damascus,  in  the 
eighth  century,  (since  whose  time  it  has  been 
always  preserved  by  the  schoolmen,)  but  even 
in  Chrysostom,  in  the  fourth  century,  who  dis- 
tinguishes between  ^sx^jua  rtpwtfov  and  Ssvtspov, 
rtpoyyovftfvov  and  £rt6/j,svov,  (Homel,  I.,  in 
Ephes.,)  and  who  is  said  by  Semler  to  have  de- 
rived it  from  Plato.  This  division  is  derived 
from  the  analogy  of  the  human  mind.  We  pos- 
sess a  certain  original  bias,  or  impulse,  which, 


as  long  as  it  is  not  directed  to  any  particular  ob- 
ject, is  called  voluntas  antecedens  animi  humani  ,- 
but  as  soon  as  it  is  directed  to  definite  objects, 
is  called  voluntas  consequens.  Thus  love  and 
hate,  while  not  directed  to  particular  objects, 
belong  to  the  former;  when  so  directed,  to  the 
latter.  If  we  apply  this  to  God,  we  say  that  he 
wills  the  happiness  and  perfection  of  all  his 
creatures  by  his  voluntas  antecedens,-  and  that 
he  makes  application  of  this  general  will  to 
particular  objects,  by  his  voluntas  consequens. 
Now  when  God  bestows  upon  any  individual 
all  the  good  of  which  he  is  susceptible,  he  is 
said  to  treat  him  according  to  his  consequent  or 
determining  will.  This  voluntas  consequens  is 
therefore  principally  exhibited  in  the  decrees  of 
God.  These  two  volitions  thus  often  differ  in 
their  results,  although  they  do  not  clash  among 
themselves ;  although  there  may  be  succession 
in  the  objects  of  the  divine  will,  there  can  be  no 
succession  in  his  will  itself;  for  as  God  knows, 
so  he  wills  everything  instantaneously.  Now, 
if  I  say  God  wills  to  make  all  men  happy,  (1 
Tim.  ii.  4,)  this  is,  in  the  language  of  the 
schools,  the  voluntas  antecedens  Dei — the  end  or 
object  of  God  ;  but  if  I  add  the  distinction,  that 
he  actually  bestows  this  happiness  only  on  the 
pious,  they  alone  being  susceptible  of  it,  (Mark, 
xvi.  16,)  this  is  the  voluntas  consequens.  God, 
then,  ex  voluntate  antecedente,  wills  the  happiness 
of  all  men,  without  exception  ;  but,  ex  voluntate 
consequente,  he  wills  the  condemnation  of  the 
wicked. 

With  regard  to  the  propriety  of  this  division 
we  would  say,  that  so  far  as  it  helps  us  to  under- 
stand and  express  many  things  relating  to  the 
attributes,  decrees,  and  providence  of  God,  it 
may  be  allowed,  if  what  is  intended  by  it  be 
considered,  and  not  the  form  of  expression. 
For  the  language  in  which  it  is  expressed  is  very 
inconvenient,  and  conveys  the  idea  of  succes- 
sion and  mutability  in  the  divine  decrees. 
Literally  understood  it  involves  a  contradiction; 
for  God  never,  in  fact,  willed  a  thing  which  he 
is  said  to  have  willed  antecedenter,  but  which 
has  never  taken  place  consequenter  ,•  since  he  has 
no  ends  which  he  does  not  attain.  This  lan- 
guage must  be  understood,  therefore,  to  represent 
this  thing  as  it  appears  to  us.  Vide  Tollner, 
Vermischte  Aufsatze,  Samml.  II.,  No.  I.  Kann 
Gott  Endzwecke  haben,  die  er  nicht  erreichf? 

2.  Voluntas  absoluta,  and  conditionata  or  ordi- 
nata.  This  division  relates  principally  to  the 
will  of  God  in  regard  to  moral  beings.  He  is 
said  to  will  absolutely  when  he  determines  any- 
thing without  connecting  it  with  a  condition, 
or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  without  having  re- 
spect to  the  free  actions  of  moral  beings.  Thus, 
for  example,  he  frequently  allots  the  external 
condition  of  particular  men,  or  of  whole  nations, 
without  reference  to  their  moral  worth.  Vide 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


Ill 


Rom.  ix.  On  the  other  hand  he  wills  condition- 
ally when  he  determines  anything  on  certain 
conditions,  or  in  respect  to  the  free  actions  of 
moral  beings.  Thus  he  declares  o  Tturtsvoas 
ow^jjtfET'af  6  8'  aTtKJT^tfas  xa-taxpferiastai,  Mark, 
xvi.  16.  When  the  annexed  condition  is  ful- 
filled on  our  part,  and  the  will  of  God  thus  ac- 
complished, his  will  is  said  to  be  efficacious 
(efficax);  when  the  condition  is  not  fulfilled, 
and  the  thing  falls  out  differently  from  what 
God  appeared  to  have  designed,  his  will  is  said 
to  be  ineffectual  (non  efficax.)  Here  again  the 
language  employed  is  very  inconvenient;  for 
God  always  willed  that  which  he  foresaw  would 
take  place,  and  never  willed  that  which  he  fore- 
saw would  not  take  place.  Many  other  divi- 
sions have  been  adopted  by  theologians,  to  all 
of  which  the  remarks  made  at  the  close  of  the 
first  division  may  be  applied.  Vide  Morus,  p. 
47,  s.  11,  p.  51,  s.  13,  note. 

SECTION  XXVI. 

OF  THE  FREEDOM,  IMMUTABILITY,  AND  EFFICACY 
OF  THE  DIVINE  WILL. 

I.  The  Freedom  of  the  Divine  Will. 

1.  WHAT  is  meant  by  the  freedom  of  the  di- 
vine will  (libertas  voluntatis,  arbitrium  Dei), 
and  why  is  this  attribute  ascribed  to  God  1 

To  us  in  our  present  circumstances,  as  related 
to  the  two  spheres  of  sense  and  spirit,  this  sub- 
ject is  encompassed  with  difficulties.  To  in- 
vestigate and  remove  these  difficulties  is  not, 
however,  so  much  the  province  of  theology  as 
of  philosophy.  The  latter  has  of  late  done  much 
towards  clearing  up  the  ground,  by  the  inqui- 
ries instituted  in  the  critical  school.  If  by  free- 
dom is  meant  a  power  of  choosing  between  dif- 
ferent objects  presented  to  the  mind,  without 
any  motive  for  the  choice  of  one  rather  than  an- 
other, then  the  will  of  God  is  not  free.  But 
freedom  is  not  such  a  power,  and  to  act  in  this 
way  is  not  to  zctfreely  but  arbitrarily,  pro  lubitu, 
arbitrio,  ut  stet  pro  ratione  voluntas ;  and  to  sup- 
pose this  of  God  is  to  ascribe  to  him  the  greatest 
imperfection,  and  to  transform  him  into  a  fearful 
tyrant,  who  pardons  or  condemns  without  reason, 
and  may  thus  make  the  pious  eternally  misera- 

!  ble,  and  the  wicked  eternally  happy.  The 
freedom  of  a  moral  being  consists  rather  in  his 

i  being  able  to  choose  and  to  act  according  to  his 
views,  without  being  forced  to  do  otherwise, 
either  from  an  internal  or  external  necessity ; 
but  he  cannot  choose  without  having  a  motive 
for  his  choice.  For  every  act  of  the  will  in  a 
moral  being  there  must  be  some  ground,  and 
this  ground  is  to  be  sought  in  the  understanding. 
The  understanding  discerns  what  is  good  arid 
bad  ;  this  knowledge  awakens  affection  or  aver- 
sion; this,  in  its  turn,  moves  the  will  to  elect  or 


reject;  and  the  will  then  determines  itself  to  act 
accordingly.  Whenever,  then,  any  one  has 
chosen  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  under- 
standing, without  feeling  compulsion  from  with- 
in or  from  without,  he  has  willed  freely ;  and  if 
under  the  same  circumstances  he  has  acted,  he 
has  then  acted  freely.  But,  on  the  contrary, 
when  he  has  been  compelled  to  choose  or  to  act 
by  passions  from  within,  or  by  unconquerable 
difficulties  or  irresistible  power  from  without, 
he  has  not  willed  or  acted  freely. 

Freedom  of  will  and  action,  thus  explained, 
must  necessarily  and  in  the  highest  degree  be- 
long to  God,  as  a  pure  moral  being;  in  such  a 
manner,  however,  as  not  to  imply  any  succession 
of  acts  in  his  mind,  s.  25.  This  freedom  must 
be  ascribed  to  him,  (1)  because  he  is  a  spiritual 
being,  and  possessed  of  the  purest  moral  will. 
Vide  s.  19.  We  regard  it  as  the  greatest  per- 
fection that  we  and  other  moral  beings  are  able 
to  choose  and  act  freely,  and  as  the  greatest  im- 
perfection to  be  compelled  to  choice  and  action 
either  from  within  or  from  without.  We  there- 
fore justly  conclude,  via  eminentise,  that  God 
must  choose  and  act  with  the  highest  degree  of 
freedom.  (2)  Because  he  is  perfectly  inde- 
pendent, which  he  could  not  be  without  freedom. 
Throughout  the  sphere  of  sense  the  law  of  ne- 
cessity prevails ;  but  in  the  moral  world,  the 
law  of  freedom.  In  the  former,  everything  is 
limited,  conditioned,  and  subjected  to  the  vicis- 
situdes of  time  and  space ;  but  everything  in  the 
latter  is  unlimited,  free,  and  independent  of  time 
and  space.  Of  this  moral  world  we  ourselves 
are  members  in  the  better  portion  of  our  nature, 
and  as  such  we  are  possessed  of  freedom  and 
are  capable  of  understanding  what  it  is,  although 
our  connexion  with  the  bodily  world  makes  it 
difficult  for  us  not  only  to  exercise  it,  but  even 
to  obtain  any  clear  conception  of  its  nature. 
(3)  Because  he  is  the  creator,  preserver,  and 
wise  ruler  of  the  world,  which  character  he  could 
not  sustain  unless  he  were  possessed  of  freedom. 
He  has-  so  constituted  and  ordered  the  world 
that  none  of  his  creatures  are  able  to  disturb  or 
destroy  it  with  all  their  skill  or  power.  Cf. 
what  was  said  respecting  the  omnipotence  and 
the  wisdom  of  God,  s.  21,  24. 

Against  this  view  of  the  subject  the  objection 
has  sometimes  been  made,  that  God  never  can 
act  otherwise  than  from  a  regard  to  the  ends 
which  he  has  in  view,  and  can  only  choose  what 
is  the  best;  that  he  thus  acts  and  chooses  neces- 
sarily, and  that  necessity  therefore  must  be 
predicated  of  him  instead  of  freedom.  But  there 
is  a  fallacy  in  this  argument,  arising  from  the 
improper  use  of  words.  That  is  here  supposed 
to  be  necessary  which  has  its  ground  in  the  es- 
sential and  infallible  knowledge  of  God.  He, 
like  every  other  rational  spirit,  chooses  only 
what  his  understanding  acknowledges  as  good. 


112 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Since  now  his  understanding  is  infallible,  and 
he  sees  everything  as  it  actually  is,  his  choice 
is  called  necessary,  and  not  at  all  because  it  re- 
sults from  any  compulsion.  The  human  under- 
standing is  subject  to  mistake,  and  our  choice 
is  frequently  free  only  in  appearance ;  but  always 
to  will  and  to  do  that  which  the  understanding 
discerns  as  best  is  the  highest  degree  of  freedom 
in  a  moral  being. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  the  Bible  respecting  the  free- 
dom of  the  divine  will. 

This  rests  upon  the  principles  above  stated, 
and  is  to  be  explained  in  the  same  way ;  espe- 
cially as  far  as  it  relates  to  the  freedom  with 
which  God  bestows  or  withholds  his  favours. 
In  the  ancient  languages,  however,  there  were 
no  definite  terms  answering  to  the  pure  idea  of 
freedom ;  and  if  there  had  been  such  terms  in- 
vented for  the  use  of  the  schools  of  philosophy, 
they  would  have  been  ill  adapted  to  popular  in- 
struction. But  they  had  not  learned,  at  that 
early  period,  to  discriminate  with  sufficient  ac- 
curacy between  their  ideas,  and  they  therefore 
often  employed  words  which  indicate  caprice  to 
express  the  idea  of  freedom.  We  observe,  how- 
ever, that  just"  conceptions  on  this  subject  are 
found  everywhere  in  the  Bible,  although  they 
are  expressed  in  popular  rather  than  in  philoso- 
phical language.  So,  when  God  is  said  in  the 
Bible  to  bestow  blessings  when  he  will,  and  to 
be  severe  when  he  will,  the  meaning  is,  not  that 
he  acts  like  a  tyrant,  in  passion,  or  according  to 
blind  caprice,  but  that  he  does  that  which  in  his 
infinite  wisdom  he  sees  to  be  best.  Thus  1  Cor. 
xii.  11 ;  Isaiah,  xlv.  9,  10.  We  regard  human 
rulers  as  happy  on  account  of  the  great  freedom 
they  possess,  and  their  independence  of  external 
control ;  they  possess  the  right  of  pardoning,  of 
condemning,  &c.  Now  the  popular  language 
of  the  Bible  ascribes  to  God  this  unlimited  use 
of  freedom,  which  we  consider  as  the  prerogative 
of  earthly  princes  and  rulers.  But  this  language 
must  be  interpreted  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  in- 
volve those  imperfections  which  belong  only  to 
men.  From  this  language  it  must  not  be  sup- 
posed that  when  God  pardons  or  condemns  ac- 
cording to  his  own  will,  he  acts,  as  human  rulers 
often  do,  from  passion  or  caprice ;  for  there  is  no 
true  freedom  where  the  will  is  not  obedient  to 
the  understanding.  When  God,  therefore,  pros- 
pers and  exalts  one  particular  individual  or  a 
whole  nation,  and  afflicts  and  depresses  another, 
in  so  doing  he  acts  freely — i.  e.,  for  wise  reasons, 
though  they  may  be  inscrutable  to  us,  and  not 
from  wilfulness  or  caprice.  But  from  the  fact 
that  we  cannot  see  the  reasons  for  what  God 
does,  we  are  someiimes  disposed  to  think  that 
he  has  none  in  his  own  mind,  and  that  he  acts 
in  an  arbitrary  manner;  and  as  we  think  we 
usually  express  ourselves.  The  popular  lan- 
guage, therefore,  which  seems  to  affirm  that  God 


decides  and  acts  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  often 
means  no  more  than  that  we  are  ignorant  of  the 
reasons  which  influence  his  decisions  and  con- 
duct. Vide  Moms,  p.  51,  note.  And  in  this 
sense  God's  government,  even  in  the  intellectual 
and  moral  world,  is  free ;  to  one  people  he  gives 
more  religious  knowledge  and  more  advantages 
for  mental  improvement,  to  another  less ;  and 
what  he  bestows  at  one  time  he  takes  away  at 
another.  Cf.  Ephes.  i.  4 — 14.  To  us  short- 
sighted beings  there  often  appears  to  be  some- 
thing unjust,  contradictory,  and  inexplicable  in 
all  this.  At  such  times  there  is  nothing  more 
quieting  than  the  firm  conviction  that  God  wills 
and  acts  with  the  most  perfect  freedom — i.  e., 
according  to  the  views  of  his  understanding,  by 
which  he  always  knows  infallibly  what  is  best. 
The  passage  Rom.  ix.  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant in  relation  to  this  subject.  Paul  here 
contends  against  the  error  of  the  Jews,  that  God 
preferred  their  nation  to  all  others,  and  looked 
upon  them  with  exclusive  favour.  The  Jews  be- 
lieved that  God  could  not  reject  them,  and  could 
not  transfer  to  others  the  blessings  he  had  be- 
stowed upon  them.  Paul  undertakes  to  shew 
that,  on  the  contrary,  God  proceeded  freely  in 
the  dispensation  of  his  benefits;  that  he  did  not 
govern  himself  by  the  supposed  deserts  or  the 
personal  efforts  of  men  ;  and  that  men  could  not 
presume  in  this  matter  to  prescribe  to  him,  or- 
to  complain  of  his  government.  Verse  11,  fva 
vj  xat'  ixkpyqv  rtpo^Etftj  lov  ®tov  p-tvr[ — i.  e.,  the 
will  of  God  (txXoyjj,  libertas  in  eligendo,  as  Jo- 
sephus  uses  it)  must  be  acknowledged  to  be 
free.  (Cf.  the  phrase  cvSoxta  ^TiT^ar'oj,  Eph. 
i.  5,  11,)  Ver.  7,  seq.,  Abraham  had  many  chil- 
dren, but  Isaac  only  received  the  promise.  Ver. 
10,  seq.,  Isaac  had  two  sons,  Jacob  and  Esau, 
born  at  the  same  time.  God  made  the  posterity 
of  the  one  to  be  subject  to  that  of  the  other. 
From  these  and  other  examples  Paul  now  con- 
chides,  ver.  18,  that  God  ov  ^£?i«,  ttesi-  ov  8s 
^£\st,  oxtoypvvft,  (Job,  xxxix.  16.)  Cf.  ver.  15, 
£~Xf»jcKo  ov  av  £\jw,  seat  oixrftp^tfco  ov  av  otscT'ft.pco, 
quoted  from  Exod.  xxxiii.  19,  I  bestow  bless- 
ings at  pleasure  (pro  lubitu),  on  whomsoever  I 
will,  according  to  my  infallible  wisdom.  Paul 
afterwards,  ver.  22,  mentions  some  reasons  why 
God  frequently  proceeds  in  this  way.  He  does 
so  sometimes,  to  deter  men  from  wickedness,  by 
a  display  of  his  anger,  or  in  some  manner  to  pro- 
mote the  general  good ;  but  should  we  in  any 
case  be  unable  to  discover  these  reasons,  we 
must  humbly  acquiesce  in  the  divine  will,  ver. 
20,  21.  This  passage,  therefore,  does  not  treat 
of  the  predestination  of  particular  men  to  happi- 
ness or  misery  by  an  absolute  decree.  This  pre- 
destination is  not  absolute,  but  dependent  on  the 
fulfilment  of  certain  conditions  on  the  part  of 
man.  In  this  passage  Paul  is  speaking  of  the 
general  government  of  the  world,  and  of  the  or- 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


113 


dering  of  tne  external  circumstances  of  indivi- 
duals and  nations ;  and  he  says  that  in  this  mat- 
ter God  is  not  confined  to  those  rules  by  which 
we  might  think  his  conduct  should  be  regulated. 
He  acts  on  principles  and  maxims  which,  though 
perfectly  wise,  are  often  wholly  beyond  our  com- 
prehension. Vide  Noesselt,  Opusc.  ad  Inter. 
S.  S. — Interpr.  Gramm.  c.  ix.  ep.  ad  Rom. — 
Fasc.  1,  p.  125,  seq. 

II.  Immutability  of  the  Divine  Will. 

The  immutability  of  the  will  of  God  results 
from  that  of  his  nature;  vide  s.  20,  ad  finem. 
Since  his  will  is  always  founded  upon  his  per- 
fect knowledge,  and  his  judgment  is  infallible 
with  regard  to  whatever  it  may  relate,  he  cannot 
be  supposed  to  fluctuate  in  his  choice.  The  mu- 
tability of  the  human  will  is  owing  to  the  un- 
certainty and  defectiveness  of  human  knowledge. 
The  Bible  often  speaks  of  the  unchangeableness 
of  the  divine  will.  Psalm  xxxiii.  10,  11,  "Je- 
hovah bringeth  the  counsel  of  the  heathen  to 
nought;  but  his  counsel  standeth  for  ever." 
Ps.  cxix.  89 — 91,  Rom.  xi.  29,  a^Tfa^^a 
%apics/jt.arfa  @£ov.  1  Sam.  xv.  29,  "  He  is  not  a 
man,  that  he  should  repent;"  coll.  s.  20.  When 
therefore  we  meet  with  texts  in  which  God  is 
said  to  repent,  (as  Gen.  vi.  7,)  or  in  which  he  is 
said  to  have  done  differently  from  his  intentions, 
(aslsa.  xxxviii.  1,  seq. ;  Jonah,  iii.  9,)  we  must 
interpret  them  so  as  to  be  consistent  with  his  per- 
fections ;  for  Moses  and  the  prophets  well  knew 
that  Godwasnot  a  man,  that  he  shouldrepent,  Num. 
xxiii.  19.  These  representations  become  consist- 
ent when  we  consider  that  whenever  an  event 
occurred  otherwise  than  had  been  expected,  or  af- 
fairs took  a  turn,  under  the  divine  government  or 
permission,  different  from  what  had  been  com- 
mon in  human  experience,  then,  in  the  customary 
dialect  of  antiquity,  God  was  said  to  repent  and 
alter  his  purpose. 

III.  Efficacy  of  the  Divine  Will. 

Whatever  God  wills,  that  he  can  accomplish  ,• 
and  his  power  has  no  limitations.  And  this  is 
his  omnipotence,  which,  as  a  necessary  attribute 
of  the  divine  nature,  was  considered  in  s.  21. 

SECTION  XXVII. 

GENERAL  REMARKS  ON  THE  MORAL  ATTRIBUTES 
OF  THE  DIVINE  WILL. 

1.  WE  ascribe  truth  or  veracity  to  God,  so  far 
as  whatever  he  reveals  or  declares,  directly  or 
indirectly,  is  true  and  certain,  s.  28. 

2.  We  ascribe  goodness  or  benevolence  to  God, 
so  far  as  he  is  disposed  to  bestow  upon  his  crea- 
tures all  that  happiness  of  which  they  are  sus- 
ceptible; s.  28. 

3.  We  ascribe  holiness  to  God,  so  far  as  he 
possesses  all  moral  perfections,  and  consequent- 

15 


]y  loves  what  is  good,  and  hates  what  is  evil ; 
s.  29. 

4.  We  ascribe  justice  to  God,  so  far  as  he  ex- 
hibits his  love  of  goodness  and  hatred  of  wick- 
edness, in  his  dealings  with  his  creatures ;  s. 
30,  31. 

Note. — Leibnitz,  in  his  Theodicee,  (p.  ii.  s. 
151,)  considers  the  holiness  of  God  as  nothing 
else  than  his  supreme  goodness,  or  benevolence. 
In  the  same  manner  he  explains  the  justice  of 
God,  and  in  this  respect  is  followed  by  Wolf, 
Baumgarten,  Eberhard,  and  many  other  modern 
philosophers  and  theologians,  especially  those 
belonging  to  the  school  of  Wolf.  The  last-men- 
tioned writer,  following  the  example  of  Leib- 
nitz, defines  the  justice  of  God,  benignitas  ad 
leges  sapiential  temperata ;  others  define  it  still 
more  briefly,  the  relative  goodness  of  God. 

These  philosophers  were  led  thus  to  refine 
upon  the  idea  of  justice,  by  the  desire  to  obviate 
the  objections  to  which  the  common  idea  of  it 
appeared  to  be  exposed.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
of  the  truth  which  they  affirm,  that  the  goodness 
of  God  is  relative;  and  whenever  we  speak  of 
the  divine  holiness  or  justice,  we  must  proceed 
on  the  principle,  that  the  goodness  of  God  is 
always  directed  by  his  wisdom,  and  is  always 
and  wholly  relative,  since  he  bestows  blessings 
upon  his  creatures  in  exact  proportion  to  their 
susceptibility  for  receiving  them.  But  while 
this  is  true,  the  definition  of  divine  justice  given 
by  Leibnitz  is  not,  considered  as  a  definition, 
sufficiently  precise  and  accurate,  as  Kant  has 
shewn.  Without  going  at  large  into  the  objec- 
tions which  might  be  urged  against  it,  it  will  be 
enough  for  our  present  purpose  to  observe,  in  the 
first  place,  that  it  is  not  sufficiently  intelligible, 
and  cannot  be  conveniently  used,  at  least  in 
popular  instruction ;  and,  in  the  second  place, 
that  it  does  not  exhibit  the  common  idea  con- 
nected with  this  term,  which  is  of  itself  proof 
enough  that  it  is  not  just  as  a  definition.  We 
feel  at  once,  on  hearing  this  definition,  that  there 
is  something  wanting  to  complete  the  idea. 
When  we  are  contemplating  the  nature  of  God, 
we  consider  it,  after  the  analogy  of  human  be- 
ings, as  different  according  to  the  different  ob- 
jects about  which  it  is  employed.  On  this  com- 
mon mode  of  conception  the  common  use  of  lan- 
guage is  built,  and  in  conformity  with  this  usage 
we  must  make  a  distinction  between  the  good- 
ness, holiness,  aud  justice  of  God,  especially  as 
the  scripture  follows  this  common  usage.  Now 
the  object  of  the  holiness  of  God  is,  general,  uni- 
versal good;  of  his  justice  and  benevolence,  the 
welfare  of  his  creatures.  We  here  see  how 
closely  connected  these  ideas  are,  and  what  in- 
duced Leibnitz  to  define  them  as  he  did.  But, 
following  the  general  usage,  we  make  the  fol- 
lowing distinction  in  the  employment  of  these 
terms :  one  is  called  good  or  benevolent  who  is 

K2 


114 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


inclined  to  benefit  another,  qui  bene  cupit,  vult ; 
one  is  called  holy,  in  respect  to  the  purity  and 
blamelessness  of  his  disposition, — one  who  loves 
what  is  good,  and  hates  what  is  evil,  qui  rede, 
sentit,  sanctus  est ;  just,  who  acts  according  to 
this  disposition,  qui  rede  agit,  and  who  there- 
fore actively  exhibits  his  pleasure  in  what  is 
good,  and  displeasure  at  what  is  evil.  But 
since  God  has  no  other  end  but  to  promote  the 
welfare  of  his  creatures,  he  acts,  even  when  he 
proceeds  with  justice,  at  the  same  time  benevo- 
lently ;  and  even  those  things  which  we  call  evils 
and  punishments,  from  the  manner  in  which  they 
affect  us,  are  only  so  many  results  and  proofs 
of  the  divine  goodness,  as  we  shall  shew  here- 
after. 

SECTION  XXVIII. 

OF  THE  VERACITY  AND  THE  GOODNESS  OF  GOD. 

I.  The  Truth  or  Veracity  of  God. 

THIS  attribute  of  God  is  sometimes  divided 
into  metaphysical  (interna)  and  moral  (externa). 
By  the  former  is  meant  merely  that  he  is  the 
true  God,  in  opposition  to  false,  imaginary  dei- 
ties ;  and  in  this  sense  he  is  called  PON  Ss,  pnx  Ss, 
Is.  xlv.  21  ;  ©so?  oa^tvo?,  1  John,  v.  20;  John, 
xvii.  3.  But  we  here  speak  of  the  truth  of  God 
in  the  moral  sense ;  and  by  this  is  meant  that  he 
is  true  in  all  which  he  declares  or  reveals,  and 
that  he  does  not  alter  from  what  he  has  once 
spoken;  advvarfov  4/fvcrac&<u  ®tov,  says  Paul, 
Heb.  vi.  18.  This  attribute  is  also  designated 
in  the  Bible  by  the  words  npx,  ruiox,  pn$,  -n^, 
dtoj^ENv  and  opposed  to  it  is  falsehood,  varia- 
bleness in  speech,  trastlessness,  -\pv,  «w,  n»"ip, 
4-£i)5oj,  x.  -t.  ?,.  This  attribute  implies, 

1.  That  the  instruction  which  God  gives  us 
contains  no  untruths  or  contradictions.     Hence 
it  is  called  in  the  scriptures,  xat'  t%o%y]v,  rips, 

and  Christ  says,  John,  xvii.  17,  o  koyoj 
.    Cf.  Ps.  xix.  8 ;  cxix.  75,  138. 

2.  That  all  the  divine  promises  and  commi- 
nations  are  sure,  and  will  be  accomplished  with- 
out fail.     Since  the  will  of  God  is  immutable, 
(s.  26,  No.  II.),  whatever  he  has   once  an- 
nounced as  his  will  must  inevitably  take  place. 
So  far  as  he  fulfils  his  promise  or  threatening, 
he  is  called  /CKJT'OJ,  joty,  and  truth  nps,  rmsx, 
rti/Wtj,  is  ascribed  to  him.    Ps.  xxxiii.  4,  "The 
promise  of  the  Lord  is  faithful,  and  everything 
which  he  does  is  truth."     2  Cor.  i.  18,  Ttwr'oj  6 
0£oj,  and  ver.  20,  "  the  divine  promises  which 
are  given  through  Jesus  Christ  (ev  avtc>,  sc. 
Xpn?T'9,  ver.  19),  are  TO  vai,  xai  -to  a^v — i.  e., 
firm,  sure.    Ilt'of  ^  ©EOT;  is  opposed  to  the  drttffT'ta 
d/j/^pcoTtwv,  Rom.  iii.  3.     An  important  passage 
in  this  connexion  is  found  in  Ps.  cxix.  89 — 91. 
This  passage  contains  a  proof  of  the  certainty 
of  the  divine  promise,  and  the  immutability  of 


the  divine  laws  drawn  from  a  comparison  of 
them  with  the  laws  of  the  natural  world.  Sure 
and  immutable  as  are  the  laws  of  the  material 
world,  so  sure  are  those  laws  by  which  God 
proceeds  in  fulfilling  his  declarations,  in  reward- 
ing virtue  and  punishing  vice ;  and  foolish  as  it 
would  be  to  blame  the  former,  equally  foolish 
is  it  to  blame  the  latter.  Cf.  Prov.  viii.  22—26. 

The  Bible  gives  great  prominence  to  this  at- 
tribute of  God,  and  justly,  considering  the  in- 
fluence which  a  belief  in  it  must  have  in  pro- 
moting piety  and  godliness.  Vide  Heb.  xi.  6, 
seq. ;  Rom.  iv.  3.  This  conviction,  and  the 
confidence  flowing  from  it,  is  called  by  the  very 
same  name  as  the  attribute  itself, — viz.,  7ttWt$* 
the  opposite  of  which  is  artifrtia.  But  the  Bible 
represents  God  as  faithful  in  fulfilling  his  threats 
as  well  as  his  promises.  Heb.  iv.  12,  is  a  class- 
ical text  upon  this  subject.  Zwv  ydp  6  ^oyoj  tov 
©sou,  xai  avfpyTfj,  xai  T'0|iuoT'£po$  vrtep  Ttoujcw  jua^cu- 
pav  Sirrtopov,  x.  1.  X.,  xai  xprtixb$  tv&vpqasuv  xai, 
pSYaj,  "The  theatening  of  God,  (xoyoj 
®eov)  is  active  and  efficacious,  (£wv  xai 
not  vain  and  empty,)  and  sharper  than 
any  two  edged  sword,  &c. ;  and  he  sits  in  judg- 
ment on  the  thoughts  and  purposes  of  the  heart." 
The  gospel  is  not  more  full  and  explicit  in  its 
promises  to  those  who  comply  with  its  condi- 
tions, than  in  its  threatenings  against  those  who 
reject  them. 

Note. — Some  passages  of  the  Bible  seem,  at 
first  view,  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  veracity 
of  God.  On  this  point  we  may  remark  that 
there  are  some  truths  which  are  not  intended  for 
all  men  of  all  ages,  and  which  would  do  more 
hurt  than  good  if  exhibited  indiscriminately, 
without  regard  to  the  circumstances  of  those  to 
whom  they  may  be  addressed.  The  question 
therefore  arises,  whenever  we  undertake  to  in- 
struct our  fellow-men,  whether  this  or  that 
truth  will  be  useful  to  them ;  whether  they  are 
able  to  bear  it ;  or  whether,  considering  their 
circumstances,  it  may  not  do  them  more  hurt 
than  good  ?  To  teach  men  those  truths  which 
they  are  not  prepared  to  reqeive,  is  like  putting 
useful  instruments  into  the  hands  of  a  child, 
who  can  turn  them  to  no  account,  and  may  per- 
haps injure  himself  by  using  them,  and  is  there- 
fore inconsistent  with  true  prudence,  and  with 
an  enlightened  regard  for  their  welfare.  This 
is  a  maxim  which  must  be  adopted  by  all  who 
engage  in  the  work  of  instruction  and  educa- 
tion, or  who  are  in  any  way  conversant  with 
men.  It  is  indeed  liable  to  abuse,  and  has  been 
abused  by  human  teachers,  but  it  is  true  not- 
withstanding ;  and  we  are  warranted  by  all  the 
divine  perfections  to  believe  that  it  will  not  be 
abused  by  God,  while,  at  the  same  time,  we 
believe  that  his  wisdom  and  goodness  must  lead 
him  to  proceed  in  accordance  with  it,  in  his  deal- 
ings with  men.  And  so  we  find,  that  God  has 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


115 


sometimes  withheld  particular  truths  from  men, 
or  has  indulged  them  in  particular  prejudices 
and  errors,  and  this  in  perfect  consistency  with 
his  veracity;  since  it  would  have  been  attended 
with  injury  for  him,  considering-  the  circum- 
stances of  men  at  that  particular  period  of  the 
world,  to  have  substituted  better  views  in  place 
of  those  which  prevailed  among  them.  The 
Old  Testament  furnishes  many  instances  in 
which  prevailing  prejudices  were  indulged,  and 
many  truths  were  left  for  a  time  in  comparative 
obscurity,  and  a  more  clear  revelation  was  de- 
ferred to  a  distant  period,  when  men  should  be- 
come more  capable  of  receiving  it.  Thus  God 
sometimes  exhibits  in  his  dealings  with  men 
what  the  Grecian  philosophers  call  avyxaitdfiaais, 
a  condescension  to  the  views  and  capacities  of 
men,  which  is  as  indispensable  in  the  education 
of  nations,  and  of  the  whole  human  race,  as  in 
that  of  individuals.  Vide  Dr.  Senff,  Von  der 
Herablassung  Gottes. 

As  an  instance  of  this  condescension,  we  may 
mention  the  fact,  that  God  sometimes  appears 
to  remit  something  of  the  severity  of  his  threat- 
enings.  And  this  he  does  in  accommodation  to 
our  views  of  his  character ;  somewhat,  in  this 
case,  as  the  father  remits  the  severity  of  the 
punishment  which  is  due  to  his  child,  in  order 
to  inspire  him  with  more  confidence,  and  to  con- 
vince him,  in  an  unexpected  manner,  of  his  entire 
affection.  Cf.  Jonah,  iii.  4,  coll.  ver.  9, 10,  and 
iv.  2,  9 — 11.  Add  to  this,  that  while  some  of 
the  promises  and  threatenings  of  God  are  uncon- 
ditional and  absolute,  (such  as  the  promise  of  a 
numerous  posterity  to  Abraham,  and  the  threat- 
ening of  the  servitude  of  the  posterity  of  Esau,) 
most  of  them  are  conditional,  and  depend  upon 
the  obedience  or  disobedience  of  those  to  whom 
they  are  addressed  ;  but  that  this  condition  is 
sometimes  so  obvious  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  or  in  some  other  way  so  well  known,  that 
it  is  not  expressed  in  words,  but  only  tacitly 
implied — e.  g.,  Jonah,  iii.  iv.  Another  example 
which  must  be  explained  on  this  principle  of 
the  condescension  of  God  to  the  views  of  men, 
and  the  conceptions  prevailing  in  any  parti- 
cular age,  is  the  sacrifice  which  Abraham  was 
required  to  make  of  his  son  Isaac,  Gen.  xxii. 
2,  seq.  Morus,  p.  54.  Still  another  instance 
of  the  condescension  of  God  to  human  opinions 
and  customs :  men  are  accustomed  to  regard  an 
oath  as  preeminently  sacred  ;  God,  therefore,  in 
order  to  shew  that  his  declarations  agree  per- 
fectly with  his  mind  and  will,  swears  that  they 
are  true,  Heb.  vi.  13,  seq. 

It  may  be  remarked,  in  general,  that  the  more 
any  one  is  acquainted  with  the  history  of  men, 
and  with  the  mode  in  which  they  expressed 
themselves  in  ancient  times,  and  which  still  pre- 
vails among  the  common  people  at  the  present 
day,  the  less  will  the  phraseology  of  the  Bible 


appear  obscure,  strange,  or  revolting.  In  this 
view  the  study  of  Homer  may  be  highly  recom- 
mended to  theologians.  For  they  are  peculiarly 
liable,  from  their  familiarity  with  technical  and 
philosophical  phraseology,  to  misunderstand 
such  representations  as  those  under  considera- 
tion, and  which  are  perfectly  intelligible  to  plain 
and  practical  men.  The  latter  find  little  diffi- 
culty in  understanding  the  most  figurative  re- 
presentations of  the  Bible,  and  in  entering  into 
their  full  spirit,  because  they  are  familiar  with 
such  representations ;  whereas  men  of  learned 
pursuits  find  great  difficulty  even  in  obtaining 
the  meaning  of  a  figurative  and  popular  phrase- 
ology, and  greater  still  in  making  use  of  it  in 
their  instructions.  They  have  too  little  inter- 
course with  men  in  the  common  walks  of  life. 
This  is  a  common  fault  with  us  all. 

II.  The  Goodness  or  Love  of  God. 

This  attribute  consists  in  the  determination 
or  inclination  of  the  will  of  God  to  bestow  upon 
his  creatures  all  the  good  of  which  they  are  sus- 
ceptible. It  is  ascribed  to  God,  because  it 
tfbrms  an  essential  part  of  that  character  which 
we  must  ascribe  to  him  as  the  most  perfect  be- 
ing. It  is  proved  in  the  clearest  manner  by  the 
fact,  that  God  has  so  created  and  constituted  the 
universe,  that  the  whole,  and  each  particular 
portion,  possesses  that  degree  of  perfection  and 
well-being  of  which  it  is  susceptible.  It  is  also 
proved  in  the  preservation  and  government  of 
the  world,  in  a  manner  which  must  be  perfectly 
satisfactory  to  every  rational  being.  The  proof 
of  the  divine  goodness  derived  from  the  benevo- 
lent constitution  of  nature  may  be  exhibited  in 
a  very  intelligible  and  practical  manner,  and  on 
this  account  is  frequently  employed  in  the  holy 
scriptures.  The  passage  in  which  this  proof  is 
exhibited  most  fully  and  distinctly  is  Psalm 
civ.,  a  good  commentary  on  which  may  be 
found  in  Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  ii.  39.  Cicero 
says,  very  truly,  (Nat.  Deor.  i.  44,)  that  all  re- 
ligious and  pious  feeling  would  cease,  if  love 
and  benevolence  were  denied  to  God.  If  we 
would  excite  the  heart  to  affection,  obedience, 
and  gratitude  towards  God,  and  warm  it  with 
religious  sentiments,  we  must  bring  to  view  the 
divine  benevolence.  John  therefore  declares,  in 
his  first  epistle,  iv.  8,  16,  @?6j  q  o/yan:^,  and 
Plato  says,  God  is  beauty  and  love  itself.  But 
in  order  that  this  truth  may  have  its  full  effect, 
every  one  should  consider  how  much  goodness 
God  has  shewn  to  him  as  an  individual.  The 
Bible  directs  our  attention  particularly  to  those 
proofs  of  the  divine  benevolence,  commonly  less 
regarded,  which  appear  in  all  which  God  has 
done,  from  time  to  time,  to  bring  men  to  happi- 
ness, in  his  great  plan  of  instruction  and  salva- 
tion. The  texts  which  treat  of  the  blessings 
conferred  by  Christianity  belong  to  this  con- 


116 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


nexion — viz.,  John,  iii.  16;  1  John,  iv.  9,  10; 
Rom.  v.  6—12;  Tit.  ii.  11—14.  This  great 
proof  of  the  love  of  God  is  called,  by  way  of 
eminence,  %  wydrtt],  #aptj.  Morus,  p.  56,  n.  7. 
For  a  further  discussion  of  this  subject,  vide  the 
Articles  concerning  Divine  Providence,  and  con- 
cerning Christ. 

The  love  of  God  has  different  names  given  it 
in  the  Bible,  according  to  the  different  ways  in 
which  it  is  expressed,  and  the  different  relations 
which  it  bears  to  his  creatures,  and  their  condi- 
tion, ion  jn,  #aptj,  &EOJ,  are  very  common 
names,  signifying  unmerited  love  or  goodness, 
and  implying  God's  greatness,  and  our  unwor- 
thiness.  pnx  is  another  common  name  for  this 
attribute;  whence  Sixauxsvvr]  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment often  signifies  benevolence.  These  He- 
brew words  are  sometimes  rendered  by  dya^o- 
CVVYI  and  ^p^tJT'oT'^j.  So  far  as  the  love  of  God 
has  respect  to  men  in  general,  it  is  called  phi- 
lanthropy, ^H^cw^poTtt'a  ©sov,  Tit.  iii.  4 ;  and 
from  the  possession  of  it,  God  is  called  the 
father  of  men.  The  texts  in  which  this  is  done 
are  cited  in  Morus,  p.  55,  n.  1.  So  far  as  the 
love  of  God  has  respect  to  the  miserable  and  the 
suffering,  it  is  called  pity  and  compassion,  mise- 
ricordia,  benevolentia  erga  miseros,  D'crn,  r'a 
crrtX-ay^a  @?ov,  ?tao?.  Men  in  this  condition 
have  the  promise  given  them  that  God  will  pro- 
tect and  comfort  them,  and  provide  a  way  foT 
their  deliverance  where  they  could  see  none. 
And  to  such  persons  it  must  be  an  inexpressible 
consolation  that  God  has  not  merely  enabled 
them  to  attain  a  hope,  in  the  use  of  their  reason,, 
that  he  would  assist  and  stand  by  them,  but  has 
expressly  promised  them  that  he  will  certainly 
do  this.  To  the  afflicted  nothing  can  be  more 
consoling  than  the  sure  promise  of  God ;  and 
of  this  the  religious  teacher  should  be  mindful 
in  his  instructions.  So  far  as  the  love  of  God 
is  exercised  in  deferring  or  abating  deserved 
punishments,  it  is  called  forbearance,  long-suf- 
fering, patience,  indulgence,  D^X  'H'TN,  paxpo&v- 
fiia,  waxy,  Psa.  ciii.  8,  seq. ;  Rom.  ii.  4 ;  ix.  22. 

The  love  of  God  is  described  in  the  scrip- 
tures as, 

1.  Universal  and  impartial.  God  bestows 
upon  each  of  his  creatures  as  much  good  as  he 
is  capable  of  receiving.  Philo  says,  Ou  7tp6$  to 
jug'yf^oj  jvfpya-m  (6  ®f6g)  tuv  wvtov  ^optVcov — 
rtpoj  8s  ta$  T'WV  ewpyetov/jiEvuv  Swaps'  ov  yap 
wj  Ttttyvxtv  6  ©to?  sv  Tioiflv,  cwVco  xal  to  ysvo/jLsvov 
fv  7td<5%w,  x.  t.  A.  De  Opif.  Mundi,  p.  13,  ed. 
Pf.  This  is  the  great  principle  upon  which 
God  proceeds  in  the  distribution  of  his  favours, 
whether  greater  or  smaller,  more  or  less  .fre- 
quent. Psa.  cxlv.  9,  "  The  Lord  is  good  to  all ; 
and  his  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works." 
Cf.  Psa.  xxxvi.  7;  ciii.  11—13,  "For  as  the 
heaven  is  high  above  the  earth,  so  great  is  his 
mercy  toward  them  that  fear  him,"  &c.  This 


doctrine  of  the  universal  and  impartial  love  of 
God,  though  it  was  believed  and  taught  by  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  for  the  first 
time  exhibited  in  its  true  light  and  in  its  whole 
extent  in  the  New  Testament,  in  opposition  to 
the  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  which  very  much 
limited  the  divine  goodness.  To  assert,  how- 
ever, that  the  teachers  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  especially  Moses,  were  wholly  destitute  of 
correct  ideas  respecting  the  love  of  God,  is  very 
untrue ;  and  the  contrary  may  be  proved  from 
innumerable  passages  of  scripture.  Vide,  e.  g., 
Exodus,  xxxiv.  6,  7;  Num.  xiv.  17,  18.  The 
blame  of  their  mistaken  views  of  this  subject 
rested  upon  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  not  upon  their  teachers.  The  moral  percep- 
tions of  the  Jews  were  so  perverted  that  they 
misunderstood  what  they  were  taught  respecting 
the  moral  attributes  of  God. 

2.  Unmerited,  gratuitous.  And  in  this  re- 
spect, particularly,  the  love  of  God  is  called 
^aptj,  jn,  Rom.  iv.  4,  seq. ;  xi.  5.  There  is  no 
opinion  more  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  true 
morality  than  the  opinion  so  prevalent  among 
the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ,  and  recurring 
under  different  forms  in  every  age  of  the  church, 
that  the  love  of  God  can  be  merited  or  procured 
by  men;  and  accordingly  there  is  no  opinion 
which  was  more  opposed  by  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  impossible  that  desert 
of  any  kind  should  come  into  consideration  with 
love,  as  such ;  for  wherever  desert  is  regarded, 
love  must  be  exchanged  for  obligation,  Rom.  iv. 
4,  seq.  The  free  goodness  of  God  is  never  ex- 
ercised, however,  inconsistently  with  his  wis- 
dom and  justice.  Hence  the  pious  may  always 
be  sure  that  rewards  will  be  bestowed  upon 
them  by  God;  while  the  wicked  can  have  no 
such  expectation,  Rom.  ii.  4,  5.  Cf.  Thomas 
Balguy,  Divine  Benevolence  Asserted,  trans- 
lated into  German  by  J.  A.  Eberhard. 

SECTION  XXIX. 

OF   THE    HOLINESS   OF    GOD. 

THE  holiness  of  God,  in  the  general  notion  of 
it,  is  his  moral  perfection — that  attribute  by 
which  all  moral  imperfection  is  removed  from 
his  nature.  The  holiness  of  the  will  of  God  is 
that,  therefore,  by  which  he  chooses,  necessa- 
rily and  invariably,  what  is  morally  good,  and 
refuses  what  is  morally  evil.  The  holiness  and 
justice  of  God  are,  in  reality,  one  and  the  same 
thing;  the  distinction  consists  in  this  only,  that 
holiness  denotes  the  internal  inclination  of  the 
divine  will — the  disposition  of  God;  and  jus- 
tice, the  expression  of  the  same  by  actions. 
Vide  s.  27,  ad  finein.  This  attribute  implies, 

1.  That  no  sinful  or  wicked  inclination  can 
be  found  in  God.  Hence  he  is  said,  James,  i. 
13,  coll.  17,  to  be  drtstpatfToj  xaxuv,  incapable 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


117 


of  being  tempted  to  evil,  (not  in  the  active  sense, 
as  it  is  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  and  Luther;) 
and  in  1  John,  i.  5,  to  be  light,  and  without  dark- 
ness— i.  e.,  holy,  and  without  sin.  In  this  sense 
he  is  called  iins,  xa^opoj  dyj>o$,  1  John,  iii.  3 ; 
also  D>cn,  art^ooj,  integer,  Psa.  xviii.  31.  The 
older  writers  described  this  by  the  word  di/a- 
pMatrjrof,  impeccabilis.  [The  sinlessness  of  God 
is  also  designated  in  the  New  Testament  by  the 
words  teteios,  Matt.  v.  48;  ami  6<y«>$,  Rev. 
xvi.  5.] 

2.  That  he  never  chooses  what  is  false  and 
deceitful,  but  only  what  is  truly  good — what 
his  perfect  intelligence  recognises  as  such  ;  and 
that  he  is  therefore  the  most  perfect  teacher, 
and  the  highest  exemplar  of  moral  goodness. 
Hence  the  Bible  declares  that  he  looks  with 
displeasure  upon  wicked,  deceitful  courses,  Psa. 
1.  16,  seq.;  v.  5,  (Thou  hatest  all  workers  of 
iniquity ;)  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  he  regards 
the  pious  with  favour,  Psa.  v.  7, 8 ;  xv.  1,  seq. ; 
xviii.  26,  seq. ;  xxxiii.  18.  Cf.  the  texts  cited 
by  Moms,  p.  47,  s.  11,  note  3 — 5.  The  ground, 
therefore,  of  the  holiness  God  is  in  his  under- 
standing and  the  freedom  of  his  will.  Vide 
s.  26. 

As  to  the  use  of  the  words  t?-hp  and  ayioj, 
some  philologists  (particularly  Zacharia,  Bi- 
blische  Theologia,  th.  i.  s.  240,  f.)  remark,  that 
they  are  never  used  in  the  scriptures,  with 
reference  to  God,  in  the  sense  here  ascribed 
to  them,  but  rather  describe  him  as  the  object 
of  awe  and  veneration.  And  it  is  true  that  this 
is  their  prevailing  meaning — e.  g.,  Isa.  vi.  9 ; 
John,  xvii.  11,  (ayie  Ttdtffp ;)  and  that  according- 
ly dytd^sc&ai  signifies,  to  be  esteemed  venerable,  to 
be  reverenced.  Still  these  words  are  in  many 
passages  applied  to  God  undeniably  in  a  moral 
sense — e.  g.,  Lev.  xix.  2,  "  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am 
holy ;"  cf.  1  Pet.  i.  14—16.  Thus  also  6^0*17 j 
Eph.  iv.  24,  and  ayiuavvq,  dytao/toj,  by  which 
all  moral  perfection  is  so  frequently  designated, 
especially  in  the  New  Testament.  The  differ- 
ent meanings  of  the  words  ipvy  and  dyioj  stand 
connected  clearly  in  the  following  manner  (cf. 
s.  126) — viz.  these  words  signify  (a)  the  being 
externally  pure — e.  g.,  2  Sam.  xi.  4;  Lev.  xi. 
43,  44 ;  xx.  7,  25,  26,  &c. ;  (6)  the  being  sepa- 
rate, since  we  are  accustomed  to  divide  what  is 
pure  from  what  is  impure,  and  to  cast  away  the 
latter ;  and  therefore  (c)  the  possessing  of  any 
kind  of  external  advantage,  distinction,  or  worth  ,• 
so  the  Jews  were  said  to  be  holy  to  God,  in  op- 
position to  others,  who  were  xowol,  profane, 
common,  unconsecrated.  Then  everything  which 
was  without  imperfection,  disgrace,  or  blemish, 
was  called  holy  ,•  and  t^i"V?,  dytoj,  sacrosanctus, 
came  thus  to  signify  what  was  inviolable,  Isa. 
iv.  3  ;  1  Cor.  iii.  17,  (hence  ehpc,  asylum.} 
They  were  then  used  in  the  more  limited  sense 
of  chaste,  (like  the  Latin  sanctitas) — a  sense  in 


which  they  are  sometimes  used  in  the  New 
Testament— e.  g.,  1  Thess.  iv.  3,  7,  (cf.  Wolf, 
in  loc. ;)  but  not  always,  as  Stange  supposes, 
(Symmikta,  II.  268,  f.)  They  then  came  to 
denote  any  or  all  internal,  moral  perfection; 
and  finally,  perfection,  in  the  general  notion  of 
it,  as  exclusive  of  all  imperfection.  Cf.  Morus, 
p.  47,  s.  11. 

SECTION  XXX. 

OF   THE    JUSTICE    OF    GOD. 

THE  justice  of  God  is  that  attribute  by  which 
he  actively  exhibits  his  approbation  of  what  is 
good,  and  his  disapprobation  of  what  is  evil. 
It  is  therefore  the  same  in  essence  with  his  holi- 
ness, vide  s.  29.  So  far  as  God  has  compla- 
cency in  what  is  good  he  is  called  holy  ,•  so  far 
as  he  exhibits  this  complacency  in  his  actual 
procedure  in  the  government  of  the  world  he  is 
called  just.  The  word  holiness,  accordingly, 
refers  rather  to  the  internal  disposition  of  God ; 
and  justice,  to  the  display  or  outward  manifesta- 
tion of  this  disposition  in  his  actual  government. 
Both  of  these  attributes  stand  in  close  connex- 
ion with  the  divine  benevolence,-  they  may  be 
deduced  from  it,  and  indeed  must  be  regarded 
as  expressions  of  it.  Cf.  the  remarks  made  on 
this  subject  and  on  the  definition  of  Leibnitz,  s. 
27,  note. 

Respecting  the  biblical  use  of  the  words  pnx, 
pnx,  and  8^x0,1,05.  In  its  primary,  original  mean- 
ing, p-nx  doubtless  denotes  what  is  fit,  suited, 
adapted  to  a  particular  end,  appropriate,  right. 
The  Greek  Stxatoj  has  the  same  signification  as 
fitxcuoj  iVtrtoj,  Stxcuov  dpfta,  x.  1.  ^.,  also  the 
Latin  Justus,  the  German  gerecht,  and  the  Eng- 
lish right.  These  words  came  afterwards  to 
denote  one  who  acts  justly  and  rightly,  a  virtuous 
man  in  the  moral  sense.  Accordingly  pnx,  and 
Sixaioavvq  (both  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the 
New  Testament)  signify  virtue,  piety,  also 
truth,  (Isaiah,  xlii.  6,)  veracity,  fidelity,  honesty, 
goodness,  beneficence,  alms,  and  then  what  is 
more  properly  called  justice,  as  exercised  in 
courts.  Hence  pmn,  Sixawvv,  signify,  to  acquit, 
pronounce  innocent,  pardon,  and  in  general,  to 
favour.  The  proper  meaning  must  in  each  case 
be  determined  by  the  connexion. 

God  exhibits  to  men  his  complacency  in  what 
is  good  and  useful,  and  his  disapprobation  of 
what  is  evil  and  injurious,  in  two  ways  : — (1) 
By  laws  and  various  institutes,  which  are  in- 
tended to  teach  us,  on  the  one  hand,  what  is 
good  and  salutary,  and  on  the  other,  what  is 
evil  and  injurious,  in  order  that  we  may  know 
how  to  regulate  our  feelings  and  our  conduct. 
This  is  called  legislative  justice  (justitia.  legisla- 
toria,  sive  antccedens,  sive  dispnsitiva.}  (2)  By 
actions,  in  which  he  manifests  his  approbation 
of  what  is  good,  and  of  those  who  practise  it; 


118 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


and  his  disapprobation  of  what  is  evil,  and  of 
those  who  live  wickedly.  This  is  called  retri- 
butive justice,  (justitia  retributiva,  judiciaria, 
rectoria,  distributive  compensatrix,  consequens.} 
Since  this  division,  which  has  long  been  com- 
mon in  the  schools  of  theology  and  philosophy, 
is  founded  in  truth,  we  shall  here  adopt  it,  after 
the  example  of  Morus.  The  same  thing  may 
be  expressed  in  other  words,  as  follows : — God, 
as  he  is  holy,  accurately  estimates  the  distinc- 
tion between  what  is  morally  good  and  evil, 
and  accordingly  between  the  good  and  evil  ac- 
tions of  men ;  he  has  made  known  to  men  this 
distinction  by  means  of  his  laws,  (to  a  know- 
ledge of  which  we  are  led  by  reason,  scripture, 
and  experience,)  and  upon  this  he  insists  ;  and 
that  men  may  not  only  know  the  difference  be- 
tween good  and  evil,  but  experience  and  feel  it, 
he  has  inseparably  connected  certain  necessary 
advantages  (rewards)  with  what  is  good,  and 
disadvantages  (punishments)  with  what  is  evil. 
We  proceed,  therefore,  to  treat, 

I.  The  Legislative  Justice  of  God. 

All  the  divine  laws  have  respect  to  the  true 
welfare  of  men,  since  they  prescribe  what  is 
good  and  useful,  and  forbid  the  contrary.  Vide 
Psalm  xix.  8 — 12 ;  Rom.  xii.  2,  ®^ua  ©sot)  TO 
aya&bv  xai  evdpsatov  xai  titeiov.  The  divine 
laws  are  commonly  divided  into — 

1.  Natural — i.  e.,  such  as  necessarily  flow 
from  the  constitution  of  human  nature.     They 
may  be  learned  from  human  reason  and  con- 
science, and  are  constantly  alluded  to,  repeated, 
explained,   and    enlarged   by   the   Bible.     Cf. 
Introduction,  s.  3. 

2.  Arbitrary,   or  positive.     Such   are  those 
which  stand  in  no  necessary  connexion  with 
human  nature,  and  cannot  therefore  be  discover- 
ed or  demonstrated  by  reason,  but  depend  mere- 
ly upon  the  express  command  of  God.     They 
are  not  written  upon  the  human  heart,  but  made 
known  to  us  by  God  from  without.     Among 
positive  laws  may  be  counted  those  which  con- 
cern the  institution  of  public  worship  and  the 
ritual,  also  the  political  precepts  of  Moses,  and 
many  other  precepts  and  doctrines  of  religion 
contained  in  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament. 

The  common  belief  is,  that  such  positive  pre- 
cepts have  been  given  by  God  both  to  Jews  and 
Christians.  And  this  belief  is  justified  by  the 
following  reasons: — (1)  Positive  precepts  are 
useful  as  affording  to  men  an  exercise  of  obedi- 
ence, piety,  and  devotion.  A  father  often  im- 
poses upon  a  child  an  arbitrary  rule  in  order 
to  accustom  it  to  obedience,  or  with  some  other 
wise  intent ;  but  always  with  the  good  of  the 
child  in  view,  although  the  child  may  not  be 
able  to  understand  the  why  and  the  wherefore. 
Positive  precepts  should  therefore  always  be 


obeyed,  although  they  may  not  appear  to  us  to 
have  any  natural  or  obvious  connexion  with  our 
welfare ;  for  they  are  given  by  God,  who  can- 
not command  anything  without  reference  to  our 
good.  (2)  All  experience  shews  that  even  the 
most  cultivated  men,  when  left  to  themselves, 
fall  into  absurd  religious  observances  and  forms 
of  worship.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  improper 
for  God  to  prescribe  even  arbitrary  services, 
and  to  give  positive  laws  and  doctrines  re- 
lating to  religion.  (3)  By  being  expressly 
revealed  and  positively  prescribed,  even  natu- 
ral laws  may  obtain  a  positive  authority,  re- 
ceive a  more  solemn  sanction,  and  thus  exert 
a  better  influence.  They  may  be  explained, 
confirmed,  enlarged,  and  enforced  by  positive 
precepts.  But  since  positive  precepts  are  de- 
signed in  many  cases  to  promote  particular  ob- 
jects, which  cannot  be  known  from  the  nature 
of  things,  they  are  not  necessarily  universal  and 
unalterable,  unless  they  are  declared  to  be  so  by 
God  j  nor  are  they  binding  upon  persons  who, 
without  any  fault  of  their  own,  remain  unac- 
quainted with  them. 

Many,  on  the  contrary,  deny  that  God  has 
given  any  positive  precepts,  and  consider  them 
all  as  of  human  origin.  They  pretend,  that 
much  harm  has  been  and  will  be  done  in  human 
society  by  pleading  a  divine  origin  for  positive 
precepts  and  doctrines.  So  thought  Tindal,  and 
many  of  the  English  rationalists,  and  the  same 
opinion  has  lately  been  expressed  by  Dr.  Stein- 
bart  in  his  System  der  reinen  Gliickseligkeits- 
lehre,  s.  62—71,  130,  ff.  Many  of  the  ancient 
Grecian  philosophers,  too,  believed  that  the 
supposition  that  God  had  given  positive  precepts 
was  merely  a  popular  error,  since  all  which  were 
affirmed  to  be  such  were  obviously  contrived  by 
men,  and  promulgated  under  the  divine  authori- 
ty. In  opposition  to  this  argument,  Ernesti 
wrote  his  Vindiciae  arbitrii  divini  in  religione 
constituenda,  Opusc.  Theol.,  p.  187,  seq.  He 
was  strongly  opposed  by  Tollner,  in  his  In- 
quiry, Utrum  Deus  ex  mero  arbitrio  potesta- 
tem  suam  legislatoriam  exerceat ;  also  by  Eber- 
hard  in  his  Apologie  des  Sokrates,  th.  i.  But 
no  objections  which  are  merely  a  priori  can  dis- 
prove the  existence  of  positive  precepts. 

The  following  arguments  have  been  used  to 
render  the  objection  to  positive  laws  somewhat 
plausible  : — (1)  It  is  thought  that  experience 
proves  that  the  promulgation  of  positive  laws, 
which  are  received  as  of  divine  origin,  exposes 
natural  laws  to  be  neglected  and  transgressed, 
and  in  proof  of  this  the  example  of  the  Israelites 
and  Christians  is  adduced.  To  this  it  is  justly 
replied,  that  the  abuse  of  a  thing  does  not  pre- 
vent its  proper  use.  The  fact  that  many  have 
made  an  improper  use  of  positive  precepts  can- 
not prove  that  they  are  without  use,  injurious, 
and  reprehensible,  and  that  they  cannot  be  of 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


119 


divine  origin.  The  most  useful  objects  and  the 
most  benevolent  arrangements  in  the  natural 
world  have  often  been  abused  by  men ;  but  this 
is  no  proof  that  they  were  not  made  and  appoint- 
ed by  God.  (2)  Oppressive  burdens  and  severe 
and  intolerable  laws,  it  is  said,  will  be  imposed 
upon  men,  on  pretence  of  divine  authority, 
wherever  the  existence  of  positive  laws  is  ad- 
mitted; and  in  proof  of  this,  the  history  of  the 
Jews  is  again  referred  to.  To  this  it  may  be  re- 
plied, that  these  very  pretended  divine  laws  have 
made  it  so  much  the  more  necessary  for  God  to 
interpose  in  our  behalf  by  his  own  positive  com- 
mands. Again  :  the  evil  consequences  spoken 
of  do  not  flow  from  positive  divine  ordinances, 
but  from  arbitrary  human  ordinances,  which 
men  have  falsely  pretended  to  be  divine.  In 
reply,  it  is  said  that  both  experience  and  his- 
tory teach  that  it  must  be  difficult  to  distin- 
guish between  those  laws  which  are  really  of 
divine  origin  and  those  which  are  only  pretended 
to  be  such.  (3)  God  founded  and  arranged 
everything  so  wisely  in  the  beginning  that  no 
alterations  or  additions  in  the  established  natural 
laws  are  necessary ;  and  that  he  should  do  what 
is  unnecessary  cannot,  it  is  said,  be  supposed. 
To  this  it  may  be  replied,  that  positive  divine 
precepts  do  not  alter,  contradict,  annul,  or  in 
any  way  repeal,  the  natural  laws.  To  prove, 
il  priori,  either  that  positive  laws  do  not  exist  or 
are  unnecessary,  is  quite  impossible.  Whether 
there  are  or  are  not  positive  laws  is  a  question 
of  fact;  and  if  it  can  be  shewn  that  positive  di- 
vine precepts  actually  exist,  all  reasoning  to  the 
contrary,  &  priori,  is  of  no  avail.  If  no  evil  ex- 
isted in  the  world,  our  philosophers  would  prove 
&  priori,  from  all  the  attributes  of  God,  that  a 
world  in  which  evil  should  exist  was  utterly 
impossible.  But  since  the  existence  of  evil  is 
beyond  a  doubt,  they  must  be  content  to  shew 
how  it  is  reconcilable  with  the  divine  attributes. 
Cf.  Morus,  p.  48—50,  s.  12. 

Note. — The  following  remarks  shall  suffice 
us,  without  going  further  into  the  philosophical 
investigation  of  this  disputed  point.  The  his- 
tory of  man  in  all  ages  shews  that  the  natural 
obligation  to  perform  certain  duties  cannot  be 
made  intelligible  to  the  greater  part  of  mankind 
by  merely  rational  considerations  and  proofs. 
They  depend  upon  authority ;  and  if  authority 
be  wisely  employed,  more  influence  over  their 
minds  is  obtained  than  in  any  other  way.  Nor 
is  this  the  case  with  the  ignorant  and  illiterate 
only,  but  almost  equally  with  the  learned  and 
educated,  though  they  are  unwilling  to  acknow- 
ledge or  believe  it.  The  authority  of  God  must, 
of  course,  exert  a  more  powerful  influence  over 
the  mind  than  any  other  authority.  Hence  from 
the  earliest  times,  and  even  among  the  heathen 
nations,  the  natural  law  has  been  promulged,  as 
if  expressly  and  orally  given  by  God.  Men  felt 


the  necessity  of  having  positive  divine  precepts. 
They  must  also  of  necessity  have  some  external 
rites  and  ceremonies  addressed  to  the  senses  in 
their  worship  of  Cod.  But  to  secure  to  these 
rites  and  ceremonies  (so  necessary  and  beneficial 
to  men)  the  needful  authority,  and  a  truly  so- 
lemn sanction,  they  were  prescribed  even  among 
the  heathen,  by  those  who  contrived  them,  as 
coming  directly  from  God.  The  ancient  legis- 
ators  published  even  their  ctvt/laws  in  the  same 
way,  and  with  a  similar  intention.  Hence 
among  the  Grecians,  Romans,  and  Mahom- 
medans,  as  well  as  the  Israelites,  the  civil  and 
religious  laws  were  interwoven  an^  united. 
Can  it  now  appear  surprising,  inconsistent,  or 
contrary  to  the  natural  expectations  of  men,  for 
God  to  publish  positive  laws  among  the  Israel- 
ites, under  his  own  authority,  by  Moses  and  the 
prophets  ?  By  his  doing  so,  the  Jews  might  be 
preserved  from  all  the  positive  laws  which  men 
would  otherwise  have  imposed  upon  them.  If 
it  is  once  conceded  that  authority  is  necessary 
for  men,  and  that  the  authority  of  God  has  and 
must  have  greater  weight  than  any  other,  then 
for  God  to  publish  laws  on  his  own  authority 
must  be  considered  as  highly  beneficial.  Whe- 
ther he  has  actually  done  so,  by  means  of  im- 
mediate revelation;  whether  universally  or  to  a 
particular  people ;  are  questions  of  fact  which 
depend  upon  testimony,  and  cannot  be  deter- 
mined &  priori.  Vide  Introduction,  s.  2,  3. 

The  writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
consider  the  fact,  that  God  made  known  his  will 
to  the  Israelites,  and  gave  them  laws,  as  one  of 
their  principal  advantages  over  other  people, 
Psalm  cxlvii.  20 ;  Rom.  iii.  2.  But  the  positive 
laws  given  to  the  Israelites  are,  in  part,  of  such 
a  nature,  that  they  cannot  and  ought  not  to  be 
universally  observed.  They  were  mostly  in- 
tended only  for  a  particular  age,  a  single  people, 
country,  and  climate.  By  degrees,  as  circum- 
stances changed,  they  were  found  deficient  and 
inadequate,  and  gave  occasion  to  various  abuses.. 
At  this  juncture  Christianity  appeared.  It  pro- 
mulgated the  law  of  nature  on  divine  authority, 
as  had  been  done  in  the  former  dispensation. 
But  with  this,  its  founder  enacted  various  posi- 
tive religious  precepts  and  laws,  which,  how- 
ever, were  few  in  number,  and  of  a  nature  to  be 
easily  and  universally  obeyed.  He  then  de- 
clared men  free  from  all  those  positive  laws  of 
the  Mosaic  dispensation  which  had  not  at  the 
same  time  a  natural  obligation,  or  were  not 
again  enacted  by  himself.  The  ceremonial  law 
had  now  performed  its  service.  It  was  not  in- 
tended to  be  of  perpetual  and  universal  obliga- 
tion. But  during  that  state  of  ignorance  and 
superstition  into  which  Europe  relapsed,  this 
religion,  which  was  simple  in  its  nature  and  be- 
nign in  its  influence,  as  established  by  Christ, 
became  so  overloaded  and  corrupted  by  positive 


120 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


precepts,  for  which  divine  authority  was  pre- 
tended, that  Christian  nations  were  in  a  state 
little  better  than  that  of  the  Jews  at  the  coining 
of  Christ.  This  fact,  however,  so  far  from  dis- 
proving- the  claims  of  Christianity  to  be  regarded 
as  given  by  God,  proves  only  the  perversions 
of  those  to  whom  it  was  entrusted.  The  best 
gifts  of  Heaven  have  been  abused  by  men ;  but 
this  abuse  does  not  disprove  their  divine  ori- 
ginal. 

SECTION  XXXI. 

OP  THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD — (continued.) 
H.  The  Retributive  Justice  of  God. 

WHEN  God  exhibits  his  approbation  of  such 
actions  as  correspond  with  his  laws,  and  his 
displeasure  at  such  actions  as  he  has  forbidden, 
we  see  his  retributive  justice.  This  approbation 
which  he  expresses  of  what  is  morally  good,  is 
called  reward ,-  his  disapprobation  expressed 
against  what  is  evil,  punishment.  The  former 
is  frequently  called  in  the  Bible  by  the  figure 
synecdoche,  o^djtrj  ©tov,  and  the  latter,  6py^ 
©jov,  p|N,  M-\n,  iJi,  Rom.  i.  18;  ii.  8.  Those  who 
believe  in  the  existence  of  God  will  generally 
allow  that  he  is  not  only  the  supreme  ruler,  but 
also  the  disposer  of  our  destiny ;  that  our  happi- 
ness and  misery  are  in  his  power.  And  since 
we  find,  both  by  experience  and  observation, 
that  obedience  to  the  divine  commands  has 
happy  consequences,  and  disobedience  unhappy 
consequences,  we  conclude  that  God  rewards 
virtue  and  punishes  vice ;  that  happiness  is  a 
proof  of  his  love,  and  misery  a  proof  of  his  dis- 
pleasure and  anger.  According  to  this  simple 
notion,  by  which  God  is  represented  as  acting 
after  the  manner  of  men,  the  language  of  the 
Bible  on  this  subject  is  to  be  understood  and 
explained.  This  notion  which  we  form  of  God, 
as  acting  after  the  manner  of  men,  and  which 
we  express  in  the  language  common  to  men, 
gives  rise  to  the  scholastic  division  of  the  di- 
vine justice,  into  remuneratoria  and  punitiva. 
We  shall  here  exhibit  only  the  general  princi- 
ples upon  which  we  shall  proceed  in  the  further 
discussion  of  this  subject  in  the  Article  on  Sin, 
s.  86,  87,  where  a  history  of  this  doctrine  will 
be  given. 

1.  Remunerative  justice. 

When  God  rewards  good  actions  by  favours 
immediately  bestowed  or  promised  hereafter,  he 
exercises  his  remunerative  justice.  From  these 
blessings  bestowed  upon  us  as  rewards,  we 
justly  conclude  that  our  actions  agree  with  the 
divine  will,  and  that  God  loves  and  approves  us ; 
and  by  these  blessings  we  are  thus  induced  to 
regulate  our  conduct  according  to  the  divine 
commands:  this,  then,  we  may  suppose  to  bs 
the  object  which  God  has  in  view  in  the  bestow- 


ment  of  these  rewards.  Here  belong  the  follow- 
ing texts  of  scripture :  Ps.  xxxvii.  37 ;  Ixxiii.  24, 
seq. ;  Rom.  ii.  6 — 10;  1  Cor.  iii.  8;  Hebrews, 
vi.  10 ;  2  Tim.  iv.  8,  &c.  The  rewards  bestow- 
ed by  God  are  commonly  divided  into  natural 
and  positive.  Natural  rewards  may  be  explained 
as  follows : — God  has  so  wisely  constituted  the 
natural  world,  that  good  actions  have  happy 
consequences;  that  there  is  a  nexus  commodi 
NECESSARII  cum  bono,  sive  recte  facto,  as  Morus 
expresses  it.  The  advantages  spoken  of  have 
their  ground  in  the  wise  constitution  which  God 
himself  has  given  to  the  natural  world,  and  are 
therefore  called  praemia  naturalia,  sive  ordinaria. 
Among  these  natural  rewards  may  be  enume- 
rated, peace  and  tranquillity  of  mind,  the  appro- 
bation of  the  good,  the  enjoyment  of  external 
advantages,  bodily  strength  and  health,  increase 
of  possessions,  &c.  Vide  Ps.  xxxvii.  16 — 40; 
cxii.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  saying,  Virtue 
rewards  itself.  Positive  rewards  are  those  which 
stand  in  no  necessary  connexion  with  the  actions 
of  men,  but  are  conferred  by  an  express  and 
particular  divine  appointment,  constituting  what 
Morus  calls  the  nexus  commodi  NON  NECESSARII 
cum  bono,  sive  recte  facto.  The  question  is  here 
asked,  if  positive  rewards  are  ever  conferred 
during  the  present  life ;  and  if  so,  what  they  are  ? 
To  this  we  may  answer,  that  in  the  Christian 
dispensation  positive  rewards  during  the  present 
life  are  not  universally  promised,  as  in  the  an- 
cient dispensation;  and  that  it  is  impossible  to 
determine,  in  any  particular  cases,  whether  a 
reward  is  positive  or  natural.  The  texts  com- 
monly cited  in  proof  of  present  positive  rewards 
refer  either  to  the  natural  consequences  of  virtue, 
(e.  g.,  1  Tim.  iv.  8;  Mark,  x.  29,  30;  Prov.  iii. 
2,  seq.,)  or  to  the  particular  promises  made  to 
the  Jews,  which  are  no  longer  valid,  (e.  g., 
Num.  xxviii.  5,  29 ;  Exod.  x.  23 ;  Ephes.  vi. 
2.)  But  when  speaking  of  the  rewards  of  the 
future  world,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
plainly  declare,  that  besides  the  natural  conse- 
quences of  good  actions  which  the  righteous 
will  enjoy,  God  will  bestow  upon  them  positive 
rewards,  which  cannot  be  considered  as  the  na- 
tural consequences  of  virtue.  Vide  Article  xv. 
This  remunerative  justice  of  God  may  be  farther 
described  as  universal;  the  smallest  virtues  of 
every  individual  man  will  be  rewarded,  for  they 
are  all  known  to  God,  Matt.  x.  42 ;  1  Cor.  iv. 
5;  Heb.  vi.  10.  It  is  also  impartial.  This  is 
called  in  the  Bible,  ajtposurtoty^ia,  ©?<nj,  Rom. 
ii.  10, 11.  Unlike  human  judges,  who  are  often 
deceived  by  external  appearances,  God  rewards 
actions  according  to  their  moral  worth,  and 
real,  internal  excellence.  The  full  display  of 
the  divine  justice,  either  in  rewards  or  punish- 
ments, is  not  seen  in  the  present  life ;  but  is  re- 
served, as  we  are  taught  in  the  Bible,  for  the 
future  world.  In  the  Bible  we  are  also  taught 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


that  our  present  life  is  but  the  feeble  commence- 
ment of  our  being;  and  that  by  far  the  largest 
and  most  important  part  of  our  existence  —  our 
vita  vere  vitalis  —  will  hereafter  commence  ;  and 
we  are  thus  enabled  to  comprehend  what  would 
otherwise  be  inscrutable,  how  it  is  consistent 
with  the  justice  of  God  to  appoint  affliction  to 
the  righteous  and  prosperity  to  the  wicked,  as 
he  often  does  in  the  present  world.  Vide  the 
excellent  parable  of  the  tares  among  the  wheat, 
Matt.  xiii.  24—30,  coll.  ver.  36—40;  Cf.  Rom. 
ii.  5—12;  2  Thess.  i.  4—12;  Luke,  iv.  13,  14. 

2.  PcnalJustice. 

When  we  say  the  justice  of  God  is  exhibited 
in  punishment,  it  is  as  much  as  to  say  that  he 
causes  unhappiness  to  follow  upon  moral  evil, 
in  order  to  convince  men  that  he  disapproves  of 
disobedience  to  his  commands.  Nedit  commoda 
bono,  sive  redefactis  ;  incommodo  malo,  sive  male 
factis. 

1.  The  ends  of  God  in  punishing. 

God  punishes,  (a)  in  order  to  prevent  or  di- 
minish moral  evil,  with  reference  therefore  to 
the  good  of  the  whole,  and  of  particular  indivi- 
duals. 1  Cor.  xi.  32,  Kpivofisvoi  vrtb  Kvptov 


i.  e.,  the  divine  punishments  suspended  over  us 
are  intended  for  our  improvement,  and  unless, 
warned  by  them,  we  really  become  better,  we 
shall  fail  of  eternal  blessedness,  and  share  the 
fate  of  the  unbelieving  world.  Isaiah,  xxvi.  9, 
When  thy  judgments  are  in  the  earth,  the  inhabit- 
ants will  learn  righteousness.  Ps.  cxix.  67,  Be- 
fore I  was  afflicted  I  went  astray  ;  but  now  have 
I  kept  thy  law,  lest  I  should  draw  upon  myself 
additional  afflictions.  Ver.  71,  It  is  good  for  me 
that  I  have  been  afflicted,  that  I  might  learn  thy 
statutes.  God  punishes  (&)  in  order  to  shew 
that  sin  is  displeasing  to  him,  and  that  only  the 
truly  obedient  can  count  upon  his  approbation; 
in  order,  therefore,  to  preserve  inviolate  among 
men  the  authority  of  his  benevolent  laws,  in- 
tended for  their  best  good.  And  since  nothing 
can  be  more  important  or  desirable  to  men  than 
the  approbation  of  God,  he  is  actuated  by  the 
same  benevolence  in  punishing  with  this  intent 
as  with  the  former.  The  Bible  teaches  us  that 
God  has  this  end  in  view  in  the  punishments 
which  he  inflicts,  by  saying,  he  will  be  sanctified 
by  means  of  his  judgments,  Lev.  x.  3.  This  is 
the  same  as  to  say  that  by  punishing  men  he 
designs  to  be  seen  and  acknowledged  by  them 
as  a  holy  God,  or  as  one  who  disapproves  of 
wickedness.  The  same  thing  is  taught  in  Rom. 
i.  18,  'ATtoxakvTttftat,  6'py?}  ®iov  —  irtl  jiacrcw 
doEjStiav  xai  abixiav  <M&pwrt«v.  But  the  justice 
of  God  also  requires  that  as  he  rewards  the  good 
which  others  do  to  us  (s.  30),  he  should  also 
punish  the  evil  which  they  bring  upon  us,  (2 
Thess.  i.  6,  7;  Ps.  ix.  5,  seq.  ;N  and  this  is 
16 


121 

called,  in  the  popular  language  which  the  Bible 
employs,  his  revenge,  ixStxyais,  Rom.  xii.  19. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  true  final  cause  of 
the  divine  judgments  upon  men  is  their  moral 
improvement;  and  in  this  respect  it  may  be 
said,  with  entire  truth,  that  the  penal  justice  of 
God  is  his  goodness,  wisely  proportioned  to  the 
capacity  of  its  objects.  But  it  is  not  the  im- 
provement of  those  only  whom  he  punishes 
which  God  intends  in  the  judgments  which  he 
inflicts,  but  that  of  others  also,  who  may  take 
warning  from  these  examples.  So  that  even 
should  God  fail  of  his  object  in  reforming  the 
offender  himself,  he  would  still  benefit  others 
who  might  witness  the  punishments  inflicted 
upon  him.  Vide  Ps.  1.  16,  seq. ;  lii.  6,  seq. ; 
Rom.  ii.  4—6;  2  Pet.  ii.  iii.;  1  Cor.  x.  11, 
Now  all  these  punishments  were  inflicted  upon  the 
Israelites  as  examples  (rvrtot,  see  ver.  6)  to  us, 
who  live  in  the  latest  period  of  the  world,  (in 
New-Testament  times.)  Some  think,  with 
Michaelis,  (Gedanken  iiber  die  Lehre  der  heili- 
gen  Schrift  von  der  Siinde,  u.  s.  w.  Gottingen, 
1779,  8vo,)  that  the  final  cause  of  the  divine 
judgments  is  not  so  much  to  benefit  and  reform 
the  offender,  as  to  terrify  and  deter  others  from 
the  commission  of  crime.  Michaelis  does  not 
indeed  deny  that  punishment  might  be  made  to 
promote  the  reformation  of  those  who  are  the 
subjects  of  it;  but  he  still  thinks  that  the  great 
end  which  is  contemplated  by  all  judicatories 
in  the  punishments  which  they  inflict  is  to  ter- 
rify and  deter  from  crime,  sometimes  the  male- 
factor himself,  as  well  as  others,  but  more 
frequently  others  only,  who  may  witness  his 
punishment.  And  this  is  indeed  true  with  re- 
gard to  human  judicatories,  which  have  no  such 
means  of  punishment  within  their  power  as  are 
calculated  for  the  reformation  of  the  culprit, 
and  can  therefore  only  hold  him  forth  as  an  ex- 
ample for  the  warning  of  others ;  but  this  is  an 
imperfection  which  is  inevitable  to  these  judi- 
catories as  human,  and  ought  not  therefore  to  be 
transferred  to  the  divine  government.  It  is  in 
consequence  of  this  imperfection  incident  to 
human  judicatories,  by  which  they  are  driven 
to  consult  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  exclusive 
of  that  of  the  criminal,  that  they  must  often  in- 
flict upon  him  severer  penalties  than  his  own 
benefit  would  require,  merely  for  the  sake  of 
the  salutary  influence  of  his  punishment  on  the 
minds  of  others.  That  they  are  thus  compelled 
to  sacrifice  an  individual  to  the  general  good 
is  certainly  an  evidence  of  imperfection.  Just 
at  that  point  where  punishment  ceases  to  be 
salutary  to  the  person  who  endures  it,  however 
salutary  it  may  be  to  others  as  an  example — 
just  at  that  point  does  it  become  an  evidence 
of  the  ignorance  and  imperfection  of  those  by 
whom  it  is  inflicted.  But  how  can  we  suppose 
L 


122 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


that  God,  who  knows  what  kinds  of  punish- 
ment are  necessary  for  the  benefit  of  the  offend- 
er, and  who  has  every  mode  of  punishment  at 
command,  would  ever  punish  any  one  more  se- 
verely than  was  necessary  for  his  own  profit, 
merely  for  the  sake  of  making  him  a  terrible 
example  to  others'?  None  upon  whom  he 
inflicts  punishment,  with  their  good  in  view, 
will  fail  of  being  benefited  by  it,  unless  through 
their  own  fault;  for  he  employs  those  means 
only  which  are  calculated  to  produce  this  effect, 
and  is  liable  in  the  choice  of  means  to  none  of 
those  mistakes  and  imperfections  to  which 
human  judicatories  are  subject.  We  cannot, 
therefore,  make  these  human  judicatories  our 
standard  of  judging  respecting  the  divine  go- 
vernment. The  judicial  authority  of  God  does 
not  rest  on  the  same  basis  as  that  of  human 
rulers;  and  in  the  judgments  which  he  inflicts 
none  of  the  imperfections  of  human  judgments 
appear.  We  should  avoid  many  mistakes  if, 
when  we  speak  even  of  the  justice  of  God,  we 
should  represent  him  less  under  the  image  of  a 
judge  than  of  a  father,  who,  as  we  are  taught 
in  the  Bible,  is  "good  even  in  his  judgments," 
Ps.  cxix.  39.  The  benevolence  by  which  God 
is  actuated  in  his  severest  inflictions  is  implied 
in  the  very  words  by  which  his  chastisement  is 
denoted — e.  g.,  Ttatfota,  Hebrews,  xii.  5 — 11; 
and  drtofo/u'a,  Rom.  xi.  22.  The  representation 
of  God  under  the  image  of  a  judge  is  not,  how- 
ever, in  itself  objectionable,  but  only  on  account 
of  its  liability  to  abuse.  It  is  very  natural  to 
men,  as  we  see  from  the  present  example,  to 
transfer  to  God  the  extremely  defective  ideal 
which  they  have  derived  from  human  rulers; 
and  k  will  therefore  be  wiser  for  religious 
teachers  to  represent  God  under  the  image  of  a 
father,  at  least  to  those  who  ar.e  virtuous,  and  of 
a  nature  to  be  influenced  by  kindness  and  love, 
and  to  reserve  the  image  of  a  severe  and  right- 
eous judge  for  rude  and  intractable  men,  who 
are  incapable  of  being  influenced  by  anything 
but  terror. 

Note  1. — Persons  cannot  be  said  to  be  punish- 
ed when  they  suffer  without  any  fault  of  their 
own,  but  only  when  they  suffer  in  consequence 
of  their  wickedness.  The  wretchedness  which 
the  prodigal  son  brought  upon  himself  (Luke, 
xv.)  is  properly  called  punishment ;  while  the 
same  wretchedness  befalling  an  innocent  person 
would  properly  be  denominated  calamity.  The 
Bible  teaches  us  very  justly  and  satisfactorily 
how  such  evils  and  sufferings  as  befall  the  vir- 
tuous must  be  understood  and  improved  by  them 
and  by  others.  The  wise  father,  in  the  educa- 
tion of  his  children,  often  finds  it  necessary  to 
treat  even  the  dutiful  with  severity,  in  order  to 
promote  their  present  advantage  and  real  per- 
manent welfare.  In  the  same  manner  does  God 
often  see  it  necessary,  for  wise  reasons,  to  exer- 


cise severity  towards  those  whom  he  is  edu- 
cating, and  to  impose  sufferings  upon  them.  He 
sees  that  afflictions  will  tend  to  promote  then 
holiness,  strengthen  their  faith,  and  restrain  their 
sinful  propensities.  Habent  talia  vim  disciplinoe^ 
Morus,  p.  50.  This  is  the  view  of  the  chastise- 
ment we  receive  from  God,  which  is  given  us 
by  Paul  in  that  excellent  passage,  Heb.  xii. 
5 — 11.  He  there  calls  the  discipline  which  we 
receive,  TtatSst'av,  fatherly  correction,  and  com- 
pares the  conduct  of  God  towards  men  with 
that  of  a  father.  Ver.  6,  nOv  dyarta  Kvproj, 
Ver.  7,  Ttj  tativ  vtoj,  6V  ov  rtai&fvst 
In  ver.  10  the  apostle  teaches  that 
God  punishes  IjtL  to  avufyipov  and  proceeds, 
ver.  .11,  to  say,  rtcwSiia  ov  &OXM  #apaj  f^at, 
vdiffpov  8s  xaprtov  tlpqvtxbv  arco8iduai,  x.  tf.  X. 
The  goodness  and  justice  of  God  which  appear 
in  the  allotment  of  such  evils  to  men,  is  hence 
called  by  some  theologians,  justitia  pxdeutica, 
or  paedagogica.  The  justice  of  God,  when 
thus  exercised,  has  the  same  object  with  his 
penal  justice — viz.,  the  improvement  and  moral 
perfection  of  men ;  but  it  differs  from  that  in  its 
internal  nature  and  character,  as  appears  from 
what  has  been  said.  There  is  an  endless  diver- 
sity in  the  characters  of  men ;  and  in  his  treat- 
ment of  them  God  governs  himself  according  to 
this  difference  of  their  characters,  and  guides 
them  to  happiness  through  different  ways,  and 
by  different  means  ;  and  in  doing  this  he  clearly 
exhibits  his  wisdom  and  goodness.  This  truth 
is  strikingly  illustrated  in  Isa.  xxviii.  23 — 29. 
As  the  husbandman  cannot  treat  all  his  lands 
and  all  his  fruits  in  the  same  manner,  so  neither 
can  God  treat  all  men  alike  ;  but  while  he  seeks 
for  the  improvement  of  all,  he  promotes  it  in  one 
by  prosperity,  in  another  by  adversity. 

[Note  2. — The  causes  for  which  God  does 
anything,  and  also  the  ends  which  he  would  at- 
tain, may  be  sought  either  in  himself  or  without 
himself,  in  the  world  which  he  has  made ;  in 
other  words,  they  are  either  subjective  ox  objec- 
tive. But  because  he  is  entirely  independent 
and  absolutely  perfect,  the  highest  and  last 
grounds  of  what  he  does  must  be  sought  in  his 
own  nature  ;  and  to  these  the  objective  reasons 
of  his  conduct  must  be  subordinate.  And  so, 
when  we  inquire  for  the  final  cause  of  the  re- 
wards and  punishments  which  God  distributes 
in  the  exercise  of  his  retributive  justice,  we  must 
look  for  it  in  God  himself;  and  to  this  we  must 
subordinate  any  ends  for  this  exercise  which 
may  be  derived  from  the  world  which  God  has 
created.  Now  the  nature  of  God,  in  which  the 
last  ground  of  his  retributive  justice  is  to  be 
sought,  has  infinite  moral  perfection ;  for  this 
perfect  moral  excellence  residing  in  his  nature 
God  must  have  supreme  regard  and  absolute 
love,  and  consequently  he  must  feel  an  absolute 
pleasure  in  what  is  morally  good,  and  displea- 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


123 


sure  in  what  is  morally  evil.  This  necessary 
love  to  what  is  morally  perfect  is,  then,  the  last 
ground  of  the  divine  justice.  But  in  order  to 
be  consistent,  he  must  act  according  to  this  love, 
and  exhibit  to  the  view  of  his  moral  creatures 
his  approbation  of  good  and  disapprobation  of 
evil ;  and  this  is  the  last  end  of  the  retribution 
which  he  awards.  And  if  there  were  no  refor- 
mation of  the  individual  offender,  no  warning 
of  others,  or  any  objective  ground  for  the  exer- 
cise of  retributive  justice,  there  would  be  suffi- 
cient ground  for  all  that  God  does  either  to 
punish  or  reward,  in  his  own  absolute  love  of 
moral  good  and  hatred  of  moral  evil.  The  re- 
presentations of  the  Bible  would  certainly  lead 
us  to  think  that  the  feelings  which  prompt  him 
in  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  are,  his  holy 
disapprobation  of  their  conduct — his  necessary 
hatred  of  their  moral  character.  And  when  we 
enter  into  the  feelings  of  the  guilty  subject  of 
the  divine  judgments,  does  he  not  find  reason 
enough  in  his  own  ill-desert  for  all  which  God 
inflicts  upon  him  ;  and  would  not  all  which  he 
endures  be  sufficiently  understood  by  him,  if  no 
advantage  to  himself  or  others  occurred  to  his 
mind  1  The  justice  of  God  is  an  absolute  attri- 
bute, and  demands  itself  to  be  satisfied ;  and  mo- 
ral evil  has  a  real,  intrinsic  ill-desert,  and  ought 
to  be  punished.  That  God  has  sometimes  the 
reformation  of  the  offender  in  view  in  the  pu- 
nishment which  he  inflicts,  and  that  he  seeks 
the  moral  perfection  of  men  in  the  displays  of 
his  attributes,  is  perfectly  true ;  these  ends,  how- 
ever, so  far  from  being  the  only  or  the  highest 
reasons  of  retribution,  are  subordinate  to  the  sa- 
tisfaction of  divine  justice. — TR.] 

2.  The  different  kinds  of  punishment  which 
God  inflicts. 

(a)  Natural — i.  e.,  such  unhappy  conse- 
quences as  flow  from  the  internal  nature  of  sin- 
ful actions ;  incommoda  nccessaria  malo,  sive 
male  factis,  nexa,  as  Morus  describes  them. 
These,  like  natural  rewards,  have  their  ground 
in  the  wise  constitution  which  God  himself  has 
given  to  the  natural  world.  That  natural  pu- 
nishments are  really  inflicted  is  shewn  by  daily 
experience.  Sin  everywhere  draws  upon  itself 
remorse,  disgrace,  bodily  disease,  &c.  And 
these  natural  consequences  of  sin,  like  the  na- 
tural consequences  of  virtue,  are  greater  than  is 
commonly  supposed,  and  often  unlimited  in  their 
extent,  as  will  be  hereafter  shewn  in  connexion 
with  the  doctrine  of  endless  future  punishment. 
"  Sin  punishes  itself." 

(6)  Positive,  arbitrary — i.  e.,  such  as  stand 
in  no  natural  and  necessary  connexion  with  the 
sinful  actions  of  men,  or  which  do  not  flow 
from  the  internal  nature  of  such  actions,  but  are 
connected  with  them  by  the  mere  will  of  the 
legislator,  and  are  additional  to  the  natural  con- 
sequences of  sin.  According  to  the  common 


theory  on  this  subject,  with  which  the  Bible 
agrees,  such  positive  divine  judgments  are  in- 
flicted by  God,  on  account  of  the  inadequacy  of 
natural  judgments  alone  to  effect  the  moral  im- 
provement of  men,  and  to  deter  them  from  sin. 
In  order,  therefore,  to  preserve  inviolate  the 
authority  of  his  law,  he  connected  positive  judg- 
ments with  the  natural  consequences  of  sin, 
which  alone  were  insufficient  for  this  purpose. 
In  the  infliction  of  these  arbitrary  sufferings,  he 
is  governed  by  the  rules  of  infinite  wisdom  and 
love,  and  not  by  blind  caprice. 

Positive  punishments  are  divided  into  present 
and  future.  The  present  are  those  which  take 
place  in  this  life ;  and  in  proof  of  them  we  may 
refer  to  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
where  they  are  threatened  to  the  disobedient  Is- 
raelites— e.  g.,  2  Sam.  xii.  10, 11,  14;  Acts,  v. 
5,  9 ;  1  Cor.  vi.  3—5. 

Future  positive  punishments  are  those  which 
are  threatened  in  the  next  world.  From  many 
expressions  of  the  New  Testament  we  are  un- 
doubtedly led  to  expect  positive  punishments  in 
the  future  world.  Cf.  Art.  xv.  It  must  cer- 
tainly be  considered  inconsistent  for  any  one  to 
object  to  positive  punishments  in  another  world 
who  expects  positive  rewards.  Such  an  one 
has  certainly  very  much  the  appearance  of  con- 
forming his  belief  to  his  wishes,  and  of  admit- 
ting positive  rewards  because  he  desires  them, 
and  denying  positive  punishments  because  he 
fears  them. 

It  was  with  reference  to  the  positive  punish- 
ments of  sin  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  was 
principally  made ;  for  the  natural  consequences 
of  sin  are  not  wholly  removed  by  virtue  of  his 
death.  The  bodily  disorders  incurred  by  the 
sinner  in  consequence  of  his  vices  do  not  wholly 
cease,  though  they  may  indeed  be  abated  and 
alleviated  by  his  becoming  a  sincere  believer  in 
Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  Those  who 
deny  the  existence  of  positive  punishments 
hereafter  consider  that  Christ  by  his  atonement 
has  freed  us  merely  from  the  fear  of  punish- 
ment—a notion  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
declarations  of  the  New  Testament,  as  will  be 
shewn  in  the  Article  respecting  Christ. 

In  speaking  of  the  positive  divine  judgments 
which  take  place  in  this  life,  the  teacher  of  reli- 
gion is  liable  to  do  injury,  and  should  therefore 
wisely  consider  his  words.  It  is  true,  doubt- 
less, that  positive  punishments  do  take  place  in 
the  present  world ;  but  it  is  also  true  that  we  are 
unable,  in  given  cases,  to  determine  decisively 
whether  the  sufferings  which  we  witness  are,  or 
are  not,  positive  judgments  from  the  hand  of 
God.  To  consider  plague,  famine,  and  physical 
evils  of  every  sort  befalling  an  individual  or 
nation  as  in  every  case  the  consequence  of  moral 
evil,  is  an  error  to  which  the  multitude  is  much 
inclined.  They  frequently  refer  in  these  cases 


124 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


to  the  very  sins  which  have  occasioned  these 
divine  judgments,  as  they  denominate  the  cala- 
mities which  befall  their  fellow  men.  And  this 
injurious  prejudice  has  been  not  a  little  strength- 
ened by  the  incautious  manner  in  which  the 
teachers  of  religion  have  sometimes  spoken  on 
this  subject.  It  is  perfectly  right  to  consider 
pestilence  in  general  as  a  divine  judgment,  and 
for  the  religious  teacher,  during  such  visitations 
from  God,  to  remind  men  of  their  sins ;  but  it  is 
not  right  to  pronounce,  as  it  were,  a  definite 
judicial  sentence  upon  the  guilt  of  a  particular 
person  or  country  visited  in  such  a  manner. 
Experience  and  scripture  both  disapprove  of 
this ;  for  we  often  see  that  these  calamities  cease 
before  the  alleged  cause  of  them  is  removed ; 
and  they  befall  the  good  and  bad  equally,  and 
without  distinction.  As  God  causes  the  sun  to 
shine  and  the  rain  to  descend  upon  the  evil  and 
the  good,  so  he  sends  tempest,  flood,  and  con- 
flagration, upon  one  as  well  as  the  other.  In- 
deed, the  best  men  often  suffer,  while  the  worst 
prosper;  from  which  the  fair  conclusion  is,  that 
nothing  can  be  determined  concerning  the  moral 
character  of  men  from  the  allotment  of  their  ex- 
ternal circumstances.  Vide  No.  I.  of  this  sec- 
tion. The  sacred  writers  concur  entirely  in  these 
views.  The  friends  of  Job  concluded  from  his 
bodily  ills  that  he  must  have  committed  great 
sins  ;  but  Job  shews  (v.  10,  12)  that  God  often 
visits  persons  with  sufferings  which  are  not 
occasioned  by  their  sins.  Christ  says,  Luke, 
xiii.  2,  4,  that  the  Galileans  whom  Pilate  had 
caused  to  be  executed  at  Jerusalem,  and  the 
eighteen  men  upon  whom  a  tower  had  fallen, 
were  not  sinners  more  than  others  because  they 
had  suffered  these  things.  He  corrected  his 
disciples  when  they  ascribed  the  misfortune  of 
the  man  born  blind  to  the  sin  of  his  parents, 
and  taught  them  that  they  ought  not  to  conclude 
that  particular  misfortunes  were  the  sure  conse- 
quence of  particular  crimes,  John,  ix.  3.  Those 
who  advocate  the  practice  to  which  allusion  has 
been  made  cannot  justly  plead  in  their  defence 
the  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  where  pest, 
famine,  failure  of  the  harvest,  destruction  by 
enemies,  and  various  other  positive  punishments 
in  this  life  are  frequently  threatened  for  certain 
definite  transgressions  of  the  divine  commands ; 
for  we  have  now  no  prophets  to  come  forth  among 
us,  as  among  the  Israelites,as  the  messengers  and 
authorized  ambassadors  of  God.  The  civil  go- 
vernment of  the  Israelites  was  theocratic — i.  e., 
God  was  acknowledged  by  the  Israelites  to  be 
their  civil  ruler ;  and  the  leaders  of  their  armies, 
their  earthly  kings,  their  priests  and  prophets, 
were  considered  by  them  as  his  authorized  ser- 
vants. Hence  all  their  laws  were  published  in 
the  name  of  God — i.  e.,  at  the  divine  command, 
and  under  the  divine  authority.  And  in  the 
same  manner  the  temporal  rewards  connected 


with  obedience,  and  the  temporal  punishments 
connected  with  disobedience,  were  announced 
as  coming  from  him.  From  what  has  been 
said,  we  draw  the  conclusion,  that  external 
blessings  or  calamities  are  not  to  be  considered 
in  particular  cases  as  the  reward  of  good  actions, 
or  the  punishment  of  bad,  except  where  God  has 
expressly  declared  that  these  very  blessings,  or 
these  very  calamities,  are  allotted  to  this  indivi- 
dual person,  on  account  of  the  good  or  bad  ac- 
tion specified  ;  as  Lev.  xxvi.,  Deut.  xxviii.,  Re- 
velation, ii.  22,  23.  Additional  remarks  con- 
cerning natural  and  positive  punishments  will 
be  made  in  the  Article  on  Sin,  s.  86,  87. 


APPENDIX. 
SECT.  XXXII. 

OF   THE    DECREES   OF    GOD. 

THE  doctrine  of  the  divine  decrees  depends 
upon  the  freedom  of  the  will  of  God,  and  upon 
his  wisdom,  goodness,  and  justice.  It  may 
therefore  properly  succeed  the  discussion  of 
these  subjects  in  the  foregoing  sections. 

I.  General  Statement,  and  Scholastic  Divisions. 

1.  Definitionof  the  decrees  of  God.    By  these 
we  mean,  the  will  of  God  that  anything  should 
come  into  existence,  or  be  accomplished,  (Morus, 
p.  51,)  or,  the  free  determinations  of  God  re- 
specting the  existence  of  any  object  extrinsic  to 
himself. 

2.  The  nature  and  attributes  of  the  divine  de- 
crees.    These  are  the  same  as  were  ascribed  to 
the  divine  will,  because  the  decrees  of  God  are 
only  expressions  of  his  will.     The  decrees  of 
God  are,  properly  speaking,  (a)  only  one  single 
decree.     They  were  all  made  at  one  and  the 
same  time.    Before  we  can  come  to  a  determina- 
tion of  the  will,  it  is  often  necessary  for  us  to 
institute  laborious  investigations  and  inquiries, 
since  we  cannot  survey  all  the  reasons  on  both 
sides  of  a  subject  at  a  single  glance.     And  it  is 
on  account  of  this  limitation  of  our  understand- 
ings that  all  our  determinations  are  successive. 
But  no  such  succession  takes  place  in  the  mind 
of  God ;  he  knows  all  things  at  once.     Vide  s. 
22.     And  so,  properly  speaking,  the  decree  to 
make  the  world,  and  every  single  decree  re- 
specting everything  which  exists,  or  has  been 
done  in  it  from  the  beginning,  are  only  one  en- 
tire decree.     But  we  represent  to  pur  minds  as 
many  different  decrees  as  there  are  particulars 
comprehended  in  this  one  universal  decree.    (6) 
The  divine  decrees  are/ree.     Nothing  can  com- 
pel  God  to  decree   what  is  contrary  to   his 
will  or  understanding.     His  decrees,  however, 
though  free,  are  never  blind  and  groundless. 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


125 


Vide  s.  26.  Cf.  Ephes.  i.  5 ;  2  Tim.  i.  9.  (c) 
They  are  benevolent,  always  intended  for  the 
good  of  the  creatures  of  God,  Ephes.  i.,  Rom. 
viii.,  ix.  That  they  are  so  follows  from  the 
goodness,  holiness,  and  justice  of  God ;  s. 
28 — 31  inclusive,  (d)  Eternal  and  unalterable. 
Vide  s.  20,  and  especially  s.  26,  ad  finem.  Cf. 
Morus,  p.  53,  s.  15.  Whence  the  Bible  often 
says,  God  determined  such  a  thing,  rtpo  xata- 
j8o7t>jj  xdfytov,  Ephes.  i.  4;  an  or  npb  euwvov. 
IIpo,  in  Ttpoytvwffxf  iv,  rtpoopt^siv,  x»  tf.  X.,  denotes 
the  same  thing.  God  existed  from  eternity; 
and  as  he  exists  without  succession  of  time,  all 
of  his  decrees  must  be  as  eternal  as  himself, 
and  as  immutable  as  his  own  nature.  Rom. 
xi.  29,  a/jLffafjL^ta.  Heb.  vi.  17,  T'O 
iJ.  (e)  Unsearchable,  a 
Romans,  xi.  33 — 36 ; 
1  Cor.  ii.  10  ;  Isaiah,  Iv.  8.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  46, 
s.  10,  note  4.  We  see  but  a  small  part  of  the 
immeasurable  whole  which  God  surveys  at  a 
glance,  and  are  incapable,  therefore,  of  compre- 
hending, in  its  whole  extent,  the  immeasurable 
and  eternal  plan  of  God,  or  of  determining  a 
priori  what  he  ought  to  have  decreed.  The 
attempt  to  decide  what  God  has  determined -to 
be  done  by  conclusions  drawn  from  particular 
attributes  of  his  nature,  of  which  we  have  such 
imperfect  notions  in  our  present  state,  is  attend- 
ed with  the  greatest  danger  of  mistake.  For  us 
to  undertake  to  say  that  this  and  the  other  thing 
is  good  and  desirable,  and  therefore  must  be, 
or  has  been,  done  by  God,  is  what  the  Bible 
calls  wishing  to  teach  God,  1  Cor.  ii.  16.  We 
can  learn  what  God  has  actually  decreed  only 
from  seeing  what  events  have  actually  taken 
place.  From  the  existence  of  the  world,  we 
conclude  that  God  decreed  to  create  it;  from  the 
existence  of  evil,  we  conclude  that  God  decreed 
to  permit  it,  &c.  And  although  we  are  taught 
expressly  in  the  Bible  that  God  decreed  to  send 
Christ  into  the  world,  (1  Cor.  ii.  9,  seq.,)  we 
are  also  taught  to  note  the  event,  the  effects  of  his 
mission,  and  from  thence  to  conclude  what  the 
will  and  purpose  of  God  is. 

3.  Division  of  the  divine  decrees.  They  are 
divided,  as  far  as  they  relate  to  moral  beings, 
into  absolute  and  conditional,  like  the  divine 
will.  Vide  s.  25,  II.  2. 

(a)  Absolute  decrees  are  not  such  as  are  made 
•without  reason  in  the  exercise  of  arbitrary 
power,  but  such  as  are  made  without  reference 
to  the  free  actions  of  moral  beings,  or  without 
being  dependent  for  their  accomplishment  upon 
a  condition.  The  decrees  of  God  to  create  the 
world,  to  send  Christ  to  redeem  it,  to  bestow 
external  prosperity,  advantages  for  intellectual 
improvement,  or  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel, 
upon  one  people  or  individual,  and  to  deny  them 
to  another,  and  all  his  determinations  of  this 
nature,  are  called  absolute  decrees ;  because, 


though  made  in  view  of  wise  and  good  reasons, 
they  do  not  depend  for  their  accomplishment 
upon  the  free  actions  and  the  true  character  of 
moral  beings.  In  the  allotment  of  temporal  or 
earthly  good,  riches,  honour,  health,  &c.,  the 
rule  by  which  God  proceeds  is  not  always  the 
worthiness  of  men.  We  do  not  mean  that  virtue 
always  and  necessarily  induces  suffering  and 
persecution,  (as  some  have  concluded,  from  a 
false  interpretation  of  such  texts  as  Matt.  v.  10, 
seq. ;  2  Tim.  iii.  12,  &c.)  Pure  Christian  vir- 
tue, on  the  contrary,  often  brings  along  with  it 
great  temporal  advantages,  Rom.  xii.  17,  seq. 
We  simply  mean,  that  in  imparting  these  exter- 
nal advantages,  God  is  often  governed  by  other 
principles  than  regard  to  the  obedience  or  dis- 
obedience of  his  moral  creatures. 

(6)  Conditional  decrees  are  those  in  making 
which  God  has  respect  to  the  free  actions  of 
moral  beings.  These  conditional  decrees  are 
founded  upon  that  fore-knowledge  of  the  free 
actions  of  men  which  we  are  compelled  to  as- 
cribe to  God.  Vide  s.  22.  God  foresaw  from 
eternity  how  every  man  would  act,  and  whether 
he  would  comply  with  the  conditions  under 
which  the  designs  of  God  concerning  him  would 
take  effect,  or  would  reject  them ;  and  upon  this 
fore-knowledge  he  founded  his  decree.  Of  this 
class  are  the  decrees  of  God  respecting  the 
spiritual  and  eternal  welfare  of  men.  They  are 
always  founded  upon  the  free  conduct  of  men, 
and  are  never  absolute,  but  always  conditional. 
We  are  not,  however,  to  regard  these  spiritual 
gifts  as  in  any  sense  deserved  by  the  moral 
agent,  when  he  complies  with  the  prescribed 
conditions ;  Luke,  xvii.  10.  The  decree  re- 
specting the  eternal  welfare  of  men  is  called,  by 
way  of  eminence,  predestination,  in  the  limited 
sense;  for  all  God's  eternal  decrees  are  called 
predestination  in  the  larger  sense.  This  name 
has  been  used,  in  this  more  limited  sense  espe- 
cially, since  the  time  of  Augustine ;  from  the 
fact  that  the  word  prsedestinarc  was  employed 
by  the  Vulgate  to  render  the  Greek  rtpoopt'£W, 
in  Rom.  viii.  29,  30,  which  was  then  referred 
to  the  decrees  of  God  respecting  the  salvation 
and  condemnation  of  men.  The  decree  of  God 
respecting  the  eternal  blessedness  of  the  pious, 
was  then  called  electio,  decretum  electionis,  pre- 
destinatio  ad  vitam.  The  decree  respecting  the 
punishment  of  sinners  in  the  future  world  was 
called  reprobatio,  decretum  reprobationis,  prcdes- 
tinatio  ad  mortem.  These  words  too  are  de- 
rived from  the  New  Testament,  especially  from 
Rom.  viii. ;  where,  however,  they  are  used  in  a 
different  sense.  The  election,  Ix^oy*?,  there 
spoken  of,  is  the  gracious  reception  of  Jews  and 
heathen  into  the  Christian  society;  and  the  re- 
jection is  the  denial  or  withdrawment  of  this 
and  other  divine  blessings,  as  will  appear  from 
No.  II. 

L2 


126 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


II.  Scriptural  Representation,  and  the  Errors  occa- 
sioned by  False  Interpretation. 

1 .  Scriptural  representation. 

The  following  are  the  principal  expressions 
employed  in  the  Bible  in  relation  to  the  decrees 
of  God.  (a)  All  the  words  which  signify  to 
say,  speak,  command.  The  phrase,  God  says, 
often  means,  he  wills,  he  decrees,  Ps.  xxxiii.  9. 
So  frequently  -01,  n«p,  ui.  (o)  The  words 
which  signify  to  think,  are  often  used  to  denote 
the  divine  decrees;  as  no?D,  rnacviD,  8«xkoyKj/ioi, 
Ps.  xxxiii.  10, 11 ;  Is.  Iv.  8.  Hence  the  phrases, 
to  spzak  with  one's  self,  to  say  in  one's  heart,  often 
mean,  to  consider,  determine.  Saying  in  his 
heart,  was  the  manner  in  which  the  Hebrew  de- 
noted thinking — an  instance  of  the  ancient  sim- 
plicity of  language,  corresponding  with  the 
phrase  of  the  Otaheitans,  speaking  in  one's  belly. 
(c)  Kptpa,  artrp,  sentence  ,•  representing  God  as 
a  judge  or  ruler,  who  publishes  edicts  and  pro- 
nounces sentence;  Ps.  xxxvi.  6,  7 ;  Rom.  xi. 
33.  (c?)  'OSoj,  "H-H,  way.  The  way  of  God  sig- 
nifies his  manner  of  thinking  or  acting,  his  con- 
duct  ,•  Ps.  cxlv.  17,  "  Gracious  is  Jehovah  in  all 
his  ways" — i.  e.,  decrees;  Rom.  xi.  33,  o8oi 

&80V  dl/fft^VtCWT'Ot. 

(e)  The  following  occur  more  frequently  in 
the  New  Testament :  ©fo^a,  evboxia,  in  He- 
brew, pen,  jtn,  used  particularly  to  denote  God's 
gracious  purpose.  Vide  s.  25.  IIpo^<jt,j,  Ephes. 
i.  11,  where  it  is  synonymous  with  fiovhr]  $£hrj- 
ju.ato£,  2  Tim.  i.  9,  seq.,  and  Rom.  ix.  11,  iVa  37 
tov  ®sov  rtpo^-Etftj  *ar"  txhoyyv  p-tvy — i.  e.,  SO 
that  the  divine  purpose  must  remain  free,  must 
be  acknowledged  to  be  according  to  his  own 
choice,  npoyivwcmtv.  This  verb,  like  the  He- 
brew J7-P,  and  yvwj/at  and  s Idivai,  very  frequently 
signifies  to  decree,  (metonymia  caussae  pro 
effectu.)  In  this  sense  it  is  often  used  by  Philo. 
In  Acts,  ii.  23,  it  is  used  to  denote  the  purpose 
of  God,  that  Christ  should  suffer  and  die. 
Now  since  the  verba  cognoscendi  frequently  sig- 
nify, among  the  Hebrews,  to  love,  to  wish  well, 
Ttpoyvcotftj  very  often  signifies,  by  way  of  emi- 
nence, the  gracious  and  benevolent  purpose  of 
God,  which  he  entertained  from  eternity  for  the 
welfare  of  men.  Thus  rtpoyvcotftj  in  1  Pet.  i.  2, 
denotes  the  gracious  purpose  of  God  respecting 
the  admission  of  men  to  the  privileges  of  the 
Christian  church;  Rom.  viii.  29,  ovj  rtpolywo, 
his  beloved,  those  whose  welfare  he  seeks ;  Rom. 
xi.  2.  'Opt&ev  and  rtpoopi/'^stv,  commonly  ren- 
dered in  the  Vulgate  praedestinare.  'Opt'^tv  is 
to  determine,  in  the  general  sense;  and  in  this 
sense  it  is  said,  Acts,  xi.  29,  that  the  apostles 
wpttfav  x.  -t.  h.  The  divine  purpose  is  therefore 
called  ibpujjit! vq  jSovto?,  decretum  voluntatis  divinse, 
Acts,  ii.  23.  In  the  classics,  optcr^os  is  purpose, 
determination,  npoop^ttv  is  properly  decernere 
antequam  existat  /  because  the  decrees  of  God 
are  eternal,  as,  Acts,  iv.  28,  the  Jews  conspired 


to  do  "whatever  thy  counsel 
before  determined  to  be  done."  The  word  rtpoopt- 
£««',  when  used  in  reference  to  men,  never  de- 
notes exclusively  the  divine  purpose  respecting 
their  eternal  salvation  or  condemnation,  but  rather 
respecting  their  admission  to  the  Christian 
church,  to  partake  both  of  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges, and  also  of  the  sorrows  and  sufferings  of 
Christians.  So  it  is  used,  Ephes.  i.  5,  npooptsaj 
rjfjia-S  ttj  uto^ftftav  5ia  'I^croiJ  XpttfT'ov — i.  e.,  he 
purposed  to  bring  us  into  the  Christian  church, 
and  thus  to  make  us  his  children — his  beloved 
friends.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  apos- 
tle appears  from  verses  11,  12.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  passage,  Romans,  ix.,  which  does 
not  treat  of  the  eternal  salvation  or  condemnation 
of  men,  but  of  the  temporal  benefits,  and  the  ex- 
ternal civil  and  church  privileges,  which  God 
confers  upon  particular  persons  and  nations  in 
preference  to  others.  Vide  s.  26.  The  passage, 
Rom.  viii.  28,  29,  seq.,  so  often  and  entirely 
misunderstood,  must  be  interpreted  in  a  similar 
manner.  Paul  had  spoken,  verses  19,  20,  seq., 
of  the  sufferings  and  persecutions  which  Chris- 
tians were  at  that  time  called  to  endure.  He 
endeavours  to  console  them  in  the  midst  of  their 
distresses,  and  to  shew  the  blessedness  in 
which  their  afflictions  might  result.  "  We  are 
confident  that  all  things  (even  afflictions  and 
persecutions)  will  conspire  for  the  good  of  those 
who  love  God,  and  are  called,  in  pursuance  of 
the  purpose  of  God,  to  partake  of  Christian  pri- 
vileges, (tfoiV  xata  rtpo&aiv  x"kritol$  olaiv .)  For 
he  has  predestinated  (rtpowptte)  us,  whom  he 
thus  graciously  regarded  from  eternity  (rtpotyvu^ 
to  be  conformed  to  the  example  of  his  Son, 
(viz.,  as  in  suffering,  so  in  reward,)  whom  God 
has  designed  to  be  the  forerunner  (jtpototoxov ) 
of  his  many  brethren,  (first  in  suffering,  then  in 
reward.)  But  those  whom  he  thus  destined 
(to  a  fellowship  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ)  he 
adopts  as  members  of  the  Christian  church 
(tovtovg  txatefja),  and  alleviates  the  sorrows 
which  they  endure  (for  the  sake  of  Christ)  by 
granting  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  and  the  hope 
of  that  future  glory,  (which  Christ  their  fore- 
runner has  received,  and  to  which  he  will  raise 
them.)"  This  passage,  therefore,  does  not  teach 
that  God  elects  men  to  salvation,  or  dooms  them 
to  destruction,  without  respect  to  their  moral 
conduct,  but  that  the  present  sufferings  of  Chris- 
tians are  alleviated  by  the  external  advantages 
which  they  enjoy  as  members  of  Christian  so- 
ciety. Vide  No.  I. 

In  the  bestowment  of  spiritual  and  eternal 
blessings,  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  God 
should  be  governed  solely  by  the  moral  conduct 
of  men.  His  goodness,  justice,  indeed,  all  his 
moral  perfections,  are  infringed  by  the  contrary 
supposition.  We  are  taught  also  by  the  express 
assurances  of  scripture,  standing  on  almost  every 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


127 


page  of  the  New  Testament,  and  especially  of 
the  epistles  of  Paul,  that  God  will  reward  and 
punish  every  man  according  to  his  works,  Rom, 
ii.  6—1 1 ;  Matt.  xvi.  27 ;  2  Cor.  v.  19.  The  de- 
crees of  election  and  reprobation,  then,  according 
to  the  doctrine  of  scripture,  are  not  absolute,  but 
conditional,  Mark,  xvi.  16. 

The  terms  commonly  employed  in  the  schools 
respecting  the  decrees  of  God  may  be  illustrated 
by  the  following  syllogism  : — MAJOR  :  whoever 
believes  in  Christ  to  the  end  of  his  life,  shall  be 
saved,  (this  is  rtpo^scrtj,  or  txtoyr/,  the  voluntas 
Dei  antecedens.}  MINOR:  Paul  will  believe  to 
the  end  of  his  life  (this  is  ftpoywxttj,  prsevisio.') 
CONCLUSION  :  Therefore  Paul  will  be  saved,  (this 
is  Ttpoopiffjudj,  voluntas  Dei  consequens,  decretum.} 
Since,  now,  the  major  term  is  here  an  universal 
proposition,  but  the  minor  particular,  it  is  easily 
seen  in  what  sense  the  grace  of  God  can  be 
scripturally  denominated  universal  and  particu- 
lar. It  is  the  same  with  the  decree  of  reproba- 
tion. 

2.  Errors  occasioned  principally  by  false  inter- 
pretation. 

The  opinion  has  long  existed  in  the  church, 
that  the  decrees  of  election  and  reprobation  were 
absolute — i.  e.,  that  without  respect  to  their  mo- 
ral character,  God  selected  from  the  human  race 
a  certain  number,  (many  say  very  few,)  and 
destined  them  to  eternal  happiness ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  rejected  others  (by  far  the  greater 
part  of  the  human  race, — seven  perhaps  in  ten) 
in  the  same  arbitrary  manner,  and  destined  them 
to  eternal  condemnation.  This  error  is  called 
predestination,  and  the  advocates  of  it  predestina- 
tionists,  or  particularists.  This  doctrine,  it  has 
been  justly  remarked,  if  carried  out  into  all  its 
logical  consequences,  would  destroy  the  freedom 
of  the  human  will,  and  thus  undermine  the  foun- 
dations of  morality.  But  it  has  not  been  carried 
out  to  its  legitimate  consequences,  in  theory  or 
practice,  by  those  who  have  professed  it.  And 
many  of  the  soundest  moralists  and  most  vir- 
tuous men  are  found,  by  a  happy  inconsistency, 
among  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine. 

The  principal  sources  of  this  error  are  the  fol- 
lowing: (a)  False  opinions  respecting  the  free- 
dom of  the  divine  will,  by  which  it  is  represented 
as  a  blind  caprice,  in  the  exercise  of  which  God 
pardons  or  condemns  without  reason,  like  a  hu- 
man despot,  (vide  s.  26,)  and  in  connexion  with 
these,  false  conceptions  of  the  goodness,  justice, 
and  other  moral  attributes  of  God,  and  of  their 
connexion  with  his  natural  attributes.  (6)  The 
want  of  discrimination  between  the  decrees  of 
God  respecting  the  allotment  of  temporal  and 
earthly  good,  and  those  respecting  the  gift  of 
spiritual  blessings  and  eternal  life.  But  more 
than  all,  (c)  the  misinterpretation  of  Rom.  viii. 
9,  by  which  these  passages  are  made  to  relate 
to  eternal  salvation  and  condemnation,  instead 


of  temporal  privileges.  This  interpretation  was 
introduced  by  Augustine,  who,  however  excel- 
lent in  other  respects,  was  deficient  in  his  ac- 
quaintance with  the  language  of  scripture,  and 
therefore  exhibits  here  none  of  his  usual  ability. 
Vide  s.  26.  (rf)  A  similar  misunderstanding 
of  other  texts  of  scripture,  especially  of  the  de- 
claration of  Christ,  Matt.  xx.  16,  jtoMoi  tiru 
jeto/T'ot,  o^tyoc  6f  extexrol*  This  has  been  sup- 
posed to  mean,  that  there  are  many  who  are 
nominally  and  externally  Christians,  but  few 
only  who  are  chosen  to  eternal  salvation.  But 
the  txtextol  are  here  only  the  more  eminent, 
select  saints,  (the  Hebrew  D-nTD.)  Thus  the 
passage  would  mean :  among  the  many  who  are 
externally  Christians,  (admitted  into  the  Chris- 
tian church,)  there  are  only  a  few  whom  God 
counts  as  his  peculiar  people — i.  e.,  few  who  live 
conformably  to  the  precepts  of  Christianity,  and 
are  in  all  respects  such  as  they  should  be.  That 
this  is  the  true  sense  of  these  words  appears 
from  the  parable,  Matt.  xxii.  2 — 13,  at  the  end 
of  which  (ver.  14)  they  are  repeated. 

Again:  the  text,  Acts,  xiii.  48,  has  been  ap- 
pealed to  in  proof  of  this  doctrine,  from  igno- 
rance of  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  Bible;  xai 
ertiatMSav  booi  fyav  fstay/jiivoi,  ft?  £ar]v  aiuviov. 
Those  who  believed  are  here  opposed  to  those 
who  (ver.  46)  made  themselves  unworthy  of  eter- 
nal life—  (viz.  by  unbelief.)  The  phrase  is  syno- 
nymous with  ol  £cwtov$  T'a|avT'f  j  t ij  ^COT^V  aiuviov, 
those  who  prepared  themselves  for  eternal  life — the 
pious,  virtuous.  The  Greeks  frequently  express 
reciprocal  action  by  passive  verbs,  especially  in 
the  "preter.  The  meaning  here  becomes  suffi- 
ciently evident  by  a  comparison  of  ver.  46. 

Brief  history  of  the  doctrine  of  unconditional 
decrees. 

The  controversy  in  which  Augustine  engaged 
with  the  Pelagians  led  him  to  maintain  the  doc- 
trine of  absolute  decrees.  In  contending  against 
the  errors  of  his  opponents  he  fell  into  the  oppo- 
site extreme,  and  asserted  the  doctrine  of  uncon- 
ditional decrees  concerning  salvation  and  con- 
demnation, and  then  his  doctrine  de  gratia 
particulari  et  irresistibili,  (s.  132.)  In  conse- 
quence of  the  high  authority  of  Augustine,  this 
doctrine  prevailed  extensively  in  the  African  and 
Latin  churches  during  the  fifth  and  sixth  centu- 
ries. During  the  former  part  of  this  period, 
particularly,  it  was  urged  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  Pelagians  by  Prosper  of  Aquitania  and 
Lucid  us,  presbyter  in  France.  And  indeed  it 
was  alternately  defended  and  opposed  in  the 
western  church  during  the  whole  of  this  and 
the  following  century. 

This  doctrine  was  again  maintained  in  the 
ninth  century  by  Gottschalk,  a  monk  at  Orbais, 
in  France,  and  a  zealous  follower  of  Augustine. 
It  became  the  subject  of  vehement  discussion, 
and  was  at  length  condemned  as  heretical  by  a 


128 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


council  at  Chiersy,  in  the  year  849.  But  this 
decision  was  not  universally  accepted ;  and  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  still  had  many  advo- 
cates, among  whom  were  Thomas  Aquinas,  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  and  his  followers,  the 
Dominicans  and  other  Thomists. 

This  controversy  was  renewed  with  great 
vehemence  in  the  Romish  church  during  the 
seventeenth  century,  on  occasion  of  the  writings 
of  Jansenius,  Bishop  at  Ypern,  in  the  Nether- 
lands. The  Jesuits  and  the*  Pope  took  sides 
against  the  doctrine  of  absolute  decrees.  But 
the  Dominicans,  and  other  warm  admirers  of 
Augustine,  agreed  with  Jansenius,  and  there  are 
many  stanch  Jansenists  in  France  at  the  pre- 
sent day. 

This  doctrine,  which  owes  its  origin  to  Augus- 
tine, was  adopted  again  in  the  sixteenth  century 
by  Calvin  and  Beza,  the  Swiss  reformers,  and 
by  them  disseminated  through  their  church. 
[The  symbols  of  the  reformed  church,  in  which 
the  doctrine  of  Calvin  is  acknowledged,  are, 
the  Concensus  pastorum  eccl.  Genev.,  (1551  an 
1554,)— Conf.  Galicana,  Art.  xi.,  (1559,)— 
Conf.  Belgica,  Art.  xvi., — Catechismus  Heidel- 
bergensis,  (1562  and  1563.)]  At  first,  this  doc- 
trine was  at  least  partially  believed  even  by 
Luther  and  Melancthon,  but  there  is  no  trace  of 
it  in  the  writings  of  Zuingle. 

It  was  not  without  controversy,  however,  that 
the  doctrine  of  Calvin  prevailed  in  the  reformed 
church.  During  the  seventeenth  century  it  was 
opposed  by  Arminius  and  his  followers.  But  it 
was  at  length  established  as  an  article  of  faith 
in  the  reformed  church  by  the  national  synod  at 
Dordrecht,  in  the  years  1618,  1619,  and  the  Ar- 
minians  were  placed  beyond  the  pale  of  the 
church.  By  degrees,  however,  this  severe  doc- 
trine has  been  abandoned  even  in  the  reformed 
church,  its  hardest  features  being  first  softened 
down  through  the  influence  of  the  doctrine  of 
universal  redemption.  It  was  maintained  for  the 
longest  time  in  the  Netherlands  and  in  Switzer- 
land ;  though  it  has  but  few  advocates  in  the  Ne- 
therlands at  the  present  day.  In  England  the 
number  of  its  friends  is  still  considerable.  Cf. 
the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  grace,  s.  132. 

Note. — In  the  above  statement  of  the  Lutheran 
view  of  the  doctrine  of  divine  decrees,  there  is  of 
course  much  which  must  be  objectionable  to  a 
Calvinist;  far  less,  however,  than  in  the  state- 
ment of  this  subject  usually  made  by  Lutheran 
writers.  Our  author  treats  the  doctrine  of  his 
Calvinistic  opponents  with  a  justice  and  mild- 
ness quite  unusual  with  the  theologians  of  his 
church.  In  general,  there  are  no  epithets  too  vio- 
lent for  them  to  heap  upon  the  doctrine  of  abso- 
lute decrees,  and  no  evasions  too  weak  for  them 
to  employ  to  escape  the  force  of  the  arguments 
by  which  it  is  supported.  That  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  >f  decrees  should  be  rejected  and  ca 


lumniated  by  men  who  reject  those  scriptural 
truths  upon  which  it  depends,  might  be  expected ; 
but  that  it  should  be  thus  treated  by  those  who 
hold,  in  common  with  its  advocates,  those  doc- 
trines of  grace  from  which  it  inevitably  results, 
is  somewhat  surprising.  After  taking  the  li- 
berty to  make  a  few  general  remarks  upon  some 
particular  representations  of  our  author,  I  shall 
endeavour  to  shew,  that  the  Lutherans  are  charge- 
able  with  obvious  inconsistency  in  opposing  the 
Calvinistic  theory  of  decrees,  while  they  adhere  to 
the  standard  confession  of  their  church.  With  re- 
gard to  the  representations  of  Dr.  Knapp,  it  may 
be  remarked, 

First.  That  he  is  not  exactly  just  in  describ- 
ing the  theory  of  absolute  decrees  as  involving 
the  election  and  reprobation  of  men  without  re- 
spect to  conditions.  The  advocates  of  this  theory 
insist,  equally  with  others,  that  men  must  be- 
lieve in  order  to  be  saved ;  and  the  question  be- 
tween them  and  their  opponents  is,  In  what  re- 
lation this  faith,  which  is  essential  to  salvation, 
stands  to  the  purpose  of  God? 

Secondly.  When  he  describes  the  called, 
chosen,  elect,  so  often  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament  as  those  who  were  made  partakers 
only  of  the  external  privileges  of  Christianity, 
and  not  those  who  were  heirs  of  future  happi- 
ness, does  he  not  violate  the  whole  spirit  and 
usage  of  the  New  Testament,  without  yet  avoid- 
ing the  difficulty  1  If  the  intimate  connexion  be- 
tween the  enjoyment  of  the  external  privileges  of 
Christianity  and  securing  its  spiritual  and  ever- 
lasting blessings  is  considered,  will  there  not  be 
the  same  objections  to  the  sovereign  appointment 
of  men  to  one  as  to  the  other  7 

Thirdly.  Instead  of  saying  that  predestina- 
tionists  are  distinguished  for  depth  of  religious 
sentiment  and  strictness  of  moral  practice  not- 
withstanding their  principles,  as  our  auther  and 
others  generously  concede,  is  it  not  apparent 
that  they  are  so  inconsequence  of  their  principles? 
The  perfect  safety  of  their  theory  of  election  has 
been  often  satisfactorily  proved  by  reformed  the- 
ologians in  answer  to  the  objections  urged  against 
its  moral  tendencies.  But  its  direct  bearing 
upon  the  religious  life  has  not  been  so  often  ex- 
hibited. It  is  therefore  the  more  worthy  of  no- 
tice, that  Tholuck  (whose  Commentary  on  the 
ninth  of  Romans  will  sufficiently  free  him  from 
any  suspicion  of  leaning  towards  Calvinism) 
concedes,  in  his  Treatise  on  Oriental  Mysticism, 
that  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  so  far  from 
producing  the  despondency  and  inaction  often 
ascribed  to  it,  on  the  contrary,  moves  and  excites 
the  inmost  soul,  by  the  self-surrender  which  it 
demands  to  the  all-prevailing  will  of  God.  To 
the  influence  of  this  doctrine  he  attributes  what- 
ever of  religious  life  there  exists  among  those 
who  receive  the  sensual  dogmas  of  the  Koran. 
Every  one,  he  says,  acquainted  with  eastern  lite- 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


129 


fature,  knows  that  the  most  strong  and  vivid 
religious  experiences  are  connected  with  and 
arise  from  the  belief  in  predestination.  And 
Calvinism,  he  allows,  is  incomparably  more  fa- 
vourable to  the  deeper  religious  life  than  that 
doctrine  by  which  the  will  of  "God  is  limited  or 
conditioned  by  tjie  human  will — i.  e.,  the  syn- 
cretism of  the  Lutheran  church. 

Fourthly.  The  suggestion  of  Dr.  Knapp,  that 
Augustine  was  first  induced  to  adopt  his  theory 
of  election  by  his  controversy  with  Pelagius, 
contains  the  implication  that  this  theory  owes 
its  origin  to  polemical  excitement,  and  was 
adopted  by  its  author  in  order  to  extricate  him- 
self from  some  embarrassments,  or  as  the  oppo- 
site extreme  of  the  theory  against  which  he  con- 
tended. But  this  is  not  only  wanting  in  historical 
evidence,  but  is  in  itself  improbable.  The  De- 
cretum  Absolution  of  Augustine  is  the  direct  result 
of  his  views  of  the  natural  character  of  man,  and 
is  necessary  to  complete  that  system  of  truth 
which  he  adopted.  To  the  belief  of  this  doc- 
trine he  would  naturally  be  led  by  the  cool  deli- 
beration of  the  closet,  and  it  therefore  more  pro- 
bably belonged  to  those  original  convictions 
which  impelled  him  to  the  controversy  with  Pe- 
lagius, and  animated  him  in  prosecuting  it,  than 
to  any  after  convictions  to  which  he  might  have 
been  driven  by  opposition.  Which  now,  it  may 
be  asked,  looks  most  like  the  offspring  of  the 
contrivance  and  heat  of  controversy,  the  theory 
of  Augustine,  coming  forward  with  direct  affirm- 
ations, and  belonging  essentially  to  his  system, 
or  the  opposite  theory,  consisting  mostly  of  eva- 
sions, negations,  and  limitations?  To  assert 
the  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty  and  of  the 
all-controlling  will  of  God  would  seem  to  be  the 
part  of  the  consistent,  philosophical  theologian ; 
to  deny  it,  the  business  of  a  timorous  modera- 
tion, of  a  time-serving  policy,  or  of  the  native 
pride  and  self-sufficiency  of  man. 

The  inconsistency  chargeable  upon  the  Lu- 
theran theologians  who  oppose  the  Calvinistic 
theory  of  decrees  may  be  briefly  stated  thus: 
According  to  their  theory,  God  ordains  to  salva- 
tion those  of  whom  he  foresees  that  they  will 
believe;  but  according  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, it  is  the  Holy  Spirit  qui  EFFICIT  FIDEM, 
QUANDO  et  UBI  visum  est  Deo,  who  produces  faith 
when  and  where  it  seems  good  to  God;  both  com- 
bined, therefore,  furnish  us  the  doctrine  that  God 
ordains  to  salvation  those  of  whom  he  foresees  that 
he  who  causes  faith  to  exist  when  and  where  it 
seems  good  to  him,  will  give  them  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  produce  faith  in  their  hearts,  which  is  the  Cal- 
vinistic doctrine  so  often  opposed  and  denounced 
by  the  Lutherans.  They  join  together,  in  thei 
Book  of  Concord,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in 
which  man's  moral  inability  and  entire  depend- 
ence on  divine  grace  are  strongly  asserted,  anc 
their  Declaration,  in  which  the  absolute  decrees 
17 


if  God — an  inevitable  consequence  of  these  doc- 
rines — is  denounced  as  unscriptural  and  dan- 
gerous. Surely  here  Concord.ia  is  discors. 

This  discrepancy  could  not  long  remain  urino- 
iced  in  a  country  where  theological  opinions  are 
lubjected  to  so  rigid  a  scrutiny.  The  Lutheran 
heologtans  appear,  however,  to  have  imagined, 
or  a  time,  that  they  could  reconcile  the  opposing 
endencies  of  their  system,  and  attempted  so  to 
modify  the  doctrine  of  man's  moral  inability  as 
o  guard  against  any  approach  to  Calvinism. 
The  best  attempt  of  this  nature  is  exhibited  by 
Storr,  in  his  Biblical  Theology;  but  it  cannot 
>e  thought  successful.  To  many  it  soon  became 
evident  that  they  were  reduced  to  the  alternative 
of  retaining  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the 
doctrine  of  man's  moral  inability,  and  then  ad- 
mitting, as  its  inevitable  consequence,  the  Cal- 
vinistic doctrine  of  election,  or  of  rejecting  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  and  thus  escaping  the 
necessity  of  Calvinism. 

During  the  recent  attempt  to  unite  the  Lu- 
theran and  reformed  churches,  their  doctrinal  dif- 
ferences came  of  course  into  new  consideration ; 
and  Dr.  Bretschneider,  in  his  Aphorisms  pub- 
ished  on  that  occasion,  frankly  acknowledged, 
what  had  not  been  done  before,  the  inconsistency 
now  charged  upon  the  theologians  of  his  church; 
and  being  himself  somewhat  inclined  towards 
Pelagianism,  unhesitatingly  chose  the  se«ond 
of  the  two  courses  above  stated,  and,  in  order 
to  avoid  Calvinism,  willingly  surrendered  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  with  the  doctrine  of  man's 
inability  and  entire  dependence  on  divine  grace. 
But  the  Augsburg  Confession  had  long  been  es- 
teemed the  palladium  of  the  Lutheran  church; 
and  the  doctrine  of  man's  inability  and  depend- 
ence was  dearer  than  almost  any  other  to  the 
heart  of  Luther,  and  was  too  firmly  believed  by 
the  most  distinguished  theologians  of  his  church, 
and  had  become  too  thoroughly  interwoven  with 
their  system  of  faith,  to  be  thus  easily  aban- 
doned. The  only  course  remaining  for  those 
who  wished  to  be  consistent  seemed  therefore 
to  be,  to  hold  fast  to  the  Augsburg  Confession 
and  its  Anti-Pelagian  doctrines,  and  to  admit 
the  Calvinistic  theory  of  election  as  their  natu- 
ral consequence.  And  this  course  was  boldly 
adopted  by  Schleiermacher,  one  of  the  pro- 
foundest  theologians  of  his  church,  and  strenu- 
ously recommended  by  him  in  the  first  article 
of  his  "  Theologische  Zeitschrift."  He  there 
acknowledges  that  he  had  long  been  unable  to 
sympathize  with  most  of  his  contemporaries  in 
condemning  the  theory  of  Augustine  and  Calvin 
as  irrational  and  unscripturaL 

This  unexpected  publication  gave  a  new  im- 
pulse to  the  discussion  of  this  doctrine,  and  some 
of  the  most  distinguished  theologians  of  Ger- 
many have  been  enlisted  as  d  isputants.  Whether 
under  the  auspices  of  Schleiermacher  this  doc- 


130 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


trine  will  fare  better  than  under  Gottschalk  and 
Jansenius  cannot  be  foretold.  Long1  established 
prejudice  may  yet  prevail  over  the  love  of  truth 
and  consistency.  But  whatever  may  be  the  re- 
sult, of  this  local  controversy,  the  doctrine  has 
nothing  to  fear,  being  based  on  the  triple  found- 
ation of  sound  reason,  Christian  experience,  and 
the  word  of  God.— TR.] 


ARTICLE  IV. 

OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  FATHER,  SON,  AND 
HOLY  GHOST. 


SECTION  XXXIII. 

INTRODUCTORY    REMARKS. 

1.  IT  is  an  established  truth,  that  there  are 
many  things  in  the  divine  nature  which  are  un- 
like anything  which  belongs  to  us,  and  of  which, 
therefore,  we  have  no  knowledge.     For,  as  has 
been  already  shewn,  s.  18,  II.,  it  is  impossible 
for  us  to  form  a  distinct  notion  of  any  attributes 
or  perfections  which  we  ourselves  do  not  pos- 
sess, or  even  to  see  at  all  how  such  attributes 
can  exist.     To  conclude,  therefore,  that  any  par- 
ticular attribute  could  not  belong  to  the  Divine 
Being,  simply  because  we  might  be  unable  to 
understand  it  wholly,  or  perhaps  at  all,  would  be 
extremly  foolish.     Vide  Introduction,  s.  6,  ad 
finem.     If  the  Bible  contains  a  more  particular 
revelation  of  God,  and  if  this  revelation,  in  a  clear 
and  incontrovertible  manner,  proposes  a  doctrine 
of  faith,  then  must  such  doctrine,  however  incom- 
prehensible and  inexplicable,  be  received  by  us  as 
true.     That  the  Bible  does  contain  such  a  reve- 
lation has  already  been  maintained  in  the  Intro- 
duction, and  in  the  Article  on  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures; that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  taught 
in  this  revelation  remains  now  to  be  proved  ;  and 
upon  the  truth  of  these  two   propositions   the 
whole  subject  depends. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  in  the  godhead 
includes  the  three  following  particulars,  (vide 
Morus,  p.  69,  s.  13,) — viz.,  (a)  There  is  only 
one  God,  one  divine  nature,  s.  16 ;  (6)  but  in  this 
divine  nature  there  is  the  distinction  of  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  three,  (called  subjects, 
persons,  and  other  names  of  similar  import  in 
the  language  of  the  schools ;)  and  (c)  these  three 
have  equally,  and  in  common  with  one  another, 
the  nature  and  perfections  of  supreme  divinity. 
This  is  the  true,  simple  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
when  stripped  of  refined  and  learned  distinctions. 
According  to  this  doctrine  there  are  in  the  divine 
nature  THREE,  inseparably  connected  with  one 
another,  possessing  equal  glory,  but  making 
unitedly  only  ONE  God. 


This  doctrine  thus  exhibited  is  called  a  mys- 
tery (in  the  theological  sense),  because  there  is 
much  in  the  mode  and  manner  of  it  which  is 
unintelligible.  The  obscurity  and  mystery  of 
this  subject  arise  from  our  inability  to  answer 
the  question,  In  what  sense  and  in  what  manner 
do  these  three  so  share  the  divine  nature  as  to  make 
only  one  God?  But  as  the  learned  employed 
themselves  in  attempting  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion, and  endeavoured,  by  the  help  of  philosophy, 
to  establish  certain  distinctions,  they  fell,  of 
course,  into  explanations  more  or  less  opposed, 
and  from  this  diversity  of  opinion,  into  strife  and 
contention.  They  began  to  persecute  those  who 
dissented  from  some  learned  distinctions  which 
they  regarded  as  true,  to  denounce  them  as  he- 
rectics,  and  to  exclude  them  from  salvation. 
In  their  zeal  for  their  philosophical  theories, 
they  neglected  to  inculcate  the  practical  conse- 
quences of  this  doctrine,  and  instead  of  joyfully 
partaking  of  the  undeserved  benefits  which  are 
bestowed  by  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
they  disputed  respecting  the  manner  of  the 
union  of  three  persons  in  one  God. 

Jesus  requires  that  all  his  followers  should 
profess  their  belief  in  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  (Matt,  xxviii.  19;)  and  by  so  doing,  he 
places  this  doctrine  among  the  first  and  most  es- 
sential doctrines  of  his  religion.  That  it  is  so 
is  proved  from  many  other  declarations  both  of 
Jesus  and  his  apostles.  The  doctrine  is,  more- 
over, intimately  connected  with  the  whole  exhi- 
bition of  Christian  truth.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a 
doctrine  which  any  one  may  set  aside  at  plea- 
sure, as  if  it  were  unessential,  and  wholly  dis- 
connected with  the  system  of  Christianity.  But 
while  Jesus  requires  us  to  believe  in  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  he  has  nowhere  taught  us 
or  required  us  to  believe  the  learned  distinctions 
respecting  this  doctrine  which  have  been  intro- 
duced since  the  fourth  century.  The  unde- 
served benefits  which  they  had  received  from 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  were  the 
great  subjects  to  which  Jesus  pointed  his  fol- 
lowers in  the  passage  above  cited,  and  in 
others ;  that  they  were  now  able  to  understand 
and  worship  God  in  a  more  perfect  manner, 
to  approach  him  as  their  father  and  benefactor 
in  spirit  and  in  truth;  that  their  minds  were 
now  enlightened  by  the  instructions  given 
them  by  the  Son  of  God,  who  had  been  sent 
into  the  world  to  be  their  teacher,  and  that  their 
souls  were  redeemed  by  his  death;  that  in  con- 
sequence of  what  Christ  had  already  done,  and 
would  yet  do,  they  might  be  advanced  in  moral 
perfection,  and  made  holy — a  work  specially 
ascribed  to  the  aids  and  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  these  are  the  great  truths  which  Jesus 
requires  his  followers  to  believe  from  the  heart, 
in  being  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  He  did  not  reveal  this 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


131 


doctrine  to  men  to  furnish  them  with  matter  for 
speculation  and  dispute,  and  did  not,  therefore, 
prescribe  any  formulas  by  which  the  one  or  the 
other  could  have  been  excited.  The  same  is 
true  of  this  doctrine  as  of  the  Lord's  supper. 
Those  who  partake  of  this  ordinance  in  the  man- 
ner which  Christ  commanded,  answer  the  ends 
for  which  it  was  instituted,  and  secure  their 
spiritual  profit,  however  much  their  views  may 
differ  with  regard  to  the  manner  of  Christ's  pre- 
sence in  the  symbols. 

Besides,  it  is  certain  that  no  particular  distinc- 
tions respecting  this  doctrine  were  enforced  by 
the  church  as  necessary  conditions  of  commu- 
nion during  the  first  three  centuries.  And  ac- 
cordingly we  find  that  Justin  the  Martyr,  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  Origen,  and  other  distin- 
guished men  of  the  catholic  party,  made  use  of 
expressions  and  representations  on  this  subject 
which  are  hoth  discordant  with  each  other,  and 
which  differ  totally  from  those  which  were 
afterwards  established  in  the  fourth  century. 
Then  for  the  first  time,  at  the  Nicene  Council, 
under  tb.3  influence  of  Athanasius,  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Arians,  were  those  learned  and 
philosophical  formulas,  which  have  since  been 
retained  in  the  system  of  the  church,  established 
and  enforced.  That  a  belief  in  these  formulas 
should  be  declared  essential  to  salvation,  as  is 
done  in  the  Athanasian  creed,  cannot  but  be 
disapproved.  This  creed,  however,  was  not 
composed  by  Athanasius  nor  was  it  even 
ascribed  to  him  before  the  seventh  century, 
though  it  was  probably  composed  in  the  fifth. 
The  principle  that  any  one  who  holds  different 
views  respecting  the  Trinity,  salvus  esse  non 
poterit,  (to  use  the  language  of  this  symbol,) 
would  lead  us  to  exclude  from  salvation  the 
great  majority  even  of  those  Christians  who  re- 
ceive the  doctrine  and  language  of  the  Council 
of  Nice;  for  common  Christians,  after  all  the 
efforts  of  their  teachers,  will  not  unfrequently 
conceive  of  three  Gods  in  the  three  persons  of  the 
Godhead,  and  thus  entertain  an  opinion  which 
the  creed  condemns.  But  if  the  many  pious 
believers  in  common  life  who  entertain  this 
theoretical  error  may  yet  be  saved,  then  others 
who  believe  in  Christ  from  the  heart,  and  obey 
his  precepts,  who  have  a  personal  experience 
of  the  practical  effects  of  this  doctrine  may 
also  be  saved,  though  they  may  adopt  other 
particular  theories  and  formulas  respecting 
the  Trinity  different  from  that  commonly  re- 
ceived. These  particular  formulas  and  theo- 
ries, however  much  they  may  be  regarded  and 
insisted  upon,  have  nothing  to  do  with  salva- 
tion. And  this  leads  us  to  remark,  that  learned 
hypotheses,  refined  distinctions,  and  technical 
phrases,  should  never  be  introduced  into  popu- 
lar instruction.  They  will  never  be  intelligible 
to  a  common  audience,  and  will  involve  the 


minds  of  the  common  people  and  of  the  young 
in  the  greatest  perplexity  and  confusion.  So 
judged  at  one  time  the  Emperor  Constantine: 
ov  6ft  tfo/as  ^T'^cJftj  fOjWov  tivo^  avayxy  Ttpocrr dif- 
f  ECV,  oiiSt  T'at j  ftdvtuv  dxoatj  drtpovojrwj  TttcfTtvEtv, 
Epist.  ad  Arium,  Ap.  Socr.  i.  7.  Would  that 
he  himself  had  afterwards  remained  true  to 
these  principles !  [Vide  Neander,  Allg.  Gesch. 
Christ,  Rel.,  b.  i.  Abth.  2.  s.  616.] 

Plan  pursued  in  this  Article. 

The  theologians  of  former  times  generally 
blended  their  own  speculations  and  those  of 
others  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  with  the 
statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Within 
a  few  years  a  better  plan  has  been  adopted, 
which  is,  to  exhibit  first  the  simple  doctrine  of 
the  Bible,  and  afterwards,  in  a  separate  part, 
the  speculations  of  the  learned  respecting  it. 
In  pursuance  of  this  plan  we  shall  divide  the 
present  Article  into  two  chapters,  of  which  the 
FIRST  will  contain  the  Biblical  Doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  and  the  SECOND,  the  History  of  this 
Doctrine,  of  all  the  changes  it  has  undergone, 
and  of  the  distinctions  and  hypotheses  by  which 
the  learned  in  different  ages  have  endeavoured 
to  define  and  illustrate  it. 


CHAPTER  I. 

BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

SECTION  XXXIV. 

IS  THIS  DOCTRINE  TAUGHT  IN  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT? 

IT  has  always  been  allowed  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  was  not  fully  revealed  before  the 
time  of  Christ,  and  is  clearly  taught  only  in  the 
New  Testament.  But,  at  the  same  time,  it  was 
supposed  from  some  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment that  this  doctrine  was  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree  known  to  the  Israelites  at  the  time  when 
the  New  Testament  was  written,  at  least  that  a 
plurality  in  the  godhead  was  believed  by  them, 
although  perhaps  not  exactly  a  Trinity.  In 
proof  of  this  opinion,  such  passages  as  Gen.  i. 
26  were  cited  by  Justin  Martyr,  Irenseus, 
Tertullian,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Theodoret,  Gre- 
gory of  Nyssa,  Basil,  and  other  ecclesiastical 
fathers.  Vide  Mangey  on  Philo,  De  Opif. 
mundi,  p.  17. 

This  opinion  was  universal  in  the  protestant 
church  during  the  sixteenth  century,  and  at  the 
beginning  of  the  seventeenth.  The  first  who 
questioned  it  was  G.  Calixtus,  of  Helmstadt, 
who  in  1645  published  an  Essay,  De  Trinitate, 
and  in  1649,  another,  De  myster.  Trinitatis,  an 


132 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


ex  solius  V.  T.  libris  possit  demonstrari  ?  He 
was,  however,  vehemently  opposed  by  Abr. 
Calovius,  and  others.  And  the  opinion  for- 
merly held  by  the  theologians  continued  to 
prevail  even  into  the  eighteenth  century.  But 
the  opinion  of  Calixtus  has  since  been  revived, 
and  has  gradually  obtained  the  approbation  of 
most  theologians  of  the  present  time,  although 
there  are  still  some  who  declare  themselves  in 
favour  of  the  ancient  opinion. 

The  truth  on  this  subject  will  probably  be 
found  in  a  medium  between  the  extreme  to 
which  writers  on  both  sides  have  frequently 
gone.  (I)  It  is  true,  that  if  the  New  Testa- 
ment did  not  exist  we  could  not  derive  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  the  Old  Testament 
alone.  But  (2)  it  is  equally  true,  that  by  the 
manner  in  which  God  revealed  himself  in  the  Old 
Testament,  the  way  was  prepared  for  the  more 
full  disclosure  of  his  nature  that  was  afterwards 
made.  The  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  are 
frequently  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  Son  is  represented  as  one  through 
whom  God  will  bestow  blessings  upon  men, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  granted  to 
them  for  their  sanctification.  Vide  Morus,  p. 
59,  s.  1,  note  1,  2.  But  (3)  respecting  the  in- 
timate connexion  of  these  persons,  or  respecting 
other  distinctions  which  belong  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  there  is  nothing  said  in  the  Old 
Testament. 

Many  objections  may  be  made  against  each 
particular  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  which 
an  allusion  is  perceived  to  a  trinity  or  plurality 
in  God.  But  these  texts  are  so  many  in  num- 
ber and  so  various  in  kind,  that  they  impress 
an  unprejudiced  person,  who  considers  them 
all  in  connexion,  with  the  opinion  that  such  a 
plurality  in  God  is  indicated  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, though  it  was  not  fully  developed  or 
clearly  defined  before  the  Christian  revela- 
tion. 

These  texts  may  be  arranged  in  the  following 
classes : — 

1.  Those  in  which  the  names  of  God  have 
the  form  of  the  plural,  and  in  which,  therefore, 
a  plurality  in  his  nature  seems  to  be  indicated. 
The  names  D^riSs,  -OIK,  o^c'-hp,  ui,  are  cited  as 
examples  ;  but  they  afford  no  certain  proof,  as 
they  may  be  only  thepluralis  majestaticus  of  the 
Oriental  languages.     Vide  s.  17. 

2.  Texts  in  which  God  speaks  of  himself  as 
many.     But  the  plural  in  many  of  these  cases 
can  be  accounted  for  from  the  use  of  the  plural 
nouns  o>n">N,  -ons,  to.     Philo  thinks,  (De  Opif. 
Mundi,  p.  I?',  ed.  Mangey,)  that  in  the  pas- 
sage, Gen.  i.  26,  Let  vs^make  man,  God  ad- 
dresses  the   angels.     Maimonides   thinks   the 
same  of  the  passage,  Gen.  xi.  7,  Let  us  go  down 
and  confound  their  language.     Vide    Mangey, 
in  loc.     It  is  not  uncommon  in  Hebrew  for 


kings  to  speak  of  themselves  in  the  plural — 
e.  g.,  1  Kings,  xii.  9;  2  Chron.  x.  9;  Ezra,  iv. 
18.  In  Isaiah,  vi.  8,  God  asks,  who  will  go  for 
us  (ly?)]  where  the  plural  form  may  be  explain- 
ed either  as  the  pluralis  majestaticus,  or  as  de- 
noting an  assembly  for  consultation.  The 
chiefs  of  heaven  (n-'QT^)  are  described  as  there 
collected ;  and  God  puts  to  them  the  question, 
whom  shall  we  make  our  messenger  ?  as  1  Kings, 
xxii.  20,  seq. 

3.  Texts  in  which  rnrv  is  distinguished  from 
nirr>,  and  DiriSs  from  D>nSx.    Jehovah  rained  brim- 
stone and  fire  from  Jehovah,  Gen.  xix.  24.     0 
our  GOD,  hear  the  prayer  of  thy  servant,  for  the 
LORD'S  (Christ's  1)  sake,  Dan.  ix.  17.    But  these 
texts,  by  themselves,  do  not  furnish  any  deci- 
sive proof;  for  in  the  simplicity  of  ancient  style 
the  noun  is  often  repeated  instead  of  using  the 
pronoun ;  and  so,  from  Jehovah  may-  mean  from 
himself;  and  for  the  Lord's  sake  may  mean  for 
thine  own  sake — i.  e.,  on  account  of  thy  promise. 
Many  other  texts  may  be  explained  in  the  same 
way;  as  Hosea,  i.  7;  Zach.  x.  12.    In  this  con- 
nexion the  passage,  Ps.  xlv.  7,  is  often  cited : 
therefore,  0  God  (Messiah?),  thy  God  (the  Fa- 
ther) hath  anointed  thee.     But  the  name  D^rrw  is 
sometimes  given  to  earthly  kings.    It  does  not, 
therefore,  necessarily  prove  that  the  person  to 
whom  it  is  here  given  must  be  of  the  divine  na- 
ture.    The  passage,  Ps.  ex.   1,  vhsV  nirv  D^J, 
"Jehovah  said  to  my  Lord,"  &c.  is  also  cited. 
But  -ons  (Messiah)  is  here  distinguished  from 
Jehovah,  and  is  not  described  as  participating 
in  the  divine  nature,  but  only  in  the  divine  go- 
vernment, as  far  as  he  was  constituted  Messiah 
by  God. 

4.  Texts  in  which  express  mention  is  made 
of  the  Son  of  God,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(a)  Of  the  Son  of  God.  The  principal  .text 
in  this  class  is  Ps.  ii.  7,  Thou  art  my  Son ;  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee,  coll.  Psalm  Ixxii.  1 ; 
Ixxxix.  27.  This  Psalm  was  always  under- 
stood by  the  Jews,  and  by  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  to  relate  to  the  Messiah.  But 
he  is  here  represented  under  the  image  of  a 
king,  to  whose  government,  according  to  the 
will  of  God,  all  must  submit.  And  it  is  the 
dignity  of  this  office  of  king,  or  Messiah,  of 
which  the  Psalmist  appears  here  to  speak.  The 
name  Son  of  God  was  not  unfrequently  given  to 
kings ;  it  is  not,  therefore,  nomen  essentise,  but 
dignitatis  messiansB.  The  passage  would  then 
mean,  Thou  art  the  king  (Messiah)  of  my» ap- 
pointment: this  day  have  I  solemnly  declared 
thee  such.  That  the  phrase  to-day  alludes  to  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  is  proved  by  a  reference 
to  Acts,  xiii.  30 — 34.  The  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  everywhere  teach  that  Christ  was 
proved  to  be  the  Messiah  by  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  Cf.  Rom.  i.  3,  4.  In  this 
Psalm,  therefore,  the  Messiah  is  rather  exhibited 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


133 


as  king,  divinely-appointed  ruler,  and  head  of 
the  church,  than  as  belonging  to  the  divine 
nature. 

(b)  Of  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  are  many  texts 
of  this  class,  but  none  from  which,  taken  by 
themselves,  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
can  be  proved,  as  it  can  easily  he  from  passages 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  term  Holy  Spirit 
may  mean,  in  these  texts,  (1)  The  divine  nature 
in  general ;  (2)  particular  divine  attributes,  as 
omnipotence,  knowledge,  or  omniscience  ;  (3) 
the  divine  agency,  which  is  its  more  common 
meaning.  Vide  s.  19,  II.  The  principal  pas- 
sage here  cited  is  Isaiah,  xlviii.  1G,  where  the 
whole  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  supposed  to  be 
taught;  inn)  -onS!?  nvp  ijis  nnyi,  And  now  Jehovah 
(the  Father)  and  his  Spirit  (the  Holy  Ghost) 
hath  sent  me  (the  Messiah),  -inn  has  usually 
been  rendered  as  if  it  were  in  the  accusative ; 
but  it  is  more  properly  rendered  as  a  nominative 
in  the  Septuagint,  the  Syriac  Version,  also  by 
Luther,  and  the  English  translators.  It  means 
here,  as  it  always  does  when  used  by  the  pro-, 
phets  in  this  connexion,  the  direct,  immediate, 
command  of  God.  Cf.  Acts,  xiii.  2,  4.  To  say, 
then,  the  Lord  AND  HIS  SPIRIT  hath  sent  me,  is 
the  same  as  to  say,  the  Lord  hath  sent  me  by  a 
direct,  immediate  command. 

5.  Texts  in  which  three  persons  are  expressly 
mentioned,  or  in  which  there  is  a  clear  reference 
to  the  number  three.  In  this  class  the  text,  Ps. 
xxxiii.  6,  was  formerly  placed  :  the  heavens  were 
made  by  the  word  (Aoyo$,  Messiah)  of  Jehovah 
(the  Father)  ;  and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the 
spirit  of  his  mouth.  But  by  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  spirit  of  his  mouth,  nothing  more  is 
meant  than  by  his  command,  will,  as  appears 
from  the  account  of  the  creation.  Cf.  verse  9, 
"He  spake  and  it  was  done;  he  commanded, 
and  it  stood  fast."  The  threefold  repetition  of 
the  name  Jehovah  in  the  benediction  of  the  high 
priest,  Num.  vi.  24,  is  more  remarkable :  Jtho- 
vah  bless  thee,  and  keep  thee ;  Jehovah  be  gracious 
to  thee  ;  Jehovah  give  thee'peace.  But  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Trinity  at  that  early  period  cannot 
be  concluded  from  a  mere  threefold  repetition 
of  the  name  of  Jehovah,  unless  it  is  elsewhere 
exhibited  in  the  writings  of  the  same  author. 
Of  the  same  nature  is  the  threefold  repetition  of 
the  word  holy  by  the  seraphs,  the  invisible  ser- 
vants of  God,  Isa.  vi.  3.  To  account  for  this 
repetition  we  might  suppose  there  were  three 
heavenly  choirs;  but  the  question  might  then 
be  asked,  why  these  choirs  were  exactly  three? 
It  is  certainly  not  impossible  that  the  idea  of  a 
trinity  in  the  godhead  may  be  here  presupposed, 
and  also  in  the  threefold  benediction  of  the  high 
priest.  These  choirs  are  represented  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  verse  as  singing  one  after 
another,  in  alternate  response,  nHjs  rn  *np.  The 
word  irvp  might  have  been  sung  by  each  choir 


separately;  and  the  last  words,  the  whole  earth 
is  full  of  thy  glory,  by  the  three  choirs  united. 

Thus  it  appears  that  no  one  of  the  passages 
cited  from  the  Old  Testament  in  proof  of  the 
Trinity  is  conclusive,  when  taken  by  itself;  but, 
as  was  before  stated,  when  they  are  all  taken 
together,  they  convey  the  impression  that  at 
least  a  plurality  in  the  godhead  was  obscurely 
indicated  in  the  Jewish  scriptures. 

SECTION  XXXV. 

OF  THOSE  TEXTS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IN 
WHICH  FATHER,  SON,  AND  HOLY  SPIRIT  ARE 
MENTIONED  IN  CONNEXION. 

SINCE  the  Old  Testament  proves  nothing 
clearly  or  decidedly  upon  this  subject,  we  must 
now  turn  to  the  New  Testament.  The  texts 
from  the  New  Testament  which  relate  to  the 
doctrine  in  question  may  be  divided  into  two 
principal  classes :  (a)  Those  in  which  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are  mentioned  in  connexion  ,- 
(6)  Those  in  which  these  three  subjects  are  men- 
tioned  separately,  and  in  which  their  nature  and 
mutual  relation  is  more  particularly  described. 
In  this  section  we  shall  treat  only  of  the  first 
class.  But  the  student  will  need  to  be  on  his 
guard  here,  lest  he  should  deduce  more  from 
these  texts,  separately  considered,  than  they 
actually  teach.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  all  its  extent  and  in  all  its  modifications  is 
taught  in  no  single  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  writings  of  the  apostles  always 
presuppose  the  oral  instructions  which  they  had 
given  to  the  Christians  whom  they  addressed, 
and  do  not  therefore  exhibit  any  regular  and 
formal  system  of  doctrines.  Hence,  in  order 
to  ascertain  what  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel 
are,  we  must  compare  different  texts,  and  form 
our  conclusion  from  the  whole.  The  first  class 
of  texts,  taken  by  itself,  proves  only  that  there 
are  the  three  subjects  above  named,  and  that 
there  is  a  difference  between  them;  that  the 
Father  in  certain  respects  differs  from  the  Son, 
&c. ;  but  it  does  not  prove,  by  itself,  that  all  the 
three  belong  necessarily  to  the  divine  nature, 
and  possess  equal  divine  honour.  In  proof  of 
this,  the  second  class  of  texts  must  be  adduced. 
The  following  texts  are  placed  in  this  class : — 
1  Matt,  xxviii.  18 — 20.  While  Jesus  con- 
tinued in  the  world,  he,  and  his  disciples  by  his 
direction,  had  preached  the  gospel  only  among 
the  Jews,  Matt.  x.  5.  But  now,  as  he  is  about 
to  leave  the  earth,  he  commissions  them  to  pub- 
lish his  religion  everywhere,  without  any  dis- 
tinction of  nation.  He  had  received  authority 
from  God  to  establish  a  new  church,  to  receive 
all  men  into  it,  and  to  exhibit  himself  as  Lord  of 
all,  ver.  18  ;  cf.  John,  xvii.  2,  Jtotm'a  rtci^j 
crapjcoj.  Wherefore  he  requires  his  disciples, 
ver.  19,  to  o-o  forth  and  proselyte  all  nations, 
M 


134 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


TtdvTfa  fa  f£v>?.)  They  were  to 
do  this  in  two  ways,  —  viz.,  by  baptizing  (j3art- 
ti£ovts$,  ver.  19),  and  by  instructing,  (faSdaxov- 
T'EJ,  ver.  20.)  They  were  required  to  baptize 
their  converts,  ?  tj  -to  ovopa  (nra)  ?ov  Ilarpoj  xat 
•tov  Tlov,  xai>  -tov  aytou  IIvfv^u.aT'oj  —  1.  e.,  ft$  T'OV 
IlaTfpa,  x.  f.  a..  To  baptize  in  the  name  of  a 
person  or  thing,  means,  according  to  the  usus 
loquendi  of  the  Jews,  to  bind  one  by  baptism  to 
profess  his  belief,  or  give  his  assent,  or  yield  obe- 
dience, to  a  certain  person  or  thing.  The  Tal- 
mudists  say,  the  Samaritans  circumcise  their 
children  in  the  name  of  Mount  Gerizim,  and 
Christians  are  asked,  1  Cor.  i.  13,  15,  were  ye 
baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul?  In  1  Cor.  x.  3, 
it  is  said,  rtdvt£$  (rtaftpsj)  tfiaTtTfiaavto  stj 
Mco<jjJ»>,  and  in  Acts,  xix.  4,  that  John  the  Bap- 
tist tfidrttiaz  ftj  -tbv  tp%6u£vov.  This  text,  taken 
by  itself,  would  not  prove  decisively  either  the 
personality  of  the  three  subjects  mentioned,  or 
their  equality,  or  divinity.  For  (a)  the  subject 
into  which  one  is  baptized  is  not  necessarily  a 
person,  but  may  be  a  doctrine,  or  religion  ,-  as, 
to  circumcise  in  the  name  of  Mount  Gerizim. 
(6)  The  person  in  whom  one  is  baptized  is  not 
necessarily  God,  asjSartr^ftf  «$  Mcoo^v,  Havhov, 
x.  t.  h.  (c)  The  connexion  of  these  three  sub- 
jects does  not  prove  their  personality  or  equality. 
A  subject  may  swear  fealty  to  his  king,  to  the 
officer  under  whose  immediate  government  he  is 
placed,  and  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  But  does 
this  prove  that  the  king,  officer,  and  laws  are 
three  persons,  and  equal  to  one  another?  And 
so,  the  objector  might  say,  the  converts  to 
Christianity  might  be  required  to  profess  by 
baptism  their  acknowledgment  of  theFather,  (the 
author  of  the  great  plan  of  salvation;)  of  the  Son, 
(who  had  executed  it;)  and  of  the  doctrines  re- 
vealed by  God  (rtvsvfjta  aytov),  for  the  knowledge 
of  which  they  were  indebted  to  both  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  But  let  it  be  once  shewn  from  other 
texts  that  these  subjects  here  mentioned  are 
persons,  and  that  they  are  equal  to  one  another, 
and  this  construction  is  inadmissible.  One 
thing,  however,  is  evident  from  this  text  —  viz., 
that  Christ  considered  the  doctrine  respecting 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  as  a  fundamental 
doctrine  of  his  religion,  because  he  requires  all 
his  followers  to  be  bound  to  a  profession  of 
it  immediately  on  their  being  admitted  as  mem- 
bers of  his  church,  by  the  initiatory  rite  of  bap- 
tism. Vide  Morus,  p.  59,  s.  2. 

2.  1  Pet.  i.  2.  Peter  sends  his  salutations 
to  Christians,  and  says  to  them,  that  they  were 
admitted  into  the  Christian  church  xa-fa  rtpo- 
ywotftv  ®tov  rtarp6j,  (i.  e.,  according  to  the  gra- 
cious decree  of  God,)  iv  dyt-actyt^  (for  si$  a 


qaov  Xpiflfou,  plainly  referring  to  the 
above-mentioned  obligations  assumed  by  Chris- 
tians at  baptism.  The  sense  is,  Ye  are  become 


Christians  according  to  the  eternal  decree  of  God 
the  Father,  to  the  intent  that  ye  should  be  made 
holy  (morally  perfect)  through  the  Holy  Spirit; 
and  that  ye  should  obey  Jesus  Christ,  and  obtain 
forgiveness  through  faith  in  his  blnod.  But  from 
what  is  here  said  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  does  not 
necessarily  follow  that  he  is  a  personal  subject; 
nor  from  the  predicates  here  ascribed  to  Christ, 
that  he  is  necessarily  divine ;  and  so  this  pas- 
sage also,  taken  by  itself,  is  insufficient. 

3.  2  Cor.  xiii.  14,  The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  be  with  you  all.     From  the  paral- 
lelism of  the  third  member  of  this  passage  with 
the  two   former,  we   might  perhaps  infer  the 
personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     But  from  the 
mere  collocation  of  the  names  of  these  persons, 
we  could  not  justly  infer  that  they  possessed 
equal  authority,  or  the  same  nature. 

4.  John,  xiv.  26.     Here  are  three  different 
personal     subjects, — viz.,     6    IlapaxTi^T'oj, 
Hvfvpa   to    aytov,  6    rtt/ji^fL    o    Ilatf^p  £v 

.^9  ovop.a'ti  /MOV  (Xptfft'oi;).  But  that  these 
three  subjects  have  equal  divine  honour,  and  be- 
long to  one  divine  nature,  is  not  sufficiently 
proved  from  this  passage,  and  can  be  argued 
with  certainty  only  from  texts  of  the  second 
class. 

5.  Matt.  iii.  16,  17,  where  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  by  John  is  narrated,  has  been  considered 
as  a  locus  classicus  upon  this  subject.     So  the 
ecclesiastical  fathers   considered  it.     Whence 
the  celebrated  formula,  lad  Jordanam,  et  vide' 
bis  Trinitatem.     This  text  was  called  by  the 
ancients  $£o$avsi,d.     Three    personal   subjects 
are  indeed  here  mentioned — viz.,  the  voice  of 
the  Father,   the  symbol   of   the  Holy   Spirit 
(rtfpttfr'Epa),  and  Christ;  but  nothing  is  here 
said  respecting  their  nature ;  and  the  phrase, 
Ttoj  ©fov  (ver.  17)  does  not  always  indicate  the 
divine  nature  of  Christ.     This  passage  then, 
taken  by  itself,  does  not  contain  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity. 

But  the  sense  of  all  these  texts  can  be  fully 
determined  by  the  texts  of  the  second  class. 

As  to  the  passage  1  John,  v.  7,  8; — the  words 
from  lv  -T9  orpttKp,  to  tv  ty  yy,  must  be  allowed, 
on  all  critical  principles,  to  be  spurious.  But 
even  allowing  the  text  to  be  genuine,  it  would 
afford  no  strong  proof  of  the  entire  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  Three  subjects  are  indeed  enume- 
rated, 6  Ila-r^p,  o  Aoyof,  and  tfo  ayiov  Hvsvpa* 
but  their  nature  and  essential  connexion  are  not 
determined  ;  for  the  expression,  ovtoi  ot  tfpfts  ev 
sltii,  at  the  end  of  ver.  7,  does  not  refer  ad  uni- 
tatem  essentise,  and  thus  signify  that  they  make 
together  one  divine  being  ;  but  ad  unitatem  vo- 
luntatis,  and  so  means,  as  appears  from  the  con- 
text, that  they  are  agreed,  unanimous,  idem  con- 
firmant.  This  is  the  meaning  at  the  end  of  ver. 
8,  as  all  are  compelled  to  admit,  and  it  is  the 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


135 


meaning  of  ev  tlvat,  whenever  it  occurs  in  the 
writings  of  John,  as  John,  x.  30;  xvii.  11,  &c. 
Cf.  on  these  verses :  Sernler,  Historische  und 
kritische  Sammlungen  iiber  die  sogenannten 
Beweisstellen  der  Dogmatik,  Erstes  Stuck ; 
Halle,  1764,  8vo;  also  his  Vertheidigung  und 
Zusatze,  2n  St.  1768.  Michaelis,  Einleit.  ins 
N.  T.,  th.  ii. ;  and  especially  Griesbach,  Dia- 
tribe in  loc.  1  John,  v.  Appendix,  N.  T.  Ed.  ii. 

SECTION  XXXVI. 

OF  THOSE  TEXTS  IN  WHICH  THE  FATHER,  SON, 
AND  HOLY  GHOST  ARE  SEPARATELY  MENTIONED, 
AND  IN  WHICH  THEIR  NATURE  AND  MUTUAL 
RELATION  ARE  TAUGHT. 

THESE  texts  form  the  second  class  above  men- 
tioned, s.  35 ;  and  they  shew  how  the  texts  of 
the  first  class  are  to  be  understood.  They  prove 
(a)  that  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  are  divine, 
or  belong  to  the  one  divine  nature;  and  (6)  that 
the  three  subjects  are  personal  and  equal.  In 
popular  instruction  it  will  be  found  best  to  ex- 
hibit this  class  of  texts  before  the  other.  In 
examining  these  texts  we  shall  exhibit  (1)  those 
which  teach  the  divinity  of  the  Father;  (2)  of 
the  Son;  (3)  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  Deity  of  the  Father. 

When  the  term  Father  is  applied  to  God  it 
often  designates  the  whole  godhead,  or  the  whole 
divine  nature ;  as  ©foj  6  Ila-z^p,  1  Cor.  viii. 
4 — 6 ;  John,  xvii.  1 — 3.  He  is  often  called  0£6j 
jcat,  Hatr(p — i.  e.,  ®f6j  6  TLaTfrfi,  or  ©EOJ  65  eaT'i- 
rj-p,  as  Gal.  i.  4,  (a  Hebraism,  like  the  use 
of  i  for  the  relative  ntw.)  All  the  arguments, 
therefore,  which  prove  the  existence  of  God  (vide 
s.  15 — 17),  prove  also  the  deity  of  the  Father. 
In  the  scriptures  God  is  called  Father, 

1.  Inasmuch  as  he  is  the  creator  and  preserver. 
Deut.  xxxii.  6,  Is  he  not  thy  Father,  who  hath 
made  thee  and  established  thee?     1  Cor.  viii.  6, 
©so?  6  Ila-r^p  E"!  ov  ta  rtdvta,  Ephes.  iv.  6,  6 

WTjp  rtdvtuv.  The  Hebrews  call  the  author, 
inventor,  teacher  of  anything,  the  father  of  it; 
as  Gen.  iv.  20—22,  Jubal,  the  father  nf  all  who 
play  on  the  harp,  &c. ;  Job,  xxxviii.  28,  God,  the 
Father  of  rain. 

2.  Inasmuch  as  he  is  the  benefactor,  guardian, 
and  guide  of  men.     Psalm  Ixviii.  5,  The  father 
of  the  fatherless.  Job  says  of  himself,  (xxix.  16,) 
I  was  the  father  of  the  poor.     Isaiah,  Ixiii.  16, 
"Thou   (God)  art  our  father  and  redeemer." 
Psalm  ciii.  13,  "As  a  father  pitieth  his  children, 
so  the  Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear  him."     It  was 
a  great  object  with  Christ  to  diffuse  just  appre- 
hensions respecting  the  universal  paternal  love 
of  God  to  men.     Cf.  Romans,  viii.  15,  16,  also 
s.  28,  30,  31.     Hence  he  frequently  calls  God, 
Father,  heavenly  Father,  &c.     The  name  chil- 


dren of  God  sometimes  denotes  his  favourites, 
those  beloved  by  him;  sometimes  those  who  en- 
deavour to  resemble  him,  especially  in  purity, 
love,  and  beneficence;  sometimes  both  those 
who  love  and  follow  him  as  children  a  father, 
and  those  whom  he  loves  as  a  father  does  duti- 
ful children.  In  this  respect,  too,  God  is  often 
called  the  Father  of  men — i.  e.,  their  example, 
pattern,  the  being  whom  they  imitate.  When 
the  name  Father  is  applied  to  God  in  either  of 
these  respects,  as  creator  or  as  benefactor,  the 
whole  godhead  is  intended. 

3.  God  is  frequently  called  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, o  ®f6f  scat  Haivjp  tov  Kvpi/ou  'Ij^aov  Xpw- 
tov,  Romans,  xv.  6 ;  2  Cor.  xi.  31 ;  Ephes.  i.  3, 
&c.  This  expression  in  many  texts  indicates, 
(a)  The  relation  in  which  Christ,  as  the  Sa- 
viour of  men,  stands  to  God ;  in  which  relation 
he  is  frequently  called  the  Son  of  God,  s.  37. 
God  is  represented  in  the  Bible  as  properly  the 
author  and  institutor  (IIcwijp)  of  Christianity ; 
and  also  as  the  father  of  Christ,  in  that  he  sent 
him  into  the  world,  and  commissioned  him  as  a 
man  to  instruct  and  to  redeem  our  race.  It  is 
clear  from  John  that  Christ  himself  often  calls 
God  his  father,  in  reference  to  this  charge  and 
commission  which  God  had  given  him.  John, 
xvii.  1 — 3,  IXai'fp, — 5df aflov  sov  tov  Ttov — tScoxaj 
atj-fcp  tloufli/'av  7tdar]$  oapxoj  tVa  yu'woxcotft  at,  tbv 
povov  ofarj^rLvbv  ®fov,  xai  ov  arttatsihas,  'Irtaovv 
XptOTov.  This  is  quite  accordant  with  that 
scriptural  usage  before  specified,  by  which  the 
author  of  a  thing  is  called  its  father.  And  be- 
sides, teachers  were  called  by  the  Jews  fathers, 
and  those  taught  by  them,  children.  2  Kings, 
ii.  12;  vi.  21.  Christ  says  to  his  disciples, 
Matt,  xxiii.  9,  Let  none  call  you  FATHER  (as 
teachers  are  called),  for  one  is  your  Father, 
(teacher,  instructor,)  who  is  in  heaven. 

(6)  This  phrase,  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ,  in 
many  passages,  undoubtedly  indicates  a  certain 
internal  relation  existing  in  the  godhead  of  the 
deity  of  Christ  to  the  deity  of  the  Father,  the 
peculiar  nature  of  which  relation  is  nowhere  dis- 
closed in  the  Bible,  and  probably  cannot  be 
clearly  understood  by  men.  We  know,  how- 
ever, that  while  Christ  always  acknowledged 
that  he  derived  everything  from  the  Father,  he 
made  himself  equal  to  him.  Vide  Morus,  p. 
63,  s.  8.  In  this  sense,  Christ  uses  the  phrase 
in  many  passages,  and  among  others,  in  his 
discourse,  John,  v.  This  even  the  Jews  noticed, 
and  accused  him  of  blasphemy,  because  he 
called  God  natftpa  I8tov,  and  so  made  himself 
equal  to  God,  (ver.  18.)  Nor  does  Christ  blame 
them,  in  his  answer,  for  understanding  him  in 
this  way ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  goes  on  to  say, 
ver.  23,  that  all  should  honour  the  Son  even  as 
they  honour  the  Father.  Cf.  John,  x.  30,  seq. ; 
Luke,  ii.  49.  Theologians  therefore  say :  Pater 
dicitur  duplicitcr ;  (a)  i>?to<jT'<mxwj,  personaliter, 


136 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


incommunicabiliter,  (de  prima  persona;)  (6) 
ovcruoSwj,  essentialiter ;  sic  tribus  personis  esse 
commune.  Moms,  p.  60,  note  ad.  s.  4. 

SECTION  XXXVII. 

OF  THE  TEXTS  IN  WHICH  DIVINE  NAMES  ARE 
GIVEN  TO  CHRIST. 

THE  deity  of  Christ  is  proved  from  three 
classes  of  texts.  Morus,  p.  60,  seq.  s.  5 — 9. 
(a)  Texts  in  which  divine  names  are  ascribed  to 
him,  s.  37.  But  from  most  of  these  texts,  in 
themselves  considered,  we  can  derive  no  very 
strong  argument  for  the  supreme  or  essential 
deity  of  Christ.  They  rather  prove  his  divine- 
ness  than  his  deify.  In  order  to  prove  the  deity 
of  Christ,  we  depend  upon  (6)  texts  in  which 
divine  attributes  and  works,  and  (c)  divine  honour 
or  worship  (cultus  divinus)  are  ascribed  to  him. 
Both  of  these  classes  will  be  considered  in  s. 
38,  coll.  s.  100.  From  all  these  texts  in  con- 
junction the  result  is,  that  Christ  is  called  God 
on  account  of  his  divine  attributes  and  works. 
Morus,  p.  63. 

Note  1.  Works  in  defence  of  the  deity  of 
Christ.  Among  the  more  ancient  writers,  Ca- 
lixtus,  Whitby,  Spener,  Venema,  defended  this 
doctrine.  Among  the  more  modern,  G.  F.  Seiler 
has  written,  and  with  reference  to  the  present 
controversies,  Ueber  die  Gottheit  Christi ;  Leip- 
zig, 1775,  8vo.  Semler,  Ueber  die  Beweisstellen 
u.  s.  w.  1772,  4to;  particularly  his  historical 
notes.  "Gottheit  Christi,  1st  sie  wohl  aus 
seinen  eignen  Reden  zu  erweisenT"  (printed 
without  name  of  the  place,  1790,  8vo.)  In  the 
year  1786,  the  King  of  England  gave,  as  the 
subject  of  a  premium-essay,  the  proof  of  the  divi- 
nity of  Christ  (in  the  sense  of  the  Lutheran 
church),  and  appointed  the  theological  faculty 
at  Gottingen  to  award  the  prize,  (a  medal,  worth 
50  ducats.)  This  gave  occasion  to  the  follow- 
ing work  of  Semler,  Vorbereitung  auf  die 
Konigl.  Grossbrit.  Preisfrage  von  der  Gottheit 
Christi ;  Halle,  1787,  8vo.  From  twenty-seven 
essays  that  were  offered,  none  were  judged  wor- 
thy of  the  prize.  The  faculty,  however,  pub- 
lished the  following  essay  as  the  best:  Jo.  Frid. 
Flatt,  Commentatio,  in  qua  symbolica  ecclesise 
nostrae  dei  deitate  Christi  sententia  probatur  et 
vindicatur ;  Gottingae,  1788,  8vo.  The  follow- 
ing able  and  intelligent  letters,  written  under 
fictitious  names,  owed  their  origin  to  this  prize : 
lo.  Aspontani  ad  Rud.  Plimrnelium,  de  deitate 
Jesu  Christi,  epistolae  quatuor;  Lips.  1789, 
8vo.  Martini,  Versuch  einer  pragmatischen 
Geschichte  des  Dogma  von  der  Gottheit  Christi, 
in  den  vier  ersten  Jahrhunderten;  Rostock  und 
Leipzig,  1800. 

Note  2.  Morus,  p.  65,  s.  9,  makes  the  follow- 
ing just  observation  •  Christ  has  laid  the  human 


race  under  infinite  obligations,  by  the  special 
blessings  relating  to  our  salvation,  which  he 
has  bestowed  upon  us.  But  these  benefits  de- 
rive an  additional  value  from  the  exalted  cha- 
racter of  the  person  to  whom  we  owe  them. 
And  the  gratitude  which  we  shall  feel  towards 
him,  and  our  willingness  to  obey  his  precepts 
and  to  believe  his  doctrine,  will  therefore  proba- 
bly be  in  proportion  to  the  idea  we  form  of  his 
character.  It  is  not  then,  as  many  would  have 
us  suppose,  a  matter  of  no  consequence  to  un- 
dervalue the  character  of  Christ,  or  degrade  him 
to  the  level  of  a  man.  The  truth  of  this  obser- 
vation is  abundantly  confirmed  both  by  scripture 
and  experience  ;  and  it  should  be  seriously  pon- 
dered by  every  teacher  of  religion. 

The  following  are  the  principal  texts  in  which 
the  names  of  deity  are  given  to  Christ; — 

1.  John,  i.  1,  2.  Christ  is  here  called  o 
Tioyoj-  Morus,  p.  71,  note.  John  is  the  only 
one  of  the  New-Testament  writers  who  applies 
this  name  to  Christ.  He  wrote  among  the 
Grecian  Jews,  and  for  the  Hellenistic  Chris- 
tians, among  whom  probably  this  appellation 
of  Christ  must  at  that  time  have  been  very  com- 
mon ;  which  is  the  reason  why  he  does  not  more 
fully  explain  it.  It  signifies  among  the  Jews 
and  other  ancient  people,  when  applied  to  God, 
everything  by  which  God  reveals  himself  to  men, 
and  makes  known  to  them  his  will.  Hence  those 
who  made  known  the  divine  will  to  men  were 
called  by  the  Hellenists  xoyot,  otherwise  ayy?tot, 
Soviet  ®£ov'  as,  ©£0$  ^PTJT'OU  Xoyoij,  Philo,  Migrat. 
Abrah.  Vide  Book  of  Wisdom,  xviii.  15,  on 
which  cf.  Grotius.  Now  this  word  was  proba- 
bly applied  to  the  Messiah,  by  way  of  eminence, 
because  he  was  considered  as  the  greatest  divine 
messenger;  Rev.  xix.  13. 

The  Hellenists,  however,  frequently  asso- 
ciated very  erroneous  ideas  with  this  word  ;  and 
on  this  account  John  undertakes  here  to  correct 
their  mistakes  respecting  it,  and  gives  it  a  very 
elevated  meaning.  He  says :  o  Aoyoj  (the  de- 
clarer, revealer  of  God}  existed  £v  upzy — viz.t  lav 
xoa/j-ov  (rws"!?,  Gen.  i.  1 — i.  e.,  ab  asterno.} 
Did  he  exist  before  the  creation  of  the  world,  he 
must  be  God,-  for  before  the  creation  nothing 
but  God  himself  existed.  This  pre-existence 
of  Christ  is  also  taught  in  his  discourses,  John, 
viii.  58 ;  xvii.  5,  24.  And  the.  Aoyo?  was  with 
God — viz.,  before  he  revealed  himself  to  men. 
K(u  ®?6j  %v  6  Aoyoj,  propositio  inversa,  as  in 
John,  iv.  24.  'O  Aoyoj  is  the  subject ;  the  Logos 
was  God.  Crell's  conjectural  reading,  &eov  %v 
6  Ttoyoj,  must  be  rejected  at  once,  since  all  the 
MSS.  agree  in  the  common  reading,  which  is 
undoubtedly  correct.  Vide  5.  100.  In  thie 
passage  the  principal  proof  does  not  lie  in  the 
word  Tioyoj,  nor  even  in  the  word  ^eoj,  which  in 
a  larger  sense  is  often  applied  to  kings  and 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


137 


earthly  rulers,  but  to  what  is  predicated  of  the 
Aoyo^-viz.,  that  he  existed  from  eternity  with 
God  ;  that  the  world  was  made  by  him,  &c.  This 
text  belongs,  therefore,  to  the  following  general 
class,  as  well  as  to  this. 

2.  John,  xx.  28.     Here  Thomas,  at  last  con- 
vinced that  Christ  was  actually  risen  from  the 
dead,  thus  addresses  him :  6  Kvptoj  p>u  xai  6  ©so$ 
pov.     The  nominative  instead  of  the  vocative. 
Ef  av,  or  some  similar  phrase,  must  be  supplied, 
in  order  to  complete  the  sense :  "  Thou  art  truly 
he,  my  Lord  and  my  God."     It  is  not  an  ex- 
clamation of  wonder,  as  some  have  understood 
it ;  for  it  is  preceded  by  the  phrase  tltte v  avTf^, 
he  said  this  to  him;   addressed  him  in  these 
words.     In  the  same  manner  the  Romans,  after 
the  time  of  Tiberius,  used  the  expression  Domi- 
nus  ae  Deus  noster,  in  relation  to  the  emperors, 
whom  they  deified.     Thomas  probably  remem- 
bered what  Jesus  had  often  said  respecting  his 
superhuman  origin,  John,  v.  8, 10,  17,  seq.;  and 
he  now  saw  it  all  confirmed  by  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead.     Christ  seems  to  have  approved 
of  the  manner  in  which  he  was  addressed  by 
Thomas. 

3.  Philip,  ii.  6,  where  it  is  said  of  Christ  that 
he  is  ioa  0fGJ,  Deo  sequalis  ,•  not  opoio $  ©EU»,  cw- 
•ft^foj,  £to£  wesT-os,  similis  Deo — terms  applied  by 
Homer  to  kings  and  heroes.     The  term  t<jo$ 
®«9,  or  the  contrary,  is  never  applied  to  a  finite 
or  created  being.     Hence  the  Jews,  John,  v. 
18,  considered  it  as  blasphemy  in  Christ  to  make 
himself  IGOV  ©£9     Vide  s.  38. 

4.  Rom.  ix.  5.  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  privi- 
leges of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  mentions  among 
others  the  circumstance,  that  Christ  was  derived 
from  them,  as  to  his  bodily  nature,  £  <Lv  6  Xpuj- 
f6$  to  xaTfa  cfapxa'  and  then  adds,  o  wv  irtl  7tdv- 
tu>v  ©EO^,  ivtoyijtos  s tj  -foiij  atwyaj !     If  this  re- 
fers to  Christ,  it  is  a  very  strong  proof  of  his 
divinity.     For  the  phrase  0s6j  svtoyq'tos  is  ap- 
plied only  to  the  supreme  God,  Romans,  i.  25 ; 
Mark,  xiv.  61.     Besides  o  wv  is  used  for  6j  i<ttt, 
which  usually  relates  to  the  immediate  antece- 
dent. 

But  the  passage  is  sometimes  differently 
pointed,  a  full  stop  being  placed  after  0apxa, 
and  then  this  whole  proposition  is  referred  to 
the  Father.  So  Origen,  Eusebius,  and  many 
of  the  ecclesiastical  fathers ;  vide  Wetstein  and 
Semler.  But  (a)  it  must  then  read,  according 
to  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  Greeks  :  6  irti  itdviw, 
without  wv  or  o  ©t  6j,  o  l*i  itdvtw  (wv)  ;  though 
in  answer  to  this,  it  might  indeed  be  said  that 
Paul  was  little  versed  in  the  Grecian  idiorn, 
and  has  many  ungrammatical  constructions. 
But  an  ungrammatical  construction  of  such  a  na- 
ture is  found  nowhere  else,  either  in  Paul,  or 
the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  (6) 
In  all  the  passages,  without  exception,  in  which 

ia 


these  words  are  used  as  a  doxology, 
(Tina)  stands  first  in  the  clause ;  accordingly,  if 
it  referred  to  the  Father,  it  would  read  fitfioy^i'df 
6  ©EOJ  o  tril  jtdvtuv.  This  usage  is  as  fixed  and 
invariable  in  Greek,  as  in  German  to  say  Gott- 
lob !  instead  of  Lobgott !  (c)  Since  Paul  has 
elsewhere  ascribed  divine  perfection  to  Christ 
in  the  distinctest  manner,  as  will  be  proved  s. 
38,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  natural  meaning 
of  his  language  in  this  passage  should  be  per- 
verted. And  if  this  passage  were  read  in  an 
unprejudiced  manner,  it  would  undoubtedly  be 
referred  by  every  one  to  Christ. 

5.  John,  x.  28—30,  lyw  xai  o  Ilaf i}p  Iv  taptv. 
These  words  are  not  to  be  understood  to  denote 
so  much  an  equality  of  nature,  as  unanimity  of 
feeling  and  purpose ;  s.  35,  note,  ad  finem.  Still 
the  passage  is  quite  remarkable  ;  because  Christ 
professes  to  do  his  work  in  common  with  his 
Father;  and  this  is  more  than  any  man,  pro- 
phet, or  even  angel,  is  ever  said  in  the  Bible  to 
do.     These  perform  their  works  through  God, 
and  by  his  assistance.    Indeed,  they  do  nothing 
themselves,  and  God   does  everything.     That 
being  one  with  God,  therefore,  which  Jesus  here 
asserts  for  himself,  is  something  peculiar,  and 
which  belongs  to  him  only  as  he  is  a  being  of  a 
higher  nature.     Cf.  John,  v.  18,  seq. 

6.  Some  of  the  texts  in  which  Christ  is  called 
the  Son  of  God.     It  is  evident  that  this  name  is 
given  in  the  New  Testament  to  Christ  in  more 
than  one  relation,  and  consequently  is  used  in 
more  than   one   signification ;  vide   s.  36,  ad 
finem.     Morus,  p.  63,  note  2.     Three  different 
senses  of  this  name  may  be  distinguished. 

(<z)  In  many  passages  it  is  synonymous  with 
^PKJT'OJ,  Messiah,  or  king.  In  the  oriental  lan- 
guages, kings  are  commonly  called  the  sons 
nf  God,  by  way  of  eminence,  (so  in  Greek 
Sioytv^s  and  Stomps <jWj  5 )  and  the  most  distin- 
guished among  them  his  Jirst'born,  Ps.  Ixxxix. 
27.  They  were  considered  as  the  vicegerents 
of  God  upon  earth,— as  his  representatives, 
bearing  his  image,  and  entrusted  with  his  autho- 
rity, Ps.  Ixxii.  2.  The  idea  of  a  king,  there- 
fore, is  frequently  implied  in  the  appellation 
Sod  of  God,  applied  to  Christ ;  which  then  is 
synonymous  with  rytyc,  Xptofoj,  Xpi-j-roj  ©sov. 
This  title  was  very  commonly  given  to  the  Mes- 
siah by  the  Jews;  vide  Matt.  xvi.  16;  Luke, 
ix.  20;  Matt,  xxvii.  40;  Luke,  xxiii.  35;  also 
the  Talmud  and  Rabbins.  It  was  undoubtedly 
taken  originally  from  Ps.  ii.  7,  and  2  Sam.  vii. 
14,  both  of  which  texts  were  referred  by  the 
Jews  to  the  Messiah.  If  this  title  is  understood 
in  this  way,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  Paul  can  say, 
1  Cor.  xv.  28,  that  hereafter,  when  the  church 
on  earth  shall  cease,  the  Son  of  God  will  lay 
down  his  jSowttotcw,  and  as  Ttoj  become  subject 
to  the  Father.  In  this  same  sense — namely,  to 

M2 


138 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


denote  his  Messiahship — Jesus  also  sometimes 
appropriates  this  name  to  himself.  He  says, 
Mark,  xiii.  32,  that  he  himself,  as  Ttoj,  knew  not 
the  time  of  th°  judgment  of  Jerusalem.  To  con- 
tend, therefore,  that  this  appellation  always  de- 
notes the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  would  involve 
us  in  unnecessary  difficulty.  But  the  meaning 
which  we  have  now  given  will  by  no  means 
apply  in  all  the  cases  in  which  this  appellation 
occurs.  It  sometimes  denotes, 

(6)  The  higher  nature  of  Christ — e.  g.,  Rom. 
i.  3,  4.  Christ  is  here  spoken  of  in  two  re- 
spects :  first,  xa-ta,  odpxa,  in  his  inferior  nature, 
his  humanity,  and  in  this  he  is  called  Tt6$ 
AauiS :  secondly,  xata,  rivsvpu  a/yuotfvi'jjj,  as  to 
his  higher,  more  perfect  nature,  to  $iiov,  and  in 
this  he  is  called  Ttoj  ©?ov,  and  solemnly  de- 
clared to  be  such  by  God  in  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  Jesus,  moreover,  uses  this  title 
of  himself  in  this  sense,  John,  v.  17,  seq. ;  and 
the  Jews  well  understood  that  by  thus  using  it 
he  made  himself  equal  to  God;  cf.  x.  30,  33. 
Nor  did  Christ  charge  them  with  misunder- 
standing him,  but,  on  the  contrary,  admitted  the 
sense  they  had  put  upon  his  words ;  cf.  ver.  18, 
23 ;  and  x.  34.  Again,  the  predicates  connected 
with  this  appellation,  John,  i.  and  Heb.  i.  ii., 
are  such  as  are  never  used  in  respect  to  any 
man,  or  any  created  spirit.  Thus  Christ  is 
called  pwoymp.  Moreover,  XPKJT-O?  is  often 
distinguished  from  Ttoj  Qsov.  Thus,  Matt.  xvi. 
16,  where  Peter  answers  a  question  of  Jesus, 
by  saying,  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  San  of  God  .- 
cf.  John,  xx.  31. 

(c)  He  is  also  called  Son  of  God,  Luke,  i.  35, 
to  designate  the  immediate  power  of  God  in  the 
miraculous  production  of  his  human  nature.  In 
the  same  sense,  Adam,  who  was  immediately 
created  by  God,  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  Luke, 
iii.  38. 

7.  Tit.  ii.  13,  We  expect  the  glorious  appear- 
ance, the  trtitydvkiav  tij$  86%y$  tov  ^u-syaXor 
®sov  xai  tfwT^poj  3fluwt>  'irjaov  Xpitftfov.  Here 
it  is  objected,  that  if  ©so?  ^e'ya?  related  to  Christ, 
the  xai  would  be  omitted.  But  since  tov  is 
omitted  before  tfw-r'^pof,  both  ^yaTiov  &sov  and 
flw-r^poj  must  be  construed  as  in  apposition  with 
'I^tfov  ~Xpurtov,  according  to  a  known  usage  of 
the  Greek  language ;  and  so  they  are  construed 
by  many  of  the  ancient  writers.  Besides,  ertt- 
$>av«a  is  the  word  by  which  the  solemn  coming 
of  Christ  is  appropriately  designated.  The  pas- 
sage therefore,  is  regarded,  even  by  Henke,  as 
referring  to  Christ. 

These  are  the  most  important  texts  of  this 
class.  Other  texts  are  sometimes  placed  in  con- 
nexion with  these,  which  are  less  capable  of  de- 
fence, either  on  critical  or  philological  grounds. 
Such  are  1  John,  v.  20;  1  Tim.  iii.  16;  Acts, 
xx.  28. 


SECTION  XXXVIII. 

OF  THE  TEXTS  IN  WHICH  DIVINE  ATTRIBUTES 
AND  WORKS  ARE  ASCRIBED  TO  CHRIST  ;  AND  IN 
WHICH  DIVINE  HONOUR  IS  REQUIRED  FOR  HIM. 

I.  Texts  in  which  Divine  Attributes  and  Works  are 
ascribed  to  Christ. 

THIS  is  the  second  class  of  the  division  men- 
tioned in  the  first  part  of  s.  37.  Many  doubtful 
texts  are  often  placed  in  this  class,  in  order  to 
make  out  the  proof,  that  all  the  divine  attributes 
are  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  Bible.  But  the 
proof  of  this  is  not  at  all  important.  For  if  it 
be  allowed  that  one  single  divine  attribute  is 
ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  Bible,  the  conclusion  is 
inevitable,  that  he  must  possess  all  the  rest. 
The  divine  attributes  cannot  be  separated  or 
disjoined  ;  where  one  of  them  exists,  all  of 
them  must  be  found.  And  the  truth  of  this 
cannot  be  disputed.  Vide  s.  18.  The  follow- 
ing divine  attributes  and  works  are  distinctly 
ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  scriptures — viz., 

1.  Eternity.     Cf.  Morus,   p.   60,   61,  s.   6. 
This  attribute  is  ascribed  to  him  in  those  texts 
in  which  he  is  said  to  have  existed  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world;  for  this  is  the  way  in 
which  eternity  a  parte  ante  is  always  described. 
Vide  s.  20.     Here  belongs  the  text,  John,  i.  1 
(s.  37);   and  also  John,  xvii.  5,  Glorify  me 
with  that  glory  which  I  had  with  thee  rtpo  tov 
lov  xoapov  flvcu.     The  glory  here  spoken  of 
could  not  be  that  derived  from  the  government 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  of  the  church ;  be- 
cause neither  of  them  existed  before  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world ;  it  can  therefore  be  nothing 
else  than  divine  glory.     Here,  two,  belongs  the 
passage,  John,  viii.  58,  where  Christ  describes 
his  higher  nature,  by  saying,  Before  Abraham 
was,  I  AM  (f  fyu)  ;  for  by  this  same  verb,  in  the 
present  tense,  does  God  describe  his  own  un- 
changeable being.     Accordingly  the  Jews  un- 
derstood him  to  assert  for  himself  a  divine  attri- 
bute, and  therefore  charged  him  with  blasphemy, 
and  sought  to  stone  him,  (ver.  59.)   And  so  fre- 
quently, according  to  the  testimony  of  John  and 
the  other  evangelists,  Christ  spoke  of  himself, 
in  a  manner  in  which  it  would  have  been  pre- 
sumption and  blasphemy  for  a  prophet  or  any 
created  being  to  speak. 

2.  The  creation  and  preservation  of  the  world. 
This  is  ascribed  to  him,  John,  i.  1 — 3,  Hdvta, 
81   av-tov  eysysro,  xai  #coptj  avtov  tysvfto  ov8t  fv, 
6  yiyovsv.      Ver.  10,  'O  xofytoj  6t'  avtov  eyevfro. 
Col.  i.  15 — 17,  IIpcoT'oT'oxoj  rtdaqs  x*fi>SftA$,  not, 
primus  inter  res  creatas,  which  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  the  context,  ver.  16,  where  the  rea- 
son is  given  why  he  Avas  itputotoxor  but,  rex, 
the  ruler  or  governor  (rfpwfEvwv  tv  rtdaiv,  princi- 
patum  tenens,   Col.  i.   18) ;   in  which  sense 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


139 


Christ  is  also  called  ftp«>t6toxo$  in  Heb.  i.  6,  and 


j}  (i.  e.,  ap^cov)  trfi  xti6tu$  ©aov,  Rev.  iii.  14. 
By  him  were  all  things  in  the  universe  created, 
(si/  0/0*9  iasfto&»7  to,  ftdvta  fa  iv  toi$  orpavotj  xai 
trti  tr^s  y»jfO  the  material  and  spiritual  world, 
(ta  opata  xat  aopata  ,•)  everything  which  is  ele- 
vated, great,  and  powerful,  (^povot  xvpi,6tr]tf$, 
dp£at,  x.  -r*.  7u  >)  all  things  were  created  by  him 
(6t  airtov}  and  on  his  account,  or  for  his  service 
(stj  a-Otov).  He  exists  from  eternity  (rfpo  ndv- 
tfwi/),  and  from  him  everything  derives  its  exist- 
ence (to.  rtdvta  sv  avtq  avveatqxs).  Philo  and 
Josephus  often  speak  of  God,  the  Creator,  in 
the  same  way.  Heb.  i.  2,  3.  Christ  is  here 
described  as  $t  pcov,  (i.  e.,  conservans  ;  cf.  Nirj,  Is. 
xlvi.  3  ;  and  the  phrase  S^D  nSip  applied  to  God) 
td  rtdvta  tfcp  ftr^ati  t  ^j  Svva^ttfwj  av-roi)'  i.  e.,  by 
his  almighty  will  or  command.  That  in  the 
clause,  8i'  ov  xai  tov$  ouwfaj  ijtoirjosv,  the  word 
6ta  may  denote  not  merely  the  instrumental,  but 
also  the  efficient  cause,  is  evident  from  many 
texts  —  e.  g.,  John,  iii.  17  ;  Romans,  i.  5  ;  1  Cor. 
i.  9  ;  and  especially  from  Heb.  ii.  10,  where 
the  same  word  is  used  in  reference  to  the  Fa- 
ther, 81  ov  td  ftdvta.  And  that  the  meaning  of 
Paul  was,  that  the  Son  himself  was  the  creator 
of  the  universe,  is  placed  beyond  a  doubt  from 
the  text,  Heb.  i.  10,  where  Ps.  cii.  26  (7%ow, 
Lord,  hast  founded  the  earth  ,-  the  heavens  are  the 
work  of  thy  hands,')  is  quoted  and  applied  to 
Christ.  Therefore  inasmuch  as  the  eternal 
power  and  majesty  of  the  Father  are  declared 
by  the  creation,  so  far  as  it  is  his  work  (Rom. 
i.  20)  ;  the  eternal  power  and  majesty  of  the 
Son  are  declared  by  this  same  creation,  so  far 
as  it  is  his  work.  For  further  remarks  respect- 
ing the  creation  of  the  world  by  the  Son,  vide 
s.  47. 

3.  Omnipotence  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  Phil.  iii. 
21  ;  omniscience,  Matt.  xi.  27.  John,  vi.  46, 
He  only,  Jwpaxf  tov  rtatspa.  John,  ii.  24,  25. 
He  is  also  described  as  the  searcher  of  hearts, 
ivho  knows  and  will  bring  to  light  the  most  hid- 
den things,  1  Cor.  iv.  5.  Indeed,  it  follows  of 
course,  that  if  Christ  has  created,  governs,  and 
preserves  all  things,  he  must  possess  omnipo- 
tence and  omniscience.  Here  it  is  objected, 
that  from  other  texts  it  is  clear  that  Christ  re- 
ceived both  his  doctrine  and  his  power  from  the 
Father—  e.  g.,  Matt.  xi.  27,  rtdvta,  pot,  rtapfoofy 
vrto  tov  rtatpos.  John,  viii.  26;  xii.  49;  Matt. 
xxviii.  18,  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  is 
GIVEN  me.  John,  iii.  35  ;  v.  26  ;  the  Father  hath 
given  power  to  the  Son  to  raise  the  dead,  &c. 
But  in  these  passages  Christ  is  spoken  of  as 
MESSIAH,  or  as  an  ambassador  appointed  by 
God.  And  here  it  is  evident,  that  he  is  consi- 
dered in  the  New  Testament  both  as  God,  and 
as  God  united  with  man.  Vide  s.  100,  seq. 

Note.  —  The  passage  Col.  ii.  9,  sv  avt  9  xatoixei 
rtav  to  rtTujpc-yta  **$  Stbtajtos  cK-ytcWwcwj,  is  quoted 


to  prove  that  Christ  possesses  all  divine  perfec- 
tions. But  the  text  must  be  explained  by  the 
parallel  texts,  Col.  i.  19,  Iv  avtc?  fvooxyas  rtav 
to  Tttojpcojiia  xatoixyaat,,  and  Ephes.  iii.  19,  where 
the  phrase  n^r^fia  ®sov  occurs  instead  of 
7tA.rjpt.yta  Ssbtqtos,  so  that  ^SOT^J  is  abstract  for 
concrete,  like  tHptofqt  instead  of  Kvptoj.  n?i»j- 
means  multitude,  collection  ;  as  rttojpwva 
j/cov,  Rom.  xi.  25.  By  the  phrase,  then, 
jtav  to  rfXTjpccyta  tys  §s6trjto$,  the  whole  multi- 
tude of  men  living  under  the  divine  government 
are  intended,  and  when  of  these  it  is  said,  that 
they  tv  avtq  (XptUT'9)  xatoixsi,  it  is  the  same  as 
to  say,  All  men  without  distinction,  whether 
Jews  or  Greeks,  have  citizenship  in  the  Chris- 
tian church, — all  are  the  people  of  God.  2w/ta- 
is  equivalent  to  w$  a^/jia,  and  must  be  ex- 
plained by  the  parallel  texts,  Col.  i.  18;  Ephes. 
i.  22  ;  iv.  15;  according  to  which  the  meaning 
of  the  phrase  is,  they  compose  the  BODY,  or  church, 
of  which  Christ  is  the  head  (xs^atoj.)  Ncesselt, 
in  his  Weihnachts  programm.  of  1785,  gives 
another  explanation.  He  supposes  the  allu- 
sion is  to  the  perfect  divine  instruction  which 
is  given  by  Christ,  and  that  in  a  real  and  dis- 
tinct manner  (G^at^xM^] ;  and  not  in  symbols 
and  images,  as  in  the  Mosaic  religion. 

II.  Texts  in  which  Divine  Honour  is  required  for 

Christ. 

This  is  the  third  class  of  texts  in  proof  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  Christ  and  his  apostles  ex- 
pressly teach  that  divine  honour  and  worship 
must  be  paid  to  God  only.  Vide  Matt.  iv.  10, 
coll.  Deut.  vi.  13;  Rev.  xix.  10.  And  in  this 
they  agree  entirely  with  the  prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Vide  Isa.  xlii.  8 ;  xlviii.  11.  Hence 
it  is  just  to  conclude,  that  when  Christ  himself 
and  his  apostles  require  that  divine  worship 
should  be  paid  to  him,  they  acknowledge  that 
he  is  God  ;  otherwise  they  would  require  what, 
according  to  their  own  principles,  would  be 
blasphemy.  The  following  are  the  principal 
texts  of  this  class  :— 

1.  John,  v.  23,  Jill  should  honour  the  Son,  even 
as  they  honour  the  Father  ,•  whoso  honours  not  the 
Son,  honours  not  the  Father  who  hath  sent  him. 
We  reason  thus: — If  the  worship  due  to  the 
Father  should  be  paid  to  the  Son,  and  if  he  who 
withholds  from  the  Son  such  worship  as  is  due 
to  the  Father,  is  regarded  as  if  he  honoured  not 
the  Father,  it  follows  that  equal  honour  is  due 
to  the  Son  with  the  Father.  But  Christ,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  maxims,  could  have  laid  no 
claim  to  this  honour  if  he  were  less  than  the 
Father,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  were  not 
God.  Now  the  Son  is  honoured  as  the  Father, 
his  instructions  and  precepts  are  embraced  and 
obeyed  as  those  of  the  Father  ;  when  the  same 
unlimited  confidence  is  placed  in  him  as  is 
placed  in  the  Father ;  when  all  our  salvation  is 


140 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


expected  from  him  as  it  is  from  the  Father :  and 
this  is  what  Jesus  requires  of  his  disciples. 

2.  That  the  apostles  and  primitive  Christians 
must  have  understood  and  explained  these  and 
similar  expressions  of  Christ  in  this  manner, 
appears  from  their  example.     For  (a)  the  apos- 
tles and  first  Christians  directed  their  prayers 
to  Christ — e.  g.,  in  the  choice  of  an  apostle, 
Acts,  i.  24  :  2v,  Kvptc,  xapStoyvwcrr'a  rtdvtw, 
coll.  v.  21,  where  Jesus  is  called  Kvpwj.     The 
o  Kvptoj,  whom  Paul  invoked,  2  Cor.  xii.  8,  was 
Christ;    for  it  was  that  the  power  of  Christ 
(&vvoyu;  Xpttffov)  might  be  manifested  in  sup- 
porting him  that  he  was  willing  to  suffer;  cf. 
Acts,  vii.  59.     Besides,  in  the  early  ages  of 
Christianity,  it  was  well  known  even  among 
the  heathen,  that  Christians  worshipped  Christ 
as  a  God.     Pliny  (X.  Epist.  97)  says,  he  was 
assured  that  in  their  meetings,  carmen  Christo 
quasi  Deo  soliti  essent  dicerc  secum  invicem.     (6) 
The  apostles  frequently  refer  to  Christ  the  texts 
of  the  Old  Testament  which  speak  of  the  honour 
and  worship  of  God— e.  g.,  Heb.  i.  6,  Let  all 
the  angels  of  God  worship  him,  from    Psalm 
xcvii.  7;  also  Rom.  xiv.  11,  from  Is.  xlv.  3. 

3.  Phil.  ii.  10,  At  the  name,  of  Jesus  (i.  e., 
when  they  hear  the  name  of  Jesus,  6  Kvptoj,  the 
Lord  over  all,  ver.  9,  11,)  every  knee  should  bow, 
of  angels,  (or  the  inhabitants  of  heaven,)  of  the 
inhabitants  of  earth,  and  the  inhabitants  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  dead,  (xafa^^ovto,;)  in  short,  all 
in  the  universe,  without  exception.     Should  it 
be  objected  here  that  these  words  do  not  require 
that  divine,  honour  should  be  given  to  Jesus,  but 
that  adoration  only  which  is  due  to  him  as  king. 
Messiah,  head  of  the  church,  (since  in  ver.  9,  11, 
he  is  spoken  of  in  the  latter  character,  and  not 
as  God,)  it  might  be  replied,  that  in  the  pre- 
ceding context  he  is  expressly  described  as  I<?a 
©£9.     So  that  Paul  here  requires  that  same  di- 
vine honour  to  be  paid  to  Christ  which  he  re- 
quires elsewhere,  and  which  he  himself  ren- 
dered :  All  should  worship  as  God  this  equal  of 
God  (ver.  6),  whenever  they  heard  his  name, 
which  is  above  every  other. 

4.  Here  belong  also  the  texts  in  which  the 
apostles  shew  that  they  place  their  whole  reli- 
ance on  Christ;  looked  to  him  for  all  temporal 
and  spiritual  blessings,  those  relating  to  time 
and  to  eternity ;  and  in  which  they  exhort  all 
Christians  to  do  the  same  ;  and  this  reliance  on 
Christ  is  expressed  by  them  in  the  same  lan- 
guage in  which  they  speak  elsewhere  of  their 
confidence   in   God    and   his  providence,   and 
which  is  never  employed  in  reference  to  men  or 
angels;  2  Cor.  v.  8—11  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  17,  18. 
The  texts  in  which  the  apostles  profess  to  work 
miracles  sv  ovofia-ti  XPKJT'OV,  as  his  messengers, 
and  by  his  power,  are  to  be  reckoned  among  the 
foregoing  proofs — e.  g.,  Acts,  iii.  6,  seq.  &c. ; 


also  the  oaths  and  protestations  which  the  apos- 
tles uttered  by  Christ,  since,  according  to  Chris- 
tian rules,  they  could  swear  by  God  alone  — 
e.  g.,  Rom.  ix.  1,  iv  Xpttffc^,  by  Christ!  2  Tim. 
ii.  7;.  finally,  the  texts  in  which  the  apostles 
supplicate  grace  from  Christ,  as  well  as  from 
the  Father,  for  all  Christians. 

We  see,  then,  from  all  these  texts,  that  while 
the  Bible  always  teaches  that  Christ  receives 
all  his  endowments  from  the  Father,  (vide  Mo- 
rus,  p.  63,  s.  8,)  and  that  the  Father  acts 
through  him  ;  and  bestows  all  good  through 
him;  it  still  describes  him  as  literally  God,  and 
equal  with  the  Father.  And  this  is  sufficient 
to  establish  our  faith  ;  and  further  than  this  we 
should  not  attempt  to  go. 

SECTION  XXXIX. 

OF   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT   AND   HIS    PERSONALITY. 

I.  Meaning  of  the  term  Holy  Spirit. 

ONE  of  the  principal  difficulties  in  the  discus- 
sion of  this  doctrine  arises  from  the  various 
meanings  of  the  words  nn  and  jtvfvpa,  and  of 
the  compounds  tfnp  nn,  D\"JI?N  nn,  101,  Hvfvpa, 
aytov,  Hvsvfiu  &eov,  x.  t.  7,.  These  meanings, 
however,  are  needlessly  multiplied  by  the  sub- 
tleties of  interpreters  and  lexicographers.  It 
may  also  be  remarked  that  the  terms  ^1-9.  Dn 
and  a^rfw  nn,  TLvsvfia,  ayiov  and  Ilw^ua  ®s  ov,  are 
interchanged  as  synonymous,  since  aywv,  £;VP, 
signify  what  is  reverenced,  venerable,  and  then 
more  specifically  what  is  divine.  Hence  the 
expression  occurring  1  Pet.  iv.  14,  TO 
(i.  e.,  sv8ol*ov  or  aytov)  xo,l  (i.  e.)  to  tov 


In  order  to  understand  thoroughly  the  ground 
of  the  various  significations  of  this  term  as  used 
in  the  Bible,  and  especially  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  reader  must  consult  the  general  re- 
marks respecting  the  use  of  these  words,  and 
respecting  the  derivations  of  their  significations 
contained  in  s.  19,  II.;  col.  s.  9,  III.  IV.  In 
continuation  of  what  is  there  said,  (supposing 
it  now  to  be  understood  by  the  student,)  the  fol- 
lowing remarks,  relating  particularly  to  the  New 
Testament,  are  here  added. 

wip_  nn  frequently  signifies,  the  divine  nature, 
or  God  himself,-  but  it  also  denotes  the  divine 
power,  as  displayed  both  in  the  material  and 
spiritual  world  ;  also  the  divine  understanding 
and  knowledge,  and  the  communication  of  it  to 
men.  But  in  speaking  of  the  effects  of  the  di- 
vine power,  there  was  not  in  ancient  times  that 
nice  distinction  which  is  now  made  between 
what  is  mediately  and  immediately  done  by  God, 
since  his  agency  is  not  less  real  in  one  case  than 
in  the  other.  This  distinction  is  not  therefore 
found  in  the  holy  scriptures  ;  no  practical  pur- 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


141 


pose  could  have  been  answered  by  introducing 
it;  and  indeed,  to  have  made  it  would  often  have 
been  injurious. 

Accordingly,  throughout  the  Old  Testament, 
the  trnp  nn,  or  o\"rVN  nn,  is  represented  as 
having  an  agency,  sometimes  mediate,  some- 
times immediate,  in  everything  which  is  done; 
and  to  it  everything  great  and  elevated — know- 
ledge, talents,  discoveries,  arts,  great  actions, 
good  governments,  exemplary  virtue  and  piety, 
&c.,  are  uniformly  ascribed.  Vide  s.  9,  III. 

The  same  mode  of  expression  and  representa- 
tion is  adopted  in  the  New  Testament,  and  was 
common  among  the  first  Christians.  As  the 
people  of  God,  they  were  bound  to  distinguish 
themselves  from  other  men  by  their  knowledge 
of  the  sacred  truths  of  religion;  they  were 
bound  to  live  in  a  virtuous  and  truly  pious  man- 
ner; to  place  their  confidence  in  God  and  in 
Jesus  Christ;  with  the  promise  that  thus  they 
should  enjoy  in  an  eminent  degree  the  blessing 
of  God  and  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  be  greatly 
prospered  in  their  endeavours  for  the  promotion 
of  Christianity.  Now  all  this  knowledge,  holi- 
ness, faith,  and  success  in  their  undertakings 
was  ascribed  by  them  Ilvsv/jLa-et  0719  or  e«ov. 
Vide  1  Cor.  xii.  3,  seq. ;  from  which  passage 
we  also  learn  that  the  influences  and  operations 
of  this  divine  Spirit  were  different,  according  to 
the  difference  found  in  individual  Christians. 

(a)  It  was  the  duty  of  all  Christians  to  possess 
a  fundamental  knowledge,  and  a  firm  and  un- 
wavering belief  of  the  principal  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity; to  live  in  a  manner  corresponding  to 
this  knowledge;  to  have  a  faith  in  God  and  in 
Jesus  Christ,  made  active  by  love.  And  so  this 
knowledge  of  the  truths  of  religion,  and  this 
correspondent  Christian  temper  and  disposition, 
were  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  were  called 
Tlvsvpa  ciytov,  Hvevva  6fov,  Xptfftfov,  or  Tiov. 
Vide  Rom.  viii.  9  ;  Gal.  v.  16,  22,  23;  vi.  8. 
The  gospel  itself,  or  Christianity,  was  also  called 
by  the  same  name,  it  being  the  most  perfect,  and 
a  divinely  instituted  religion. 

(6)  But  some  Christians  were  distinguished 
from  the  rest  by  eminent  abilities,  talents,  gifts, 
and  capacities;  by  zeal,  activity,  &c.  These 
were  made  teachers  and  other  officers  of  the 
church,  according  to  their  various  gifts  and  abi- 
lities. Now  all  these  various  gifts,  abilities, 
and  talents,  of  whatever  sort,  by  which  such 
persons  became  useful  to  the  church,  were 
ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  derived  and  named 
from  him  ;  for  in  these  various  endowments  the 
agency  of  this  divine  co-operating  power  was 
unusually  conspicuous.  These  extraordinary 
qualifications  are  commonly  called  miraculous 
gifts — the  gift  of  teaching,  of  tongues,  of  healing, 
of  working  miracles,  &c.,— all  of  which  pro- 
moted the  glory  and  ad  vancement  of  Christianity. 
Vide  Matt.  iii.  11 ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  12;  1  Thess.  v. 


19.  On  this  account  it  is  that  all  who  oppose 
the  truth  of  God,  or  persecute  the  prophets  who 
teach  it,  even  those  who  put  hindrances  in  the 
way  of  the  influence  of  religion  over  themselves 
or  others,  are  said  to  resist  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
afflict,  to  grieve  it,  &c.  Isa.  Ixiii.  10 ;  Ephes. 
iv.  30;  Acts,  vii.  51. 

Since  now  the  sacred  writers,  like  all  others, 
make  use  of  the  figure  prosopopeia,  and  personify 
these  divine  influences-— speaking  of  them  as 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  they  often  do  of  the  wisdom 
and  other  attributes  of  God — we  should  be  cau- 
tious in  the  selection  of  texts  from  which  the 
personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  be  proved. 
We  should  rest  content  with  those  which  are 
most  clear  and  explicit ;  for  nothing  is  gained  by 
collecting  a  large  number. 

Cf.  Lang,  Zur  Befordening  des  richtigen  Ge- 
brauchs  des  Teller'schen  Worterbuchs  iiber  das 
N.  T.  unter  dem  Worte  Geist.  Schleusner.  Diss. 
de  vocabuli  rtvevpa,  in  libris  N.  T.  vario  usu, 
Gottingae,  1791,  4to.  Scripca  Varii  Argument}, 
No.  IV.,  De  Spiritu  Sancto  et  Christo paracletis,- 
Halae,  1790. 

II.  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  in  the  New 
Testament,  not  only  as  different  from  the  Father 
and  Son,  and  not  merely  as  the  personification 
of  some  attribute  of  God,  or  of  some  effect  which 
he  has  produced,  but  as  a  literal  person.  Vide 
Semler,  Disp.  Spiritum  Sanctum  recte  describi 
personam.  The  proof  of  this  is  thus  made  out 
from  the  following  texts  : — 

1.  From  the  texts,  John,  xiv.  16,  17,  26;  xv. 
26.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  here  called  rtapdxtytos, 
not  comforter,  advocate,  nor  even  merely  teacher, 
as  Ernesti  renders  it,  but  helper,  assistant,  coun- 
sellor, in  which  sense  it  is  used  by  Philo,  when 
he  says,  God  needs  no  Ttapaxhrj-tos,  (monitor.) 
Of  the  Paracletus  Christ  says,  that  the  Father 
will  send  him  in  his  (Christ's)  name,  (i.  e.,  in 
his  place,)  to  instruct  his  disciples.  To  these 
three  subjects  similar  personal  predicates  are 
here  equally  applied ;  and  the  Paracletus  is  not 
designated  by  the  abstract  word  auxilium,  but 
by  the  concrete  auxiliator  ,•  so  that  we  have  the 
Father,  who  sent  him ;  the  Son,  in  whose  place 
he  comes ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  sent. 
His  office  is  to  carry  forward  the  great  work  of 
teaching  and  saving  «nen,  which  Christ  com- 
menced, and  to  be  to  the  disciples  of  Christ  what 
Christ  himself  was  while  he  continued  upon 
the  earth.  John,  xv.  26,  When  the  Paracletus 
shall  come,  whom  I  will  send  to  you  from  the  Fa- 
ther, (Imean,  the  Spirit — i.  e.,  teacher — of  truth, 
who  proceeds  from  the  Father},  he  will  instruct 
you  further  in  my  religion,-  where  it  should  be 
remarked,  that  the  phrase  txrtopfvtaScu  rtopa 
Ilarpoj  means  to  be  sent  or  commissioned  by  the 
Father.  Cf.  John,  xiv.  16,  (6w0«  vplv 


142 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


and  xvi.  28,  (E'&^OV  rtopa  Xlafpo*,  missus  sum,} 
and  NX>  in  Hebrew.  This  procession  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father  does  not  imply, 
then,  as  it  is  used  in  the  Bible,  the  communi- 
cation of  the  divine  nature  to  the  Spirit,  or  his 
internal  connexion  with  the  Father.  Vide 
s.43. 

2.  1  Cor.  xii.  4 — 11,  There  are  various  gifts 
(^opto/towa) ,  but  there  is  one  and  the  same  Spirit 
(ro  av-fo  Hvfvfia>^from  whom  they  all  proceed. 
Here  the  gapt'o/taf  a  are  expressly  distinguished 
from  the  Spirit,  who  is  the  author  of  them.     In 
ver.  5,  this  same  person  is  distinguished  from 
Christ  (o  Kvptof),  and  in  ver.  6,  from  o  ®t oj.   In 
ver.  11  it  is  said,  all  these  (various  gifts)  work- 
eth  one  and  the  selfsame  Spirit,  who  imparteth  to 
every  man  his  own,  as  he  will  (xc&wj  jSovtatfat). 

3.  Those  texts  in  which  such  attributes  and 
works  are  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  can  be 
predicated  of  no  other  than  a  personal  subject. 
In  John,  xvi.  13,  seq.,  he  is  said  hateiv,  dxovs LV, 
3ux/43av6iv,  x.  t.  A.     1  Cor.  ii.  10,  God  hath  re- 
vealed the  doctrines  of  Christianity  to  us  BY  HIS 
SPIRIT,  (the  rfapaxtojT'os  before  mentioned,  who 
was  sent  to  give  us  this  more  perfect  instruction.) 
And  this  Spirit  searches  (cptwp)  all  things,  even 
the  most  secret  divine  purposes,  (jSaJty  ®iov,  cf. 
Rom.  xi.  33.  seq. ;)  in  his  instruction,  therefore, 
we  may  safely  confide.     The  expressions,  the 
Holy  Spirit  speaks,  sends  any  one,  appoints  any 
one  for  a  particular  purpose,  and  others,  which 
occur  so  frequently  in  the  Acts  and  elsewhere, 
shew  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  understood  by  the 
early  Christians  to  be  a  personal  agent.     Acts, 
xiii.  2,  4;  xx.  28;  xxi.  11,  seq. 

4.  The  formula  of  baptism,  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 
and  other  similar  texts,  such  as  2  Cor.  xiii.  14, 
where  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  men- 
tioned in  distinction,  (s.  35,)  may  now  be  used 
in  proof  of  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
since  the  other  texts  upon  which  the  meaning 
of  these  depends  have  already  been  cited.     We 
may  now  safely  conclude  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
mentioned  in  these  texts  was  understood  by  the 
early  Christians  to  be  a  person;  although  this 
could  not  be  proved  from  this  class  of  texts  se- 
parately considered.     Vide  s.  35,  I. 

From  all  these  texts  taken  together,  we  may 
form  the  following  result : — The  Holy  Spirit  is 
represented  in  the  Bible  as  a  personal  subject, 
and  as  such  is  distinguished  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  In  relation  to  the  human  race  he 
is  described  as  sent  and  commissioned  by  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  and  as  occupying  the  place 
which  Christ,  who  preceded  him,  held.  In  this 
respect  he  depends  (to  speak  after  the  manner 
of  men)  upon  the  Father  (John,  xiv.  16)  and 
upon  the  Son,  (John,  xiv.  10,  26,  also  xvi.  14, 
ex  tov  efJiov  KrityloA ;)  and  in  this  sense  he  pro- 
ceeds from  them  both,  or  is  sent  by  them  both. 
This  may  be  expressed  more  literally  as  fol- 


lows:— The  great  work  of  converting,  sanctify- 
ing, and  saving  men,  which  the  Father  com- 
menced through  the  Son,  will  be  carried  on  by 
the  Father  and  Son,  through  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Note. — The  objectors  to  this  doctrine  fre- 
quently say,  that  the  imaginative  orientalists 
were  accustomed  to  represent  many  things  as 
personal  subjects,  and  to  introduce  them  as 
speaking  and  acting,  which,  however,  they 
themselves  did  not  consider  as  persons,  and  did 
not  intend  to  have  so  considered  by  others. 
And  to  this  oriental  usage  they  think  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles  might  here,  as  in  other  cases, 
have  conformed.  But  whenever  Christ  and  his 
apostles  spoke  in  figurative  language,  they  al- 
ways shewed,  by  the  explanations  which  they 
gave,  that  they  did  not  intend  to  be  understood 
literally.  But  they  have  given  no  such  expla- 
nation of  the  language  which  they  employ  with 
regard  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  therefore  fairly 
conclude  that  they  intended  that  their  language 
should  be  understood  literally ;  otherwise  they 
would  have  led  their  readers  and  hearers  into 
error ;  and  the  more  so,  as  they  well  knew  that 
their  readers  and  hearers  were  accustomed  to 
personifications. 

SECTION  XL. 

OF  THE  DIVINITY  OF  THE   HOLY  SPIRIT. 

WE  shall  now  offer  the  texts  from  which  the 
proof  is  drawn  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God  ;  or 
that  the  personal  subject,  called  Hvfvpa,  aytov, 
possesses  the  same  divine  perfections  which  are 
ascribed  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Morus,  p. 
65,  66,  s.  10.  These  texts  may  be  divided  into 
those  which  are  more  important,  and  those  which 
are  less  convincing,  or  which,  though  frequently 
cited,  have  no  relation  to  this  subject. 

I.  Texts  in  which  Divine  Attributes,  4-c.,  are 
ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

On  this  subject  we  reason  as  follows : — If  the 
texts  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  distinguished 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  in  which  he 
is  spoken  of  as  a  personal  subject,  also  ascribe 
to  him,  as  well  as  .to  them,  divine  attributes  and 
perfections,  it  is  just  to  conclude  that  he  is  God 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  Father  and  the 
Son  are  so.  On  account  of  the  various  mean- 
ings of  the  word  jtvtvp,u,  we  may  not  be  able, 
nor  can  it  be  at  all  necessary,  to  offer  a  great 
multitude  of  texts  in  proof  of  the  divinity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  If  one  divine  attribute  is  in  any 
passage  clearly  ascribed  to  him,  his  divinity  is 
as  firmly  established  as  if  it  were  proved  from  a 
great  variety  of  texts  that  all  the  divine  perfec-r 
tions  belong  to  him  ;  for  the  divine  perfections 
are  inseparably  connected,  and  the  possession 
of  one  of  them  involves  the  possession  of  all 
the  rest.  Vide  s.  18,  38. 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


143 


1  Cor.  ii.  9 — 13,  nvcvjta  tptvva,  *a  |3c&»7  ©tot;, 
where  omniscience  is  evidently  ascribed  to  the 
Spirit.  Vide  s.  39 ;  John,  xvi.  13 ;  where  he  is 
said  to  know  future  events,  (futura  contingen- 
tia,)  which  are  concealed  from  every  created 
being,  and  known  to  God  only,  (ev  yovvcwt  §tuv 
xfltoA,  Horn.,)  except  so  far  as  he  reveals  this 
knowledge  to  men.  The  Holy  Spirit,  then,  to 
whom  they  are  known,  and  who  himself  reveals 
them  to  others,  must  be  God.  1  Cor.xii.  4, 11. 
Omnipotence  and  omniscience  necessarily  belong 
to  an  agent,  who,  according  to  his  own  good 
pleasure,  imparts  such  various  gifts,  and  does 
all  which  is  here  ascribed  to  the  spirit  of  God. 
The  revealing  of  divine  truth  to  the  minds  of 
prophets  and  apostles ;  their  inspiration ;  the  mi- 
racles wrought  through  their  instrumentality, and 
other  things  often  spoken  of  as  the  peculiar  work 
of  God,  are  elsewhere  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  the  efficient  agent,  and  considered  as  his 
proper  work,-  from  which  it  justly  follows,  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  regarded  as  God.  Cf. 
John,  xiv.  17 ;  1  Cor.  xii. ;  1  Pet.  i.  21,  seq.  The 
improvement  of  the  moral  character  is  described 
as  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  John,  iii.  5,  seq., 
and  often  elsewhere  as  the  work  of  God,  on  ac- 
count of  the  difficulties  and  obstacles  with  which 
it  is  attended,  and  which  are  so  great  as  to  prove 
wholly  insurmountable  by  the  unassisted  efforts 
of  man. 

The  proof  that  divine  worship  was  paid  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  not  so  abundant  and  satisfactory 
as  that  adduced  to  prove  that  divine  worship 
was  rendered  to  Christ,  s.  38.  Still,  however, 
it  is  sufficient,  when  taken  in  connexion  with 
what  has  already  been  offered  in  proof  of  his 
divinity.  In  Rom.  ix.  1,  Paul  swears  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  ev  TLvtvpaiH,  0719,  as  he  does  by 
Christ  in  the  same  passage.  This  must  be  con- 
sidered an  act  of  divine  worship,  since  both 
Mosaic  and  Christian  rules  forbid  swearing  by 
any  but  the  supreme  God,  Matt.  v.  33 — 36. 
To  swear  by  God,  and  to  honour  or  worship  him 
were  synonymous  terms  in  the  Old  Testament. 
In  Matt.  xii.  31,  to  speak  against  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  represented  by  Christ  as  blasphemy. 

We  are  not  destitute,  then,  of  passages  which 
distinctly  ascribe  divine  attributes  and  works  to 
the  Holy  Spirit,  although  these  texts  are  not  so 
many  nor  so  clear  as  those  which  relate  to  the 
divinity  of  the  Son.  Some  have  taken  occasion 
from  this  fact  to  represent  the  doctrine  of  the 
divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  doubtful  or  unim- 
portant; but — 

(a)  In  this  connexion  we  would  repeat  the 
observation  before  made,  s.  12 — viz.,  that  we 
can  conclude  nothing  respecting  the  interna 
importance  of  a  doctrine  from  the  more  or  less 
frequent  mention  of  it  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written 
with  primary  reference  to  the  condition  of  men 


t  the  time  when  they  were  written,  and  always 
>resuppose  a  more  full  oral  instruction. 

(6)  The  most  important  consideration,  how- 
ever, is  this:  that  by  the  Ilffv^a  oiytov, 
something  divine  (jfi  $tlov)  was  always  under- 
stood by  the  Jews  and  Christians  of  ancient 
imes.  So  soon,  therefore,  as  the  early  Chris- 
,ians  understood  that  the  Ilvsvpa,  oyiov  was  a 
person,  they  immediately  regarded  him  as  God — 

subject  belonging  to  the  godhead.  It  was  not 
necessary, therefore, in  the  first  Christian  instruc- 
tion, to  speak  often  and  expressly  of  his  divine 
nature,  and  attributes.  These  were  very  easily 
understood  from  the  ideas  commonly  entertained 
n  ancient  times  respecting  the  divine  Spirit. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  66,  Note  5.  The  case  was  dif- 
ferent with  respect  to  Christ,  since  the  Jews 
did  not  commonly  suppose  that  the  Messiah  was 
divine,  as  appears  from  Matt.  xxii.  43 — 46. 
They  understood  his  title,  Son  of  God,  in  the 
general  sense  of  a  great  king,  s.  37. 

II.  Texts  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called 
God,  4-c. 

These  are  sometimes  used  to  prove  the  divi- 
nity of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  are  either  inferior  to 
the  former  in  evidence,  or  have  no  bearing  upon 
the  subject.  The  observations  just  made,  No. 
I.  (a)  of  this  section,  have  not  always  been  duly 
regarded.  Writers  have  thought  too  much  of 
the  number  of  texts,  and  have  collected  indiscri- 
minately many  which  have  only  an  apparent 
relation  to  the  subject.  Especially  they  have 
endeavoured  to  search  out  a  multitude  of  texts 
in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  expressly  called  God. 
But  (a)  the  simple  appellation  God,  is  not  of 
itself  sufficient  to  prove  the  supreme  divinity  of 
the  subject  to  whom  it  is  given,  as  Christ  him- 
self declared,  John,  x.  34,  35,  coll.  s.  37.  The 
texts  therefore  which  ascribe  divine  attributes 
and  works  to  the  Spirit  are  far  more  important 
than  texts  of  this  class,  and  prove  all  that  is 
essential.  (6)  It  is  doubtful  in  many  of  these 
texts,  in  which  the  predicate  God  is  used,  whe- 
ther the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  person  is  intended. 
Many  of  them,  at  least,  may  be  explained  with- 
out necessarily  supposing  a  personal  subject,  ac- 
cording to  the  analogy  of  the  texts  mentioned, 
s.  39,  I. 

The  following  texts  are  often  quoted : — Acts, 
v.  3,  4.  Peter  tells  Ananias  (ver.  3)  that  Satan 
had  induced  him  ^svaaOcKM,  to  Hvsvpa  aytov,  and 
afterwards  (ver.  4)  ovx  i^futfw  dv^pwrtotj,  <xM.a 
1*9  ©£9.  The  same  subject  who  is  called  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  one  place  is  called  God  in  the 
other.  But  from  the  comparison  of  other  pas- 
sages, it  might  be  thought  that  the  live vpn  oiytov 
was  here  to  be  understood  in  the  subjective  sense, 
and  denoted  the  Spirit  dwelling  in  the  apostles; 
the  higher  knowledge  and  gifts  with  which  they 
were  endowed ;  their  miraculous  powers,  as  in 


144 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


ver.  32 ;  and  the  passage  could  accordingly  be 
explained  thus :  your  crime  is  not  to  be  considered 
as  if  you  had  intended  to  deceive  mere  men,  be- 
cause you  knew  that  God  had  endowed  us  with 
supernatural  knowledge.  This  explanation  is 
confirmed  by  the  very  clear  text,  1  Thess.  iv.  8, 
He  who  despises  ws,  despises  not  men,  but  God, 
-fbv  Sovta  fb  Hvfv/Jia  avfov  rb  ayiov  stj  57/1*01?. 
Cf.  Ex.  xviM  where  it  is  said,  ver.  2,  that  the 
Israelites  rebelled  against  Moses  and  Aaron ;  but 
Moses  tells  them,  ver.  8,  your  rebellion  is  not 
against  us,  but  against  God,  whose  messengers 
we  are.  Does  this  prove  that  Moses  and  Aaron 
belong  to  the  godhead  ?  Bat  when  it  is  proved 
from  other  texts  that  Christ,  the  apostles,  and  the 
early  Christians,  understood  theHvevpa  ayiov  to 
be  a  personal  subject,  belonging  to  the  godhead, 
(as  those  concerned  in  this  event  undoubtedly 
did,)  then  this  text  and  many  of  the  following 
may  be  regarded  as  satisfactory  proof  of  the  divi- 
nity of  this  Spirit.  But  when  introduced  before 
these  texts,  by  which  their  meaning  is  deter- 
mined, or  out  of  their  relation  to  them,  they  prove 
nothing.  The  sense  of  the  text  in  Acts,  as  deter- 
mined by  the  preceding  texts,  is  plainly  this : 
for  you  to  intend  to  deceive  us  who  are  apos- 
tles— us,  whom  you  knew  to  be  under  the  spe- 
cial influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit — is  to  be  con- 
sidered the  same  as  if  you  had  intended  to  deceive 
God ;  for  you  knew  that  he  from  whom  this 
influence  proceeds  is  regarded  by  us  as  God. 
The  same  may  be  said  with  respect  to  the  for- 
mula of  baptism,  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  It  cannot,  in 
itself  considered,  be  used  as  a  proof-text,  be- 
cause the  mere  collocation  of  the  name  Holy 
Spirit  with  that  of  the  Father  and  Son  does  not 
prove  that  he  possesses  divine  nature  in  com- 
mon with  them.  Vide  s.  35.  But  when  his 
divinity  has  been  proved  by  other  texts,  then  this 
also  may  be  cited ;  because  from  the  former  we 
learn  how  the  latter  must  be  understood,  and 
was  actually  understood  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
church.  The  passage,  2  Cor.  iii.  17,  'O  8s  K-uptoj 
rb  Hv£v/*d  i6ti  has  sometimes  been  translated, 
the  Spirit  is  Jehovah  himself.  But  the  meaning 
is,  Christ  is  the  true  Spirit  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment— i.  e.,  the  Old  Testament  contains  essen- 
tially the  same  doctrine  which  Christ  taught — 
viz.,  the  necessity  of  the  renewal  of  the  heart, 
and  inward  piety.  Some  have  endeavoured  to 
prove  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  a 
comparison  of  different  texts;  but  in  doing  this 
they  have  often  resorted  to  forced  and  unnatural 
interpretations.  An  instance  of  this  may  be 
seen  in  the  comparison  of  the  texts  Isa.  vii. 
8 — 10  and  Acts,  xxviii.  26,  27.  In  the  former 
of  these  we  read,  JEHOVAH  said,  Go  to  this  people, 
&c. ;  but  in  the  latter,  Hvevpa  r  6  aytov  iiMtytis 
8ia  Hffai'ov — xsyov,  x.t.  k.  Here  the  same  per- 
son who  in  the  former  text  is  called  ntv,  in  the 
latter  is  called  Ilvsv/ta  ayiov. 


may  be  used  in  its  more  general  sense  for  the 
Deity,  and  does  not  here  necessarily  designate 
the  person  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Vide  s.  39,  I., 
and  s.  19,  II. 

We  have  now  considered  some  of  the  most 
important  texts  of  scripture  in  which  we  are 
taught  the  doctrine  that  (1)  there  is  only  one 
God;  but  that  (2)  in  this  one  divine  nature 
there  are  also  three,  described  as  personal  sub- 
jects, and  called  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  that  (3)  these  three  possess  in  common  the 
divine  nature.  Respecting  the  manner  in 
which  these  three  make  one  God,  we  are  taught 
nothing  in  the  Bible,  since  the  subject  is  of  such 
a  nature  as  not  to  admit  of  its  being  explained 
to  us.  Vide  s.  33.  It  is  not  therefore  strange 
that  in  their  attempts  to  illustrate  it  theologians 
should  have  pursued  such  different  methods;  that 
in  endeavouring  to  explain  what  is  inexplicable, 
they  should  have  been  compelled  to  call  in  the 
aids  of  human  philosophy ;  and  that,  for  the 
very  reason  that  the  whole  subject  is  beyond 
their  reach,  they  should  have  differed  so  widely 
from  each  other  in  the  opinions  which  they 
have  entertained  respecting  it.  We  should  here 
therefore  refer  to  the  remarks  made  upon  this- 
subject,  s.  33.  A  general  view  of  the  whole 
will  be  given  at  the  end  of  Chapter  Second,  to 
which  we  now  proceed. 


CHAPTER  II. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY. 

SECTION  XLI. 

ARE  THERE  IN  JEWISH  OR  HEATHEN  WRITINGS 
ANY  TRACES  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY" 
WHICH  WERE  NOT  DERIVED  FROM  CHRISTIAN 

SOURCES  ? 

I.  Traces  of  this  Doctrine  in  the  Old  Testament,  the 
Apocrypha,  and  the  Chaldaic  Paraphrases, 

SOME  have  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the 
Jews  had  some  knowledge  of  the  Trinity,  or  at 
least  of  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  godhead, 
from  all  these  sources.  But  (a)  the  texts  cited 
from  the  Old  Testament  in  proof  of  this  point  do 
not  by  themselves  perfectly  establish  it,  as  has- 
been  shown,  s.  34.  Neither  (6)  are  the  texts 
cited  from  the  Apocrypha  altogether  satisfactory. 
The  appellation  a,oyoj  ®sov,  which  occurs  fre- 
quently in  the  Book  of  Wisdom  and  in  Sirach, 
cannot  be  clearly  proved  in  any  one  instance  to 
designate  a  person  of  the  godhead,  but  signifies 
either  the  divine  oracles  and  revelations,  as  Sir.  i. 
5,  or  the  divine  decrees  and  will,  as  Sir.  xliii.  26, 
ev  7toy9  avfov  ovyxsrtat,  rtdvta.  Book  of  Wis- 
dom, xviii.  15,  koyo?  ©EOV  rfavT'oSvj/a/tof,  coll.  ix. 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


145 


I,  xvi.  12.     Nor  does  the  appellation  Son  of 
God,  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  ii.  13—20,  desig- 
nate the  Messiah,  but,  in  a  more  general  sense, 
a  favourite  of  God,  one  approved  by  Heaven,  a 
righteous  person.   The  phrase  Holy  Spirit,  used 
in  the  same  book,   (chap.  ix.   17,  18,)   there 
means  only  a  holy  temper,  virtue,  temperance, 
continence,  sanctitas  animi;  cf.  ix.  4,  10.     (c) 
The  terms  «  H  Nnp>p,  D->nSN  K-WD  are  used  very 
frequently  in  the   Chaldaic   paraphrases,  and 
seem,  as  there  employed,  to  designate  a  person, 

id  have  therefore  been  compared  with  the  ap- 
pellation Tuiyoj  ©eou,  and  considered  as  indi- 
cating the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  This  is  a 
very  important  argument.  It  is  doubtful, 
however,  whether  these  terms  were  understood 
by  the  Jews  contemporary  with  the  paraphrasts 
as  titles  of  the  Messiah,  or  whether,  as  many  sup- 
pose, they  were  regarded  as  synonymous  with 
numen,  majestas  divina.  The  whole  subject 
needs  a  new  investigation.  Vide  Paulus,  Zum 
Anf.  des.  Evang.  Johannis. 

[Note. — Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  use  of 
the  term  7.070$  in  the  Apocryphal  writings,  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  the  term  <TO<J>«X,  in  the 
Book  of  Wisdom,  an  .-Egyptico-Jewish  produc- 
tion, is  used  hypostatically.  Wisdom  is  there 
represented  as  a  being  of  the  purest  light,  pro- 
ceeding before  the  creation  from  the  substance 
of  God,  as  his  perfect  image,  and  the  creator 
and  governor  of  the  world.  Cf.  i.  6;  vii. 
22—27;  viii.  1,  3;  ix.  1,  4,  9,  10,  11,  18,  x. 
The  writer  of  this  book  had  before  him  the  per- 
sonification of  this  divine  attribute  in  the  Old 
Testament,  the  nDDn  of  Prov.  viii.  xi. ;  but  his 
representations  very  much  surpass  that  in  bold- 
ness ;  and  this  must  be  ascribed  to  the  influence 
of  that  extravagant  philosophy,  strangely  com- 
posed of  oriental  and  Platonic  ideas,  which 
then  prevailed  at  Alexandria,  and  which,  not 
content  with  personifying,  distinctly  hyposta- 
tized  the  divine  attributes.^  The  influence  of 
this  philosophy  was  more  strongly  exhibited  in 
the  hypostases  of  Philo  and  the  Cabbalists,  and 
afterwards,  in  the  peculiar  modifications  of  some 
Christian  doctrines,  adopted  by  the  Alexandrine 
catechists.  These  different  systems  of  inde- 
pendent powers,  proceeding  from  the  source  of 
all  being,  formed,  as  they  were,  upon  these 
hints  in  the  Old  Testament,  under  the  influence 
of  a  foreign  and  corrupting  philosophy,  bear  but 
little  resemblance,  indeed,  to  the  Trinity  of  the 
New  Testament.  And  notwithstanding  all 
these  presentiments  of  the  truth  found  in  unin- 
spired writers  before  the  Christian  era,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  must  be  regarded  as  alto- 
gether an  articulus  purus. — TR.] 

II.  Traces  of  this  Doctrine  in  the  Writings  of  Plato, 
the  New  Platonists,  Philo,  the  Cabbalists,  <fc. 

We  find  clear  evidence  of  a  belief  in  a  certain 
19 


sort  of  trinity  in  all  these  writers,  although  they 
differ  in  the  mode  of  explaining  it,  and  under- 
stand by  it  something  very  different  from  the 
Trinity  of  the  Bible.  This  evidence  is  as  fol- 
lows : — 

1.  Plato  believed  in  a  supreme  being  existing 
from  eternity,  but  he  also  believed  in  an  un- 
created, eternal  matter,  the  former  the  source  of 
all  good,  the  latter,  of  all  evil.  The  origin  of 
the  visible  world,  its  relation  to  God,  and  his 
influence  upon  it,  were  explained  by  him  from, 
the  principles  of  the  system  of  emanation — a 
system  which  the  mind  naturally  adopts  when 
it  begins  to  speculate  on  subjects  of  this  nature, 
and  which  is,  accordingly,  more  ancient  and 
universal  than  any  other  system  of  philosophy. 
(It  is  probable  that,  in  conformity  with  the  ge- 
neral principles  of  this  philosophy,  the  ideas  of 
which  Plato  spake  were  material ;  though  this 
is  disputed.  Vide  Plessing,  Versuehe  zur  Auf- 
klarung  der  Philosophic  des  altesten  Alter- 
thums;  Leipzig,  1788,  8vo.)  The  system  of 
Plato  may  be  thus  stated :  God  first  produced 
the  ideal  world — i.  e.,  his  infinite  understanding 
conceived  of  the  existence  of  the  world,  and 
formed,  as  it  were,  the  plan  of  the  creation. 
The  real  world  was  then  formed  after  this  ideal 
world,  as  its  model;  and  this  was  done  by 
uniting  the  soul  of  the  world,  which  proceeded 
from  the  Divine  Being,  with  matter,  by  which 
the  world  became  an  animated,  sensitive,  ra- 
tional creature,  guided,  pervaded,  and  held  to- 
gether by  this  rational  soul»  The  three  princi- 
ples of  Plato  were  thus,  (a)  the  supreme  God, 
whom  he  calls  Hafjjp  ;  (6)  the  divine  understand- 
ing,  which  he  calls,  vovj,  Sj^tuoupyoj,  xoyoj,  sco-r^p, 
cro^ta,  x.  n.  X. ;  and  (c)  the  soul  of  the  world. 
He  indeed  distinguished  the  two  last  principles, 
in  some  respects,  from  the  supreme  God,  but 
still  accounted  them  as  belonging  by  derivation 
to  the  divine  nature.  These  views  are  fully 
developed  in  his  Timaeus,  and  elsewhere.  It 
appears,  then,  that  Plato  believed  in  a  Trinity, 
or  three  principles  in  the  Divine  Being;  but 
whether  he  actually  hypostasized  these  princi- 
ples is  doubtful,  though  it  is  affirmed  by  the 
New  Platonists. 

A  somewhat  different  statement  of  the  Pla- 
tonic system  is  given  by  Oelrich,  in  his  "  Com- 
mentatio  de  doctrina  Platonica  de  Deo,"  &c. 
According  to  him,  Plato  divided  all  things  into 
two  classes — that  which  is  real,  unproduced,  im 
mutable,  capable  of  being  discerned  only  by  the 
reason,  (vorjitos,  intelligibilis ; )  and  opposed  to 
this,  that  which  is  produced,  mutable,  material, 
and  cognizable  by  the  senses,  atcr^r'of,  sensibi- 
lis.)  The  latter  must  have  a  cause  of  its  exist- 
ence; and  this  cause  is  the  Creator  of  the 
world,  who,  in  imitation  of  the  perfect  ideal  in 
his  understanding,  in  which  all  the  reality,  sub 
stance,  and  true  being  of  things  was  contained, 
N 


146 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


wrought  rude  matter  into  the  present  sensible 
world.  But  since  what  is  animated  is  more  per- 
fect than  what  is  inanimate,  and  God,  as  the 
most  perfect  being,  could  not  make  anything 
otherwise  than  perfect,  he  imparted  a  soul  to 
this  sensible  world.  But  this  soul  of  the  world 
is  not  a  self-existing  divine  principle,  since  its 
nature  participates  in  what  is  material  and  mu- 
table, as  well  as  in  what  is  real  and  immutable, 
and  consequently  is  neither  one  thing  nor  the 
other,  but  an  intermediate  being  composed  of 
the  two.  According  to  this  statement,  Plato 
did  not  conceive  of  a  number  of  hypostases  in 
the  Deity  ;  for  the  divine  understanding  (xoyoj) 
could  not  be  imagined  to  be  different  from  God 
himself,  and  the  soul  of  the  world  belonged  nei- 
ther to  the  being  of  God,  nor  was  regarded  as  a 
self-subsistent  principle.  Many  passages  in  his 
writings,  however,  were  so  perverted  and  mis- 
applied by  the  New  Platonists,  that  they  seem- 
ed to  afford  ground  for  their  assertion  that  he 
really  distinguished  a  number  of  hypostases  in 
the  Divine  Being.  Hence  the  strange  and 
manifold  form  in  which  the  Platonic  doctrine  of 
God  was  exhibited  by  Numenius,  Plotinus, 
Porphyry,  Jamblicus,  Proclus,  Chalcidius,  Ma- 
crobius,  and  other  New  Platonists,  and  also  by 
the  Christian  fathers  of  the  second  and  third 
century. 

[Note. — In  favour  of  the  alleged  Triad  of 
Plato,  cf.  Souverain,  Le  Platonisme  devoile, 
translated  by  Loffler  into  the  German,  under 
the  title  Versuch  iiber  den  Platonismus  der 
Kirchenvater.  Ben.  Carpzov,  Trinitas  Pla- 
tonis,  &c. ;  Lipsiae,  1693.  Cudworth,  Systema 
intellectuale  hujus  universi.  In  opposition  to 
the  Triad  of  Plato,  cf.  Tiedemann,  Geist  der 
speculativen  Philosophic,  2  bd.  s.  118,  ff. 
Tennemann,  System  der  Platon.  Philosophic, 
3  bd.  s.  149.  Geschichte  der  Philosophic,  2 
bd.  s.  387.  Paulus,  Memorabilien,  an  Essay, 
Ueber  den  gottlichen  Verstand  aus  der  Platon. 
Philosophic.—  TR.] 

2.  The  New   Platonists   eagerly  embraced 
these  ideas  of  Plato,  and  during  the  second  and 
third  centuries  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  seemed 
to  labour  to  outdo  one  another  in  explaining, 
defending,  and   more  fully   developing  them. 
We  have,  for  example,  a  work  of  Plotinus,  rtepi 
tfuiv  •r'pnov  op£6xu>i/  vrtocS'taGEcov — (i.  e.,  Deus  su- 
premus,   mens,   anima    mundi.}     These    New 
Platonists,  however,  not  only  differ  widely  from 
Plato,   but  often  disagree   among  themselves 
in  their  mode  of  thinking,  and  in  their  phraseo- 
logy- 

3.  The  learned  Jews,  who  lived  beyond  the 
bounds  of  Palestine,  especially  those  who  re- 
sided in  Egypt,  and  in  the  other  Grecian  pro- 
vinces, had  imbibed,  at  an  early  period,  (doubt- 
less a  considerable  time  before  the  coming  of 


Christ,)  many  of  the  principles  of  the  philoso- 
phy prevailing  in  the  regions  where  they  re- 
sided, and  had  connected,  and  as  it  were  incor- 
porated them  with  their  previous  opinions,  and 
with  their  established  religious  system.  They 
first  received  the  principles  of  the  Grecian,  and 
especially  of  the  Platonic  philosophy,  as  then 
taught,  into  their  own  belief;  and  afterwards, 
as  is  common  with  theologians,  endeavoured 
to  find  them  in  the  ancient  sacred  books  of  their 
own  nation;  and  in  order  to  this,  they  inter- 
preted many  expressions  of  their  sacred  books 
in  accordance  with  their  newfangled  notions. 
They  were  encouraged  to  do  this  the  more, 
from  the  opinion  which  they  entertained,  that 
Plato  had  derived  many  of  his  ideas  from 
Moses  and  other  Hebrew  writers.  These  fo- 
reign learned  Jews  seem  also  to  have  been  in- 
fluenced in  their  speculations  by  the  principles 
of  the  theory  of  emanation.  This  oriental  ele- 
ment may  have  been  introduced  in  different 
ways  into  the  later  Jewish  philosophy.  The 
Jews  must  have  become  acquainted  with  this 
system  during  their  residence  in  Chaldaea,  where 
it  appears  to  have  formerly  prevailed ;  and  they 
probably  brought  many  of  its  principles  with 
them  on  their  return  to  Judea;  and  in  this  way 
it  may  have  passed  into  the  system  of  the  later 
philosophizing  Jews.  They  must  also  have  re- 
ceived a  large  portion  of  this  orientalism,  when 
they  adopted  the  Platonic,  or  rather  New  Pla- 
tonic philosophy,  since  the  latter  is  wholly  based 
upon  the  system  of  emanation.  But,  from 
whatever  source  derived,  this  system  is  found 
in  the  oldest  writings  of  the  Cabbalists, — those 
of  the  second  century;  and  from  these  writings 
it  is  obvious  that  it  was  not  of  recent  origin,  but 
had  been  received  by  many  learned  Jews,  before 
and  at  the  Christian  era.  Vide  Joh.  Fr.  Kleuker, 
Ueber  die  Natur  und  den  Ursprung  der  Emana- 
tionslehre  bey  den  Kabbalisten;  Riga,  1786, 
8vo.  These  principles  were  indeed  wholly  un- 
known to  most  of  the  Jews  who  lived  within 
the  bounds  of  Palestine  during  the  lifetime  of 
Christ,  and  afterwards.  They  were  satisfied 
with  their  Pharisao-rabbinic  theology,  and  look- 
ed for  the  Messiah  as  a  religious  reformer,  and 
a  temporal  king.  This  was  not  the  case,  how- 
ever, with  the  Jews  who  lived  beyond  the  bounds 
of  Palestine,  and  who  were  educated  under  the 
influence  of  the  Grecian  philosophy;  they  for 
the  most  part  abandoned  the  expectation  of  a 
future  Messiah,  or  regarded  his  kingdom  as  en- 
tirely of  a  moral  nature.  It  is  among  these 
learned  Jews  out  of  Palestine  that  the  theory  of 
the  Tioyoj  is  found  as  early  as  the  first  century. 
They  regarded  the  7.6yoj  as  existing  before  the 
creation  of  the  world,  and  as  the  instrument 
through  whom  God  made  all  things.  They 
entertained  also  the  same  notions  respecting  the 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


147 


spiritual  world  and  the  emanation  of  spiritual 
substances,  or  aeons,  from  the  divine  nature, 
&c.,  as  are  found  among  the  Platonists  of  that 
day.  And  entertaining  these  views,  derived 
from  the  Platonists,  they  endeavoured  to  find 
them  in  the  OJd  Testament;  and,  as  appears  from 
the  example  of  Philo,  carried  all  their  precon- 
ceived opinions,  by  means  of  allegorical  inter- 
pretation, into  their  ancient  books.  Philo  speaks 
often  in  the  Platonic  manner  of  the  A6yo$,  call- 
ing him  the  Son  of  God,  the  FIRST-BORN  Son  of 
God,  (in  distinction  from  the  world,  which  was 
the  younger  son,)  the  first  servant  of  God, 
fovtspoj  0f6>-,  x.  *.  JL.  The  Cabbalists  fre- 
quently speak  in  their  writings  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit,-  and  there  are  many  passages 
in  the  books  of  Philo  in  which  a  kind  of  trinity 
is  taught,  and  in  which  his  Platonic  ideas  are 
clothed  in  Biblical  language.  Thus,  for  exam- 
ple, in  his  work  "  De  opificio  Mundi,"  there  is 
mention  of  a  supreme  God,  and  of  one  begotten 
of  him,  (elsewhere  called  lipuibtoxos,  Xoyoj, 
vov{,  x.  t.  X.,)  who  was  fulltfoi;  ®eiov  Ilvfvftatoj. 
Vide  Carpzov,  Philoniana,  p.  157. 

4.  When  now,  at  a  later  period,  the  Christian 
doctrine  became  known  to  these  Grecian  Jews, 
and  was  embraced  by  them,  they  began  to  con- 
nect with  it  the  philosophical  notions  then  pre- 
valent respecting  the  invisible  world,  the  gra- 
dation of  spirits,  the  superior  aeon,  who  was  of 
divine  origin,  &c.  They  affirmed  that  the  Son 
of  God  existed  long  before  the  man  Jesus,  and 
that  in  process  of  time  he  united  himself  with 
this  man,  in  order  that  he  might  be  better  able 
to  benefit  men  by  his  instructions,  to  exert  his 
influence  upon  spirits,  and  to  weaken  the  power 
which  evil  beings  exercised  to  the  injury  of  our 
race.  They  regarded  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  all- 
enlivening  and  ever-active  power,  which  flows 
forth  from  God,  and  is  equally  efficient  in  the 
physical  and  moral  world.  These  opinions,  de- 
rived partly  from  Grecian  philosophy,  and  partly 
from  Jewish  and  Christian  theology,  grew  gra- 
dually in  favour  with  the  more  learned  Chris- 
tians ;  they  were  variously  developed  and  modi- 
fied by  the  different  parties  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian church;  until  at  length,  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, one  party  obtained  ascendancy  for  its  own 
peculiar  theory  and  phraseology,  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  the  rest. 

From  the  foregoing  statements  we  arrive  at 
the  following  conclusion : — viz.,  (a)  It  cannot 
be  denied  that  many  of  the  ancient  heathen  phi- 
losophers (e.  g.,  the  Platonists')  believed  in  a 
trinity  in  the  divine  nature ;  and  that  they  were 
led  to  entertain  that  belief  by  the  principles  of 
the  theory  of  emanation,  which  they  had  first 
adopted.  From  this  source  many  learned  Jews, 
who  lived  beyond  the  bounds  of  Palestine,  drew 
their  opinions— e.  g.,  the  Alexandrine  Jews, 


Philo,  and  the  Cabbalists.  These  Grecian 
Jews  did  not,  however,  simply  adopt  the  pure 
ideas  of  Plato,  which  were  variously  represented 
even  by  the  New  Platonists,  but  they  mixed 
and  incorporated  them  with  their  own  national 
opinions  and  their  own  religious  principles,  and 
thus  endeavoured  to  reconcile  Platonism  with 
the  language  and  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  That 
a  trinity,  in  this  sense,  was  known  and  professed 
by  philosophers  and  Jews  who  were  not  Chris- 
tians, is  admitted.  But  (6)  the  representations 
of  this  subject  which  are  found  in  the  writings 
of  Plato  and  his  followers,  whether  pagans  or 
Jews,  by  no  means  agree  with  the  simple  repre- 
sentations of  the  Trinity  contained  in  the  word 
of  God,  nor  even  with  those  which  prevailed 
among  Christians  throughout  the  Roman  em- 
pire, after  the  Nicene  Council  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. For,  according  to  the  Platonists,  the 
second  and  third  principles  belonging  to  the 
Deity  were  widely  distinguished  from  the  su- 
preme God  ;  they  were  produced  from  him,  were 
subordinate  to  him,  and  altogether  less  than  he; 
though  yet,  from  their  derivation,  they  were  re- 
garded as  belonging  to  the  Divine  Being,  and 
were  often,  indeed,  called  God.  Such,  however, 
is  not  the  representation  of  the  Trinity  contained 
in  the  Bible,  or  in  the  distinctions  established  at 
the  Nicene  Council.  But  although  the  Platonic 
trinity  differs  thus  widely  from  the  scriptural 
doctrine,  and  also  from  the  established  theory 
of  the  church,  it  is  yet  possible  that  the  scho- 
lastic and  technical  language  in  use  on  this 
subject  was  originally  borrowed  by  Christians 
from  the  Platonic  theology. 

[Note. — Besides  these  traces  of  a  trinity  in 
the  godhead  found  among  the  Platonists,  Alex- 
andrine Jews,  Cabbalists,  &c.,  we  may  mention 
those  found  among  the  Indians  in  their  trimurti 
(triad),  composed  of  three  spirits,  Brahma, 
Vischnu,  and  Schiva,  produced  from  the  su- 
preme Deity.  For  a  fuller  account  of  this,  cf. 
Fr.  v.  Schlegel,  Weisheit  der  Indier,  s.  108; 
Heidelberg,  1808,  8vo.  J.  K.  F.  Schlegel, 
Ueber  den  Geist  der  Religiositat  aller  Zeiten 
und  Volker,  2  th.  s.  7,  f.;  Hanover,  1814,  8vo. 
Maurice,  Indian  Antiquities;  London,  1796. 
In  vols.  iv.  v.  the  oriental  triads  are  extensively 
investigated.  The  author  finds  "  the  holy  Tri- 
nity" in  all  his  travels  in  the  East.  The 
Egyptians  also  have  a  trinity,  consisting  of 
Knuph,  the  eternal,  all-pervading  soul  of  the 
world,  connected  with  Phtha  (original  light) 
and  Nei'th  (Wisdom.)  For  an  account  of  this, 
cf.  besides  the  above-named  work  of  J.  K.  F. 
Schlegel,  1  th.,  s.  192,  Fr.  Kreuzer,  Symbolik 
und  Mythologie  der  alten  Volker,  s.  78,  f.  of 
Moser's  abridgment.  On  the  general  subject, 
cf.  Tholuck,  Die  speculative  Trinitatslehre  der 
neuern  Orientalen;  Berlin,  1826,  8vo — TR.] 


148 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


SECTION  XLII. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY  DUR- 
ING THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD  CENTURIES  BEFORE 
THE  NICENE  COUNCIL. 

Notice  of  some  of  the  works  which  cast  light  on  this 
portion  of  Dogmatic  History. 

VOL.  ii.  of  the  work  of  Dionysius  Petavius, 
the  Jesuit, — "De  Theologicis  Dogmatibus," 
Ed.  2,  6  vols.  ;  Antwerpise,  1700,  fol. — contains 
a  collection  of  passages  from  the  early  fathers 
relating  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  but  should 
be  consulted  rather  for  the  passages  themselves 
than  for  the  compiler's  exposition  of  them. 
Book  ii.  of  the  work  of  Jo.  Forbesius,  &  Corse, 
"  Institutiones  historico-theologicae;"  Amstel. 
1645.  Both  of  these  writers  endeavour  to  prove 
the  agreement  of  the  earliest  Christian  writers 
with  the  common  orthodox  doctrine  as  esta- 
blished in  the  fourth  century.  But  this  agree- 
ment of  the  ante  and  post  Nicene  writers  cannot 
be  proved  merely  from  their  having  used  the 
same  words  and  phrases,  as  has  often  been  very 
plausibly  contended ;  for  the  earlier  writers  often 
used  these  words  and  phrases  in  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent sense  from  that  in  which  they  have  been 
employed  since  the  fourth  century.  This  re- 
mark must  be  kept  in  mind  in  forming  an  esti- 
mate of  those  works  which  were  written  with 
the  professed  object  of  proving  the  entire  agree- 
ment of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  held  by 
the  earliest  Christian  fathers  and  as  established 
in  the  fourth  century  at  the  council  of  Nice — e. 
g.,  G.  Bull,  Defensio  Fidei  Nicaenae,  2  vols. ; 
Londini,  1703.  Burscher,  Scriptorum  antiquis- 
simorum  Doctrina  de  DeoTriuno  et  J.  Christo; 
Lipsiae,  1780,  8vo. 

The  following  works  are  composed  with  great 
critical  accuracy,  and  with  a  careful  regard  to 
the  peculiarities  of  the  writers  of  different  pe- 
riods— viz.,  Dr.  Semler,  Einleitung  in  die 
Geschichte  der  christlichen  Glaubenslehre,  pre- 
fixed to  the  three  parts  of  Baumgarten's  Po- 
lemik  ;  also  his  Sammlung  iiber  die  Beweisstel- 
len  in  der  Dogmatik,  th.  ii.  s.  1 ;  Halle,  1768, 
8vo.  Souverain,  Platonisme  devoile,  1700; 
translated  into  German,  under  the  title,  Versuch 
iiber  den  Platonismus  der  Kirchenvater,  with 
notes  and  a  preface  by  Loffler,  1782,  8vo;  re- 
published  with  an  additional  Essay  by  Loffler, 
Ueber  das  Entstehen  der  Dreyeinigkeitslehre 
unter  den  Christen,  Ziillichau,  1792,  8vo.  Cf. 
the  Review  of  this  work  in  the  Lit.  Zeit.  Nr. 
295—297,  1793.  C.  F.  Rossler,  Lehrbegriff 
der  christlichen  Kirche  in  den  drey  ersten 
Jahrhunderten ;  Frankfort  am  Main,  1775;  also 
his  greater  work,  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvater, 
10  thle;  Leipzig,  1776—86,  8vo;  in  which  he 
gives  extracts  from  the  doctrinal  writings  of  the 
ecclesiastical  fathers.  The  works  of  Meiners 


and  Oelrichs  on  Platonism  must  be  noticed  here, 
though  referred  to  more  particularly  under  an-    , 
other  division  of  this  section.     The  new  works 
of  Lange,  Muenscher,  and  Augusti,  on  dogmatic 
history,  must  also  be  here  cited. 

[Note. — The  latest  and  most  distinguished 
investigators  of  this  difficult  portion  of  dogmatic 
history  are,  Neander,  Gieseler,  and  Schleierma- 
cher.  The  first  of  these,  in  that  portion  of  his 
Allgemeine  Geschichte  der  christlichen  Religion 
und  Kirche,  devoted  to  the  history  of  doctrines, 
is  thought  to  have  given  the  best  history  of  this 
doctrine  yet  offered  to  the  public.  The  Kirchen- 
Geschichte  of  Gieseler  is  principally  valuable 
for  a  full  and  excellent  selection  of  extracts  from 
the  fathers.  Schleiermacher  has  entered  upon 
an  investigation  of  the  opposition  between  the 
Sabellian  and  Athanasian  theories — a  sphere  of 
inquiry  which  had  been  nearly  overlooked  in  the 
zeal  and  diligence  with  which  every  ramification 
of  the  more  urgent  and  threatening  heresy  of 
Arius  had  long  been  examined. 

The  results  to  which  these  writers  have  come, 
while  they  confirm  the  general  view  of  the  his- 
tory of  this  doctrine  given  by  Dr.  Knapp,  differ, 
however,  in  several  important  particulars.  Some 
of  these  different  results  the  translator  had  in- 
tended to  introduce  as  notes,  in  their  appropriate 
places,  and  thus  to  render  this  history  more 
complete,  and  in  some  parts  more  correct.  But 
he  found  this  undertaking  attended  with  great 
inconveniences,  and  that  it  would  swell  this 
chapter,  already  very  much  extended,  to  an  im- 
moderate length.  He  therefore  concluded  to 
publish  this  history  as  given  by  Dr.  Knapp,  with 
only  an  occasional  reference  to  the  authors  where 
other  views  may  be  found,  and  with  here  and 
there  a  brief  additional  statement.  It  may,  how- 
ever, be  hoped  that  some  fruits  of  the  labours  of 
Neander,  Gieseler,  and  Schleiermacher,  will  be 
reaped  ere  long  by  the  American  public. — TR.] 

I.  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  held  by  Primitive 
Christians. 

Christians  from  the  earliest  times  were  re- 
quired, agreeably  to  the  command  of  Jesus,  to 
profess  their  belief  in  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  at  the  time  of  their  baptism ;  and  these 
names  were  often  used  on  other  occasions,  and 
were  introduced,  as  appears  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as  opportunity  presented,  in  all  the  dis- 
courses intended  for  Christian  instruction  and 
edification.  It  will  of  course  be  presumed  that 
the  first  teachers  of  Christianity  did  not  merely 
repeat  these  names  before  those  to  whom  they 
administered  the  ordinance  of  baptism ;  they  must 
also  have  exhibited  the  ideas  to  be  connected 
with  these  names,  and  have  explained  the  whole 
purport  of  that  profession  which  was  required. 
What  this  instruction  was  we  cannot  learn  ex- 
actly, since,  beside  the  New  Testament,  we  have 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


149 


no  credible  written  records  of  the  first  century 
containing  information  on  this  point.  From  the 
New  Testament,  however,  and  from  the  frag- 
ments of  the  oldest  symbols,  (collected  by 
Walch  in  his  Bibliotheca  symbolica  vetus; 
Lemgo,  1770,  8vo,)  we  may  be  satisfied  thus 
far,  that  this  instruction  was  short  and  simple, 
and  wholly  free  from  subtle  and  learned  dis- 
tinctions. The  early  teachers  of  Christianity 
were  satisfied  with  instructing  the  people  re- 
specting the  works  of  God  (ceconomicis  operi- 
bus),  and  in  pointing  out  to  them  the  various 
and  undeserved  benefits  for  which  they  were 
indebted  either  to  the  Father,  Son,  or  Holy  Spi- 
rit, according  to  the  nature  of  these  benefits ; 
and  they  abstained  in  their  instructions  from  re- 
fined and  scholastic  distinctions.  This  is  evi- 
dent from  the  writings  of  the  oldest  church 
fathers,  Justin  the  Martyr,  Irenseus,  and  Tertul- 
lian.  Justin  the  Martyr,  for  example,  says  that 
Christians  bound  themselves  to  believe  in  the 
Father,  as  the  supreme  God  and  the  Governor 
of  the  world  ;  in  Jesus,  as  the  Messiah  (Xpwrroj) 
and  Saviour  (Swfjjp),  who  had  died  for  them; 
and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  foretold  by  the  pro- 
phets everything  relating  to  Christ,  and  who 
counsels  and  guides  those  who  believe  in  him. 
These  ancient  symbols  were  gradually  enlarged 
by  various  additions  intended  to  oppose  the  va- 
rious errors  which  from  time  to  time  arose. 
Such,  however,  as  has  been  represented,  was 
the  simplicity  with  which  this  doctrine  was  at 
first  taught.  And  even  Origen,  in  his  Books 
rtspt  op^wt/,  states  the  sum  of  the  doctrines  for- 
merly taught  to  the  people  to  be,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Father,  as  creator  and  preserver ;  of  the 
Son,  as  the  highest  ambassador  of  God,  and 
himself  both  God  and  man ;  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  holding  a  place  beside  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  and  entitled  to  equal  honour.  As  these 
primitive  Christians  were  not,  as  a  general 
thing,  scientifically  educated,  were  wholly  un- 
accustomed to  speculate  on  religious  subjects, 
and  contented  with  those  practical  views  which 
they  obtained  from  their  teachers,  and  which 
they  found  most  conducive  to  their  comfort  and 
edification ;  so  their  teachers  were  contented  to 
present  the  simple  truths  of  religion  without  any 
minute  and  philosophical  distinctions :  and  this 
was  the  right  course,  and  they  found  the  advan- 
tage of  pursuing  it. 

II.  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  held  in  the  Second 

and  Third  Centuries. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  first  century,  and 
during  the  second,  many  learned  men  came  over 
both  from  Judaism  and  paganism  to  Christi- 
anity. At  that  period  the  New  Platonic  philo- 
sophy was  becoming  more  and  more  prevalent 
in  the  Grecian  provinces,  and  especially  in 
d  indeed  had  been  embraced  before 


this,  in  the  first  century,  by  many  of  the  learned 
Grecian  Jews.  Vide  s.  41 ;  and  Meiners, 
Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  der  Denkart  der  ersten 
Jahrhunderte  nach  Christi  Geburt,  in  einigen 
Betrachtungen  iiber  die  neuplatonische  Philo- 
sophic; Leipzig,  1782,  8vo ;  and  Jo.  Jac.  Oel- 
richs,  Comment,  de  doctrina  Platonica  de  Deo, 
&c. ;  Marburg,  1788,  8vo — an  able  and  funda- 
mental work.  These  learned  Jews  and  pagans 
brought  over  with  them  into  the  Christian 
schools  of  theology  their  Platonic  ideas  and 
phraseology,  and  they  especially  borrowed  from 
the  philosophical  writings  of  Philo.  And  as 
they  found  in  the  religious  dialect  of  the  New 
Testament  some  expressions  which  apparently 
resembled  those  to  which  they  had  been  before 
accustomed  in  their  philosophical  dialect,  it  was 
no  difficult  matter  for  them  to  annex  their  pre- 
conceived philosophical  notions  to  the  language 
of  scripture,  and  thus  to  carry  their  whole  philo- 
sophical system  into  the  Bible ;  exactly  as 
Philo  had  before  carried  his  peculiar  system 
into  the  Jewish  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Vide  s.  41. 

But  we  find  that  those  learned  Christians  of 
the  second  century  confined  themselves,  in  their 
philosophizing  respecting  the  Trinity,  princi- 
pally to  the  LOGOS;  and  this  was  very  natural, 
since  the  name  Aoyo?  is  applied  even  in  the  New 
Testament  to  Christ,  and  since  so  much  had 
been  said  and  written  respecting  him  by  the  Pla- 
tonists.  These  philosophizing  Christians  con- 
nected in  general  the  same  ideas  with  the  name 
Xoyoj,  as  had  been  done  before  by  Philo  and 
other  Platonists,  (vide  s.  41  ;)  and  differed  only 
in  this,  that  they  referred  the  whole  to  the  person 
of  Christ,  and  endeavoured  to  associate  their 
philosophical  speculations  with  Christian  truth. 
Such  in  general  is  the  fact  with  respect  to  the 
earliest  ecclesiastical  fathers — e.  g.,  Justin  the 
Marty,  (Dial.  cum.  Tryph.  lud.  c.  Gl,)  Tatian, 
Athenagoras,  (in  his  Apology,)  and  Tertullian, 
(Adv.  Praxeas,  c.  2,  seq.;)  the  latter  of  whom 
in  this  respect  follows  the  example  of  the  Gre- 
cian fathers.  On  several  smaller  points  these 
writers  indeed  differ  from  one  another ;  but  in  the 
following  general  views,  all  of  which  are  based 
upon  the  Platonic  system,  they  perfectly  agree — 
viz.,  The  Logos  existed  before  the  creation  of 
the  world ;  he  was  begotten,  however,  by  God, 
and  sent  forth  from  him.  By  this  Logos,  the 
New  Platonists  understood  the  infinite  under- 
standing of  God,  which  they  conceived  to  be, 
as  it  were,  a  substance  which  emanated,  with 
its  functions,  from  God.  They  supposed  that 
it  belonged  from  eternity  to  his  nature  as  apower, 
but  that,  agreeably  to  the  divine  will,  (jSovX^/tarc 
©fov,  as  Justin  expresses  it,  in  the  passage  above 
cited,)  it  began  to  exist  out  of  the  divine  nature, 
and  is  therefore  different  from  God  its  creator 
and  father,  and  yet,  as  begotten  of  him,  is  en- 

N2 


150 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


tirely  divine.  Hence  the  Logos  is  denominated 
by  Athenagoras  rtpw-roi/  ytwrjpa,,  the  first-begot- 
ten; and  Justin,  in  the  passage  above  cited,  says, 


y  t,  x  r(  v,  which  was  sometimes  called  §6%a 
sometimes  Ttoj,  <ro<j><,'a,  ayyfXoj,  and  sometimes 
©60$,  Krptoj,  and  Aoyoj.  By  means  of  this 
Logos  they  supposed  that  God  at  first  created, 
and  now  preserves  and  governs  the  universe. 

The  Holy  Spirit  was  more  rarely  mentioned 
by  these  early  fathers,  and  their  views  respect- 
ing him  are  far  less  clearly  expressed  than  con- 
cerning the  Son.  Most  of  them,  however,  agreed 
in  considering  him  a  substance  (the  term  used 
by  Tertullian)  emanating  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  to  whom,  on  this  account,  divinity 
must  be  ascribed.  Tertullian  says,  Est  Spiritus 
a  Patreper  Filium.  [Vide  Neander,  b.  i.  Abth. 
3.  s.  1039,  ff.] 

Respecting  these  three,  the  early  fathers  con- 
tended that  they  were  one.  Athenagoras  says, 
that  with  these  three  there  was  swots  tv  8v(idpsi>, 
but  iv  ty  ralet  6«u'pf0i?.  Origen  and  Novatian 
make  exactly  the  same  representation  in  the 
third  century.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the 
unity  (fWtftj,  unitas)  of  which  many  of  these 
philosophical  fathers  speak  is  nothing  more  than 
unanimity,  agreement,  correspondence  in  feelings, 
consent  in  will,  in  power,  and  in  the  application 
of  power  to  particular  objects.  They  do  not 
mean,  by  the  use  of  this  word,  to  signify  that 
the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  were  GOD,  in  the  full 
meaning  of  the  word,  and  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  the  Father  is  God.  In  short,  these  phi- 
losophical Christians  asserted  rather  the  divine- 
ness  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  and  their  divine  ori- 
gin, than  their  equal  deity  with  the  Father. 
Justin  the  Martyr  expressly  declares  that  the 
Son  is  in  God  what  the  understanding  (j/ovj) 
is  in  man,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  that  divine 
power  to  act  and  execute  which  Plato  calls  dp^. 
With  this  representation,  Theophilus  of  Antioch, 
Clemens  of  Alexandria,  and  Origen,  substan- 
tially agree.  The  name  Father  is  used,  according 
to  them,  in  relation  to  all  existing  things;  the 
name  Aoyoj  to  Tioywea,  and  Holy  Spirit  to  moral 
perfections.  According  to  Tertullian,  the  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity  are  gradus,  formse,  species 
unius  Dei.  Thus  it  is  obvious  that  these  philo- 
sophical fathers  of  the  church  entertained  far 
different  views  of  the  divinity  of  the  Son  and 
Spirit,  of  which  they  often  speak,  than  we  do 
at  the  present  time  ;  and  this  because  they  were 
more  influenced  by  their  Platonic  ideas  than  by 
the  declarations  of  the  holy  scriptures. 

But  when,  in  after  ages,  the  learned  were  no 
longer  familiar  with  the  Platonic  ideas  by  which 
these  early  fathers  were  influenced,  they  very 
naturally  misunderstood  their  writings,  and,  de- 
ceived by  some  resemblance  of  phraseology, 
attributed  to  them  that  system  of  belief  which 


was  afterwards  established  as  orthodox.  Into 
this  mistake,  Bull,  Burscher,  and  many  others, 
have  fallen.  Various  causes  conspired  to  give 
the  opinions  on  the  subject  of  the  Logos,  which 
have  now  been  described,  an  extensive  influence 
among  Christians  of  a  learned  and  philosophical 
cast,  during  the  second  and  third  centuries : 
these  opinions  were  advocated  by  the  most  dis- 
tinguished teachers  of  that  period ;  and  espe- 
cially they  were  in  entire  agreement  with  the 
principles  of  the  Emanation  and  Platonic  phi- 
losophies, which  were  then  so  universally  preva- 
lent. It  thus  becomes  evident  that  Arianism 
existed  in  the  church  long  before  the  time  of 
Arius ;  and  that  he  was  only  the  means  of  bring- 
ing to  a  more  full  development,  and  to  a  more 
consistent  and  systematic  form,  a  doctrine  which 
had  arisen  in  a  much  earlier  period.  Indeed, 
the  belief  in  the  subordination  of  the  Son  to  the 
Father,  for  which  Arianism  is  the  later  name, 
flowing  as  it  did  directly  from  Platonic  prin- 
ciples, was  commonly  adopted  by  most  of  those 
fathers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries  who 
assented  in  general  to  the  philosophy  of  Plato. 
And  had  not  Divine  Providence  interposed  in  a 
special  manner,  there  is  reason  to  think  it  would 
have  been  the  established  doctrine  of  the  church. 
But  there  was  another  class  of  learned,  philo- 
sophizing Christians,  who  either  rejected  the 
principles  of  the  Platonic  philosophy,  or  applied 
them  differently  from  the  orthodox  fathers ;  and 
these  substituted  another  theory  in  place  of  that 
which  had  prevailed  on  the  subject  of  the  Tri- 
nity, which  however,  no  less  than  the  one  which 
they  rejected,  was  formed  rather  from  their  philo- 
sophical ideas  than  from  the  instructions  of  the 
Bible.  Among  the  writers  of  this  class  was 
Praxeas,  of  the  second  century,  to  the  confuta- 
tion of  whose  errors  Tertullian  devoted  an  en- 
tire book.  Praxeas  contended  that  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit  were  not  distinguished  from 
each  other  as  individual  subjects;  but  that  God 
was  called  Father,  so  far  as  he  was  the  creator 
and  governor  of  the  world ;  Son  (Aoyo$)  so  far 
as  he  had  endowed  the  man  Jesus  with  extra- 
ordinary powers,  and  enabled  him  to  teach  and 
to  suffer  for  the  good  of  the  world,  &c.  In  ac- 
cordance with  this  view,  Theodotus  denied  any 
higher, pre-existing  nature  in  Christ;  and  with 
him  Artemon  agreed,  and  in  the  third  century 
Noetus  and  Beryllus  of  Bostra.  They  agreed 
in  rejecting  the  existence  of  the  Logos,  as  a 
particular  subject  in  God,  before  the  birth  of 
Jesus ;  and  supposed  that  what  was  extraordi- 
nary in  the  person  of  Christ  was  merely  the 
divine  influence  of  the  Father,  (called  Son, 
Logos,  &c.,)  which  dwelt  in  Jesus,  and  acted 
through  him.  But  among  these  opinions,  which 
arose  in  opposition  to  the  general  doctrine  of  the 
orthodox  fathers,  the  theory  of  Sabellius,  who 
flourished  in  the  third  century,  was  the  most 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


151 


celebrated.  Sabellius  regarded  the  terms  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  as  merely  describing;  dif- 
ferent divine  works,  and  various  modes  of  divine 
i  revelation.  According  to  him  there  is  only  one 
divine  person  (pa  vrtoataot^,  but  a  threefold 
divine  work,  or  three  forms  (rp/a  Ttpotfwrta),  in 
which  God  has  revealed  himself  to  men.  With 
Sabellius  agreed,  for  the  most  part,  Paul  of  Sa- 
mosata,  who  also  flourished  in  the  third  century. 
He  rejected  the  personal  distinction  in  the  god- 
head, and  in  opposition  to  it,  contended  that  the 
Son  was  Ojuoorcrtoj  or  awovaios  ^9  Hatpi — i.  e., 
unum  idemque  cum  Patre.  It  was  in  this  sense 
of  the  word  6^00^105,  as  involving  the  denial  of 
a  personal  distinction  in  the  godhead,  that  it  was 
condemned  by  the  third  council  held  at  Antioch. 
In  opposition  to  these  theories,  the  disciples  of 
the  Alexandrine  school  contended  with  great 
;  zeal  for  the  ifadv  vrtoataaiv,  the  proper  personality 
\  of  the  Logos. 

[Note. — The  seceders  from  the  catholic  faith 
here  described  were  in  the  early  ages  commonly 
i  denominated  Monarchians,  because  they  insisted 
I  upon  the  unity  of  God,  which  they  supposed  in- 
I  fringed  by  the  common  doctrine  which  placed 
!  three  eternal  persons  in  the  divine  nature.     JfeTo- 
j  narchiam  tenemus,  they  said  often,  when  compar- 
i  ing  themselves  with  the  orthodox  fathers.     But 
j  this  general  class  comprehended  many  who  dif- 
!  fered  more  from  each  other  than  they  did  even 
[from  those  reputed  orthodox,  and  who  indeed 
j  had  nothing  in  common  but  a  great  zeal  for 
monotheism,  and  a  fear  lest  the  unity  of  God 
should  be  endangered  by  the  hypostases  of  the 
I  Alexandrine  fathers.    Without  any  regard,  how- 
I  ever,  to  these  essential  differences,  all  who,  in 
j  behalf  of  the  divine  unity,  in  the  first  centuries, 
rejected  the  doctrine  of  distinct  persons  in  the 
Deity,  are  here  thrown  promiscuously  together, 
as  they  have  commonly  been.     And  Theodotus, 
Artemon,  and  Paul  of  Samosata,  are  placed  by 
the  side  of  Praxeas,  Noetus,  Beryllus  of  Bos- 
tra,  and  Sabellius,  between  whom  and  them- 
selves, on  every  essential  point  of  Christian 
doctrine,  there  was  a  total  opposition.     They 
agreed  only  in  denying  that  the  prophoric  Lo- 
gos, whom  they  admitted  as  a  power  or  ma- 
nifestation of  the  Deity,  existed  before  his  in- 
carnation as  a  distinct  person;  while  with  re- 
gard to  the  manner  of  his  being  in  Christ  they 
differed  as  widely  as  possible.     Theodotus  and 
his  followers  supposed  this  divine  energy  to  be 
in  Christ  merely  as  influence  exerted  upon  him, 
in  the  same  way  as  upon  the  ancient  prophets, 
though  in  a  higher  degree.     They  thus  regarded 
Christ  as  a  man  inspired  and  commissioned  by 
God ;  and  differed  but  little  in  opinion  respecting 
him  from  the  ancient  Ebionites,  or  from  modern 
Unitarians.     Praxeas,  on  the  contrary,  and  those 
of  his  school,  supposed  that  this  divine,  though 
impersonal  energy,  or  God   himself,   was  in 


Christ,  in  a  manner  altogether  new  and  peculiar, 
not  acting  upon,  but  dwelling  in  and  forming 
one  with  him.  In  Christ,  then,  they  saw  a  full 
and  complete  representation  of  the  Deity,  and 
went  beyond  even  the  catholic  fathers  in  the 
views  which  they  entertained  of  his  divinity; 
so  that,  in  answer  to  the  objections  urged  against 
his  doctrines,  Praxeas  is  said  to  have  asked  his 
opponents,  ri  xaxbv  rtotw  8o%d£tdv  "Xpia-tov  ',  It 
was  on  account  of  this  intimate  union,  and 
almost  identity,  for  which  they  contended,  be- 
tween God  and  Christ,  that  they  were  charged 
by  their  opponents  with  teaching  that  the  Father 
himself  suffered  in  the  passion  of  Christ,  and 
were  hence  called  ^fortaer^tVcu,  patripassiani, 
patripassians.  There  is  plainly,  therefore,  oc- 
casion for  a  subdivision  among  those  who  agree 
in  rejecting  the  previous  hypostatical  existence 
of  the  Logos. 

In  the  following  table  the  writers  of  the  three 
first  centuries  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  are 
ranged  according  to  their  opinions. 


CATHOLIC. 

1.  Justin  the  Martyr 

2.  Theophilus  of  Antioch 

3.  Athenagoras 

4.  Irenseus 

5.  Clemens  Alexandrinus 

6.  Tertullian 

7.  Origen 

8.  Dionysius  Alexandrinus 

9.  Cyprian 

10.  Novatian 

11.  Dionysius  Romanus. 


MoifARCHIANS. 

(N)  Unitarians. 
\.  Theodotus 

2.  Artemon 

3.  Paul  of  Samosata. 

(a)  Patripassians. 

1.  Praxeas 

2.  Noetus 

3.  Beryllus  of  Bostra 

4.  Sabellius. 

TK.] 


III.  Terms  employed  in  the  Discussion  of  this  Doc- 
trine during  the  Second  and  Third  Centuries. 

The  theologians  of  this  period,  in  the  learned 
discussion  and  the  scientific  statement  of  this 
doctrine,  made  use  of  some  peculiar  and  appro- 
priate terms,  which  they  found  convenient,  as 
concerted  watchwords,  to  distinguish  those  of 
their  own  party  from  others  who  differed  from 
them.  Vide  Morus,  p.  67,  68,  s.  12.  The 
more  the  prevailing  theory  was  controverted, 
the  greater  was  the  number  of  new  terms  in- 
vented by  the  different  parties,  who  laboured  to 
state  their  opinions  as  clearly  and  distinctly  as 
possible,  and  thus  to  secure  their  system  from 
contradiction.  These  new  modes  of  expression 
were  first  employed  in  the  Oriental  church,  and 
were  introduced  into  it  from  schools  of  heathen 
philosophy ;  indeed,  they  can  most  of  them  now 
be  found  in  the  writings  of  Plotinus,  Porphyry, 
Proclus,  and  other  Platonists  of  that  age ;  and 
even  those  which  do  not  seem  to  be  directly 
borrowed  from  this  foreign  dialect,  are  yet  ana- 
logous to  the  terms  employed  by  these  Platonic 
philosophers,  and  are  used  in  the  same  sense 
and  spirit  which  they  give  to  their  terms.  This 
newly-invented  phraseology  was  afterwards  in- 


152 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


troduced  from  the  Grecian  church  into  the  Latin, 
by  Tertullian,  who  enlarged  it  by  some  terms 
of  his  own.  He  therefore  must  be  regarded  as 
the  principal  author  of  that  ecclesiastical  dialect 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  (as  well  as  on 
the  other  doctrines,)  which  was  first  adopted  in 
the  African  church,  and  afterwards  generally 
throughout  the  Latin  church,  and  which  has 
come  down  to  us  improved  and  extended  by  his 
successors.  Among  the  terms  which  were  em- 
ployed in  the  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  during  the  second  and  third  centuries, 
the  following  are  the  most  common — viz. : 
.»  1.  Tpi'aj.  This  term  is  among  those  which 
were  employed  by  the  Platonic  philosophers, 
Plotinus,  Proclus,  &c.,  who  spoke  of  many  tri- 
ads in  the  Deity.  It  was  first  introduced  into 
the  discussion  of  the  Trinity  among  Christians, 
as  far  as  we  can  learn,  by  Theophilus  of  Anti- 
och,  of  the  second  century ;  and  was  afterwards 
often  used  by  Origen  in  the  third  century.  It 
was  translated  into  the  Latin  by  Tertullian,  by 
the  word  trinitas;  and  the  phrase  trinitatis 
unitas,  answering  to  the  iWutj  of  Athenagoras, 
occurs  in  his  book,  Adver.  Praxeam,  c.  2,  3,  &c. 
[Of  this  word  the  English  trinity  is  the  exact 
translation.]  It  is  less  correctly  rendered  in 
German  by  the  word  Dreyeinigkeit  [the  usual 
term  for  denoting  the  Trinity  among  German 
theologians;  less  accurate,  however,  than  the 
word  trinity i  because  it  expresses  agreement  of 
affection  and  will  merely,  and  therefore  seems 
to  lean  towards  tritheism.  It  contains  the  same 
implication  as  would  be  expressed  in  the  Eng- 
lish word  trianimity,  if  such  a  word  may  be 
supposed.]  It  was  at  first  rendered  into  German 
by  the  word  Dreyfaltigkeit  [Anglice,  triplicity~\, 
which,  however,  was  opposed  by  Luther,  as  fa- 
vouring the  Sabellian  view  of  the  divine  nature. 
Basedow  recommends  that  the  word  Dreyeinheit 
[triunity~\  be  used  to  denote  this  doctrine,  and 
to  render  the  Latin  trinitas.  And  this  word,  it 
must  be  confessed,  would  better  express  the 
scriptural  doctrine  and  the  theory  of  the  church 
at  the  present  day  than  the  term  commonly 
employed.  It  is  less  proper,  however,  than 
Dreyeinigkeit,  to  express  what  was  intended  in 
the  second  and  third  centuries  by  the  terms 
tfpt'aj,  trinitas,  trinitatis  unitas,  which  was  not 
so  much  the  unity  and  perfect  equality  of  nature 
as  simple  agreement  of  will,  which  is  exactly 
rendered  by  the  word  Dreyeinigkeit.  The  lat- 
ter word,  on  the  other  hand,  taken  in  its  common 
and  literal  acceptation,  does  not  express  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  church  at  the 
present  day,  so  well  as  the  term  Dreyeinheit 
\triunity.~\  If  we  wished  to  designate  this 
doctrine  by  a  German  word  as  various  and  com- 
prehensive in  its  meaning  as  the  Latin  trinitas, 
[English,  trinity,]  the  word  Dreyheit  would  be 
the  best;  but  if  we  wished  to  express  more  ex- 


actly the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  the  present 
belief  of  the  church,  we  must  prefer  the  word 
which  Basedow  has  recommended — viz.,  Drey- 
einheit  [triunity.~\ 

2.  Ovtft'a  vrtouratftj.     These  terms  were  not 
sufficiently  distinguished  from  each  other  by 
the  Greek  fathers  of  the  second  and  third  cen- 
turies, and  were  often  used  by  them  as  entirely 
synonymous.     Tertullian  translates   avola,    by 
substantia,  and  affirms  substantial  unitatem  in  the 
Trinity.    By  the  word  vrtoataw  the  older  Greek 
fathers  understood  only  a  really  existing  subject, 
in  opposition  to  a  nonentity,  or  to  a  merely  ideal 
existence;  in  which  sense  they  also  not  unfre- 
quently  used  the  word  ovala,.     Thus,  according 
to  the  Platonists,  the  Aoyos  existed  in  God  even 
from  eternity, but  at  first  as  an  impersonal  idea, 
and  became  an  hypostasis  only  shortly  before  the 
creation  of  the  world,  in  order  that  the  world 
might  be  created  by  him.     The  New  Platonists 
employed  the  word  vtyiatdvat,  in  reference  to  the 
deity  in  itself,  and  called  their  triads  vrtoatdtifif, 
or  to,  vfyiataptva,.     Vide  Proclus,  Tim.  p.  131, 
177.     But  the  meaning  of  this  word  has  gradu- 
ally been  altered  in  later  times,  especially  since 
the  fourth  century.     Vide  s.  43,  II.  2. 

3.  Persona.  This  word  was  first  employed  by 
Tertullian,  in  the  passage  above  cited  ;  and  by 
it  he  means,  an  individual,  (subjectum  intelli- 
gens,~y  a  single  being,  distinguished  from  others 
by  certain  peculiar  qualities,  attributes,  and  re- 
lations ;  and  so  he  calls  Pater,  Filius,  Spirit  us 
Sanctus,  ires  personse,  at  the  same  time  that  be 
ascribes  to  them  unitas  substantiae,  because  they 
belong  to  the  divine  nature  (o-vca'a)  existing  from 
eternity.     He  asserts  this  in  opposition  to  Prax- 
eas,  who  would  allow  of  no  distinction  between 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit.     Among  the  Greeks, 
Origen  is  the  first  who  used  the  word  vrtoa-caoif 
in  a  sense  like  that  which  Tertullian  connects 
with  persona ;  and  he  accordingly  says,  We  be- 
lieve in  three  vrtocff  affiij,  Ilowcpa,  Tlov,  xai  ILvsv- 
ua  aycoy. 

ECTION  XLIIL 

HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY  DUR- 
ING THE  FOURTH  CENTURY  ;  AND  OF  THE  DIS- 
TINCTIONS ESTABLISHED  AT  THE  NICENE  COUN- 
CIL, AND  SINCE  ADOPTED  IN  THE  ORTHODOX 
CHURCH, 

I.  The  Trinity,  as  held  in  the  Fourth  Century. 

IT  had  already  been  settled  by  many  councils 
held  during  the  third  century,  and  in  the  sym- 
bols which  they  had  adopted  in  opposition  to 
Sabellius  and  Paul  of  Samosata,  that  the  Father 
must  be  regarded  as  really  distinguished  from 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  as  distinguished 
from  both.  But  there  had  been  as  yet  no  con- 
troversy among  the  learned  respecting  the  mu- 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


153 


ual  relation  of  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity, 
>r  respecting  the  question  in  what  the  distinction 
jetween  them  properly  consists ;  and  these  sub- 
ets  were  accordingly  left  as  yet  undetermined 
>y  the  decisions  of  councils  and  symbols.  Vide 
s,  42.  The  learned  men  of  this  period,  there- 
ore,  entertained  different  opinions  on  these  sub- 
ects,  and  were  at  liberty  to  express  themselves 
according  to  their  own  convictions.  At  length, 
icwever,  one  of  these  opinions  prevailed  over 
the  rest,  and  through  the  influence  of  those 
athers  by  whom  it  was  advocated,  and  through 
he  patronage  of  the  imperial  court,  was  adopted 
jy  the  Nicene  Council,  and  authoritatively  pre- 
;ribed  as*  a  rule  of  faith  of  universal  obligation. 

Origen  and  his  followers  had  maintained 
gainst  the  Sabellians  that  there  were  in  God 
s  i>7tocfT'aff£i$,  (tres  personae,)  but  fw*v  oi3<yt'av, 
[una  substantia,)  which  was  common  to  the 
hree.  They  had  not,  however,  or  at  least  but 
efw  of  them,  as  yet  taught,  that  these  three  per- 
ons  were  entirely  equal  to  one  another ;  but,  on 
he  contrary,  had  allowed,  in  accordance  with 
heir  Platonic  principles,  that  the  Son,  though 
>elonging  to  the.  divine  nature,  was  yet  subor- 
dinate to  the  Father.  But  at  length,  in  the  be- 
rinningof  the  fourth  century,  Alexander,  Bishop 
>f  Alexandria,  and  Athanasius,  his  successor, 
attempted  to  unite  the  hypotheses  of  Origen-and 
Sabellius,  thinking  that  the  truth  lay  between 
he  two  extremes,  and  that  the  subordinate  per- 
sons of  Origen,  or  the  one  undistinguished  na- 
ture of  Sabellius,  were  alike  inconsistent  with 
the  representations  of  the  Bible.  In  forming 
his  theory,  Athanasius  exhibited  great  sagacity 
ind  penetration,  and  it  must  be  allowed  to  have 
i  decided  superiority  over  the  partial  and  un- 
scriptural  theory  of  Arius.  He  stated  the  per- 
sonal distinction  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  to 
je,  that  the  former  was  without  beginning  and 
unbcgotten,  (amp^os,  dysvi/^foj,)  while  the  latter 
was  eternally  begotten  (ysvi^-i'ds)  by  the  Father, 
and  equally  eternal  with  the  Father  and  the 
Spirit. 

The  Arian  controversy  began  about  the  year 
320.  Alexander,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  had 
taught  the  doctrine  tv  tfpuxSt  pwaSa  sivat.  This 
doctrine  was  disputed  by  Arius,  a  presbyter  of 
Alexandria,  who  affirmed  that  it  was  inconsist- 
ent with  the  personal  distinction  in  the  Deity, 
and  therefore  favoured  the  Sabellian  theory.  As 
the  controversy  proceeded,  the  breach  widened, 
and  Arius  at  last  distinctly  affirmed,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Sabellians,  that  there  were  not  only 
three  persons  in  God,  but  that  they  were  unequal 
in  glory  (6d|atj  oi^  6/totat) ; — that  the  Father 
alone  was  the  supreme  God  (dyaj/i/^oj),  and 
God  in  a  higher  sense  than  the  Son ; — that  the 
Son  derived  his  divinity  from  the  Father  before 
the  creation  of  the  world,  and  that  he  owed  his 
existence  to  the  divine  will  (^Tuj^atfc  ©sen)  T 
20 


Ttpo  ouwj/cov  xt'ta&atf)  ; — and  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  likewise  divine  in  a  sense  in- 
ferior to  that  in  which  the  Father  is  so.  These 
doctrines  were  not  in  reality  different  from  those 
entertained  by  the  early  Christian  fathers,  who 
had  come  under  the  influence  of  the  New  Pla- 
tonic Philosophy.  They  were, however,  carried 
out  by  Arius  to  all  their  legitimate  consequences, 
and  stated  by  him  in  a  more  distinct  form  than 
had  been  done  by  any  who  preceded  him.  [For 
a  more  particular  statement  of  the  system  of 
Arius,  from  his  own  writings,  vide  Hahn,  Lehr- 
buch  des  christ.  Glaubens,  s.  242 ;  Gieseler, 
b.  i.  s.  334.  Cf.  Neander,  Allg.  Gesch.  b.  ii. 
Abth.  2,  s.  770.] 

It  was  not  long,  however,  before  different 
parties  arose  among  the  followers  of  Arius,  who 
adopted  different  modes  of  expression.  Some 
maintained  that  the  Son  is  in  all  respects  unlike 
the  Father,  (xata  navta,  cw/djttots.)  [These  are 
called  by  different  names,  descriptive  of  their 
doctrine — viz.,  avojumot,  rfnomoians,  also  Hete- 
rousians ;  and  also  after  their  leaders,  Aetius, 
Bishop  at  Alexandria,  362 ;  Eunomius,  Bishop 
at  Cyzicus,  392;  Acacius,  Eudoxius,  &c. 
This  party  prevailed  at  a  council  held  at  Sir- 
miuin,  357,  and  their  confession  of  faith  is  con- 
tained in  the  Formula  Synodi  Sirmiensis. — TR.] 
Others  contended  that  the  Son,  though  not  of 
the  same,  was  yet  of  a  similar  nature  with  the 
Father,  (o^otoutftoj  ^9  Ttowpt.)  [These  were 
called  oftoiovGio.G'tai,,  'tfyuapsiot,  Semi-Brians^ 
also  Eusebians,  from  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Nico- 
media,  who  endeavoured  to  reconcile  the  ad- 
herents of  Arius  and  Athanasius.  At  first,  this 
party  was  outnumbered  by  the  stricter  Arians 
in  the  council  above  mentioned,  held  at  Sir- 
mium,  357.  But  under  their  leaders,  Basilius, 
Bishop  of  Ancyra,  and  Georgius,  Bishop  of 
Laodicea,  they  united  the  year  following  in  a 
synod  at  Ancyra,  where  they  rejected  alike  the 
Arian  and  Nicene  formulas,  and  anathematized 
alike  those  that  held  that  the  Son  is  avopoiov 
tc>  Tta-r'pc.,  or  that  he  is  6/j.oovaiov  17 
tq  rtafpu — TR.]  All  the  Arians, 
of  whatever  party,  agreed  in  rejecting  the  term 
o/toovtfios,  because,  in  their  view,  it  set  aside  the 
personal  distinction  in  the  Deity,  and  made  the 
Son  unum  idemque  cum  Patre.  For  the  same 
reason,  the  orthodox  of  the  third  century  had 
condemned  it  in  Paul  of  Samosata.  Vide  s.  42. 
But  in  opposing  the  Arians,  some  of  the 
teachers  of  this  period  fell  into  the  opposite  ex- 
treme, and  professed  a  scheme  substantially  the 
same  with  that  of  Sabellius.  Of  this  class  were 
Marcellus,  Bishop  of  Ancyra,  and  Photinus, 
Bishop  of  Sirmium.  [The  former  of  these  was 
a  zealous  advocate  of  the  Nicene  formula,  and 
was  probably  betrayed  by  his  zeal  for  the 
o^toovoftoj,  unconsciously,  into  the  error  of  Sa- 
bellius. Though  condemned  by  the  Arians  and 


154 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Semi-Arians  in  a  council  held  at  Constantinople, 
(33l>,)  he  was  approved  by  the  Council  held  at 
Sardica,  and  was  favourably  regarded  by  Atha- 
nasius,  and  generally  in  the  Western  church. 
Vide  Neander,  b.  ii.  Abth.  3,  s.  841.  Photi- 
nus,  on  the  other  hand,  boldly  and  deliberately 
advocated  Sabellianism,  and  was  condemned 
not  only  by  the  Eusebians,  in  the  second  Coun- 
cil at  Antioch,  (343,)  but  also  by  the  Western 
church  in  the  Council  at  Milan,  (346.)  The 
opposition  of  the  Arians  and  Semi-Arians 
against  these  men,  in  the  council  at  Sirmiam, 
very  much  conduced  to  the  union  of  all  anti- 
Athanasians.  —  TR.] 

In  opposition  to  all  these,  and  various  other 
theories,  Athanasius  and  his  adherents  contended 
with  great  zeal.  Their  great  object  was  to  find 
the  true  medium  between  Arianism  and  Sabel- 
lianism, and  to  establish  certain  formulas  in  op- 
position to  both.  And  in  this  they  succeeded  ; 
and  at  a  general  council  at  Nice,  in  the  year  325, 
a  symbol  was  adopted,  which  was  designed  to 
be  thenceforward  the  only  standard  of  orthodoxy. 
[The  Nicene  symbol  is  as  follows  :  —  "  TLiofev- 
Ojitfv  atj  sva  ©*6v,  Hattpa  rtavtoxpdtopu,  ndvtu>v 
updtwv  ts  xal  aopdt&v  rtoiqtqv.  Kat  ftj  tva 
Kuptov  'Inflow  XptffT'oi',  tov  Ttov  tov  ©EOU,  ysv- 
vr^ivta,  tx  tov  TLatpos,  p.ovo'ytvr],  tovttativ,  tx 
•Crfi  ovataj  tov  Ila-fpoj,  &sov  tx  ©fov,  (J>u>j  ix  <J>wros, 
®tbv  afarj&vbv  ix  ©sou  aKyfewov,  ysvvrj^svta,  ov 
rtoirj'&tvtn,  o/jioovijiov  tct  Hatpi,  01  ov  fa  rtavta 
fytvtto,  to,  ts  iv  tq  ovpavci  xai  fa  ev  ty  yjy,  tov 
8t'  fjfia,^  tov$  di^ptoTtovj  xai  Sid,  trjv  g^u.st'Epav  cjcot  rj- 
piav  xo,tsk$6vta,  xai  aapxco^tv-r'a,  xai  f 
oav-r'a,  rta&bvta  xai,  avarftctvta  ty  tpit1*]  ^jut 

t$  tov$  ovpavoi)$,  xai  IftjfOfUVW  xpivat, 
xai   vtxpov$.     Kat  £t$  -to   dyiov 
8s  Xeyoi'T'aj,  OT't  r/v  rto-tf  bts  ovx  ^v,  xat 
^tvai  ovx  iv,  xai  oi?i>  t|  ovx 


i^  Tiov  -rov  ©SOD, 

17  xa^oXtxjy  ^xx^crta."]  This  sym- 
bol was  confirmed  at  the  council  held  at  Con- 
stantinople in  the  year  381,  under  Theodosius 
the  Great,  and  so  enlarged  as  to  meet  certain 
heresies  which  had  in  the  meantime  arisen.  [A 
sect  called  rtvsvpaifopdzoi,  Pneumatomachians^ 
who  agreed  generally  in  opinion  with  the  Semi- 
Arians,  maintained  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  not 
the  same  relation  to  the  Father  which  the  Son 
has,  but  derives  his  existence  directly  from  the 
Son.  Those  of  this  sect  were  afterwards  called 
Macedonians,  in  honour  of  Macedonius,  who 
was  deposed  from  office  by  the  stricter  Arians 
on  account  of  his  adherence  to  this  doctrine. 
In  opposition  to  this  doctrine  it  was  that  the  fol- 
lowing addition  was  made  to  the  Nicene  formula 
respecting  the  Holy  Spirit:  —  TL^-ttvo^v  st?  to 
oytov  IIv£i)ju.a,  (T*O  Kvptov,  to  cfwortotov,  to  tx 
tov  IlaT'poj  exrtope  vopf  vov,  to  avv  Horfpi, 
xai  Tt(j>  avfATCpoiSxvvovpwov  xat  rfwdolioU^usi/oi/,  to 


8id  tMV  rtpo^t'cav.)  Respecting  the 
clause  to  ix  tov  TJarpoj  txrtopEvo/juvov,  a  serioos 
difference  afterwards  arose,  which  ended  at 
length,  in  the  eleventh  century,  in  the  entire 
division  of  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches 
which  still  subsists.  Vide  No.  III.  I.  (c) 
Third,  of  this  section. — TR.] 

The  distinctions  established  at  the  Councils 
of  Nice  and  Constantinople  were  often  re-en- 
acted at  various  councils  during  the  succeeding 
ages.  To  the  Arians,  however,  and  to  many 
who  were  not  Arians,  they  still  appeared  to  be 
not  only  unfounded  but  injurious.  They  in- 
sisted that  trithtism  was  the  inevitable  conse- 
quence of  the  admission  of  these  distinctions, 
though  Athanasius  strongly  protested  against 
this  conclusion.  Some  were  actually  accused 
of  tritheism  during  the  sixth  century,  though 
they  probably  were  chargeable  with  no  other 
fault  than  an  unguarded  use  of  language.  [The 
principal  writers  who  fell  under  suspicion  of 
tritheism  were  John  Ascosnages,  a  learned 
Syrian,  and  teacher  of  philosophy  at  Constan- 
tinople, A.  D.  565;  and  his  disciple,  John  Phi- 
loponus,  a  celebrated  grammarian  of  Alexandria, 
A.  D.  641.  Among  the  schoolmen,  Roscellinus, 
Gilbert  de  la  Porree,  Peter  Abellard,  and  Jo- 
achim of  Flora,  were  condemned  on  account  of 
tritheism. — TR.] 

Notwithstanding  all  opposition,  however,  the 
distinctions  adopted  in  the  Council  at  Nice  re- 
mained in  force;  and  so  carefully  were  they 
guarded,  that  during  the  whole  period  between 
the  fourth  and  the  sixteenth  centuries  but  few 
were  found  bold  enough  to  dissent,  or  to  broach 
any  novelties,  and  those  few  found  scarcely  any 
adherents.  Even  the  schoolmen,  who  were  so 
much  addicted  to  speculate  and  refine  on  other 
subjects,  remained  faithful,  as  a  body,  to  the 
distinctions  once  established  on  the  subject  of 
the  Trinity. 

II.  Terms  employed  in  the  Discussion  of  this  Doc- 
trine since  the  Nicene  Council. 

1.  Ovai'a,  substantia.     This  term,  like  all  the 
others  in  common  use  in  the  discussion  of  this 
doctrine,  is  in  itself  very  ambiguous,  and  was 
employed  in  various  senses  even  by  the  ecclesi- 
astical fathers  of  this  period.     It  was  used  to 
signify  (a)  whatever  really  exists,  in  opposition 
to  what  has  no  existence,  or  exists  merely  in 
imagination.     Vide  s.  42.     (&)  Whatever  exists 
for  itself  has  personal  self-subsistence,  in  short,  a 
person.   Hence  some,  in  opposition  to  Sabellius, 
spake  of -rpftj  ovviai,  ev  ©SQ.    (c)  The  entire  sum 
of  the  attributes  which  belong  to  a  thing,  its  na- 
ture.    In  this  sense  it  was  employed  when  it 
was   said   that  three  persons  belonged  to  the 
owJa  ®wv.     Hence  the  phrase  o^toovtjtoj,  con- 
substaniialis. 

2.  "^rtoafatftj    and  rtotfwtoi'.     The   former 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


155 


of  these  words  gave  occasion  to  much  contro- 
versy on  account  of  its  ambiguity,  some  con- 
tending for  jjiiav  V7t6(ffaijiv,  others  for  T'PEIJ  iuto- 
or*i<mj.  Before  the  Nicene  Council,  as  we 
have  seen,  s.  42,  vrtoataois  and  cnkrux  were  em- 
ployed by  the  ecclesiastical  fathers  as  synony- 
mous;  even  in  the  Nicene  symbol  they  appear 
as  interchangeable  words,  (vrt.6<rta<jt,s  <?j  orcaa;) 
and  Hieronyinus,  still  later,  contended  for  unam 
hypostasin  (i.  e.,  trtWow)  in  God.  But,  as  we 
before  said,  Origen  had  previously  contended 
that  there  were  fpstj  vrtoatdasis  and  JJLIO,  ovaia 
in  God,  making  a  distinction  between  these 
words.  In  this  he  was  followed  by  many 
writers;  and  at  length  this  distinction  which  he 
had  introduced  was  established  by  ecclesiastical 
authority  in  opposition  to  the  Arians;  although 
many  still  continued,  according  to  the  ancient 
custom,  to  use  vrtorstaais  and  ovaia  one  for  the 
other.  In  order  to  obviate  the  perplexity  thus 
occasioned,  and  to  put  an  end  to  the  strife  about 
words,  many  writers  in  the  Greek  church  be- 
gan, shortly  after  the  Nicene  Council,  to  use 
the  word  -tpocrwrtov  instead  of  vTtov-taa^.  The 
former  of  these  is  an  exact  translation  of  the 
persona,  which  had  been  before  introduced  into 
the  Latin  church  by  Tertullian.  But  neither 
was  this  word  free  from  ambiguity  ;  and  it  was 
objected  to  by  many,  because  it  seemed  to  fa- 
vour the  theory  of  Sabellius,  who  was  willing 
to  admit  that  in  the  divine  nature  there  were 
three  Ttpoaurta,,  meaning  by  the  word  different 
aspects  or  forms  in  which  God  revealed  himself 
to  men.  The  orthodox,  however,  employed  this 
term  in  the  sense  in  which  it  had  been  used  by 
Tertullian,  and  afterwards  by  Augustine  and 
others.  Vide  s.  42.  The  sense  they  intended 
to  convey  by  it  was,  that  the  three  subjects 
spoken  of  were  truly  distinguished  from  each 
other,  and  acted  each  for  himself,  eos  esse  a  se 
iirvicem  sic  distinctos,  ut  singulis  sua  intelligentia 
et  sua  actio  tribuenda  sit,  Morus,  p.  67,  s.  12. 
And  that  this  is  a  truth  taught  in  the  Bible  must 
be  evident  to  all  who  impartially  examine  its 
instructions.  It  was  with  a  particular  reference 
to  the  Sabellian  theory  that  this  word  was 
adopted  by  the  fathers.  In  opposition  to  this 
theory  they  also  sometimes  said,  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  were  datoj  xai  uM.o$ — i.  e., 
different  subjects,  though  not  aMx>  xai  aMx> — i. 
e.,  of  different  nature,  as  the  Arians  affirmed. 

3.  'Ctyiooutftoj,  consubstantialis,  Morus,  p.  69, 
s.  13,  No.  2 — one  of  the  most  difficult  and  con- 
troverted of  all  the  terms  employed  on  this  doc- 
trine. According  to  the  oldest  Greek  usage  it 
signifies,  what  belongs  to  the  same  species,  or  has 
the  same  nature,  being,  properties,  with  another 
thing.  Thus  Aristotle  says,  rtdv-ta  fa  oujr'pa 
opoovoia,  and  Plato  says,  respecting  souls,  that 
they  are  O/AOOVGKU  ^9.  Thus,  too,  Chrysostom 
says,  Adam  was  upoovsios  with  Eve,  and  re- 


specting Jupiter  and  Neptune,  Horner  says, 
a^oTs'poKjtv  ofibv  ylvoj,  both  were  of  one  race, 
born  of  one  father,  II.  xiii.  354,  seq.  This  term 
had  been  used  by  the  Sabellians  and  Paul  of 
Samosata,  in  the  third  century,  to  signify  an  en- 
tire indentity  of  nature;  and  when  they  said  the 
Son  was  o^oovcaoj  1-9  jtatpi.,  they  meant  that  he 
was  unum  idemque,  so  that  no  personal  distinc- 
tion existed  between  them.  Hence  this  term 
was  rejected  by  the  orthodox  of  that  period. 
Vide  s.  42.  But  when,  in  the  fourth  century, 
at  the  Nicene  Council,  the  Arians  too  rejected 
it,  supposing  it  to  mean,  what  they  denied,  that 
the  nature  of  the  Son  was  the  same  with  that  of 
the  Father;  the  orthodox  then  adopted  it,  ex- 
pressly guarding,  however,  against  the  Sabel- 
lian misinterpretation.  They  explained  them- 
selves thus : — The  Son  was  not  created  (XTHG- 
&i,$,  rtoM^sij),  but  eternally  generated 
from  the  nature  of  the  Father, 
oj,)  and  is  therefore  in  all  respects  equal  to 
him,  and  no  more  different,  as  to  nature,  from. 
God  than  a  human  son  is  from  his  father,  and 
so  cannot  be  separated  from  the  Father.  In  this 
way  was  the  term  o^oovcftoj  denned  by  the  ortho- 
dox fathers,  so  as  to  guard  alike  against  the 
Arians  and  Sabellians.  What  the  relation  de- 
signated by  this  term  is  they  never  positively 
explained ;  nor  could  they  do  so,  since  we  are 
unable  to  form  any  ideas  respecting  the  internal 
connexion  in  the  godhead.  All  that  they  meant 
to  teach  by  the  use  of  this  word  was,  that  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  had  the  divine  na- 
ture and  divine  perfections  so  in  common  that 
one  did  not  possess  more  and  another  less; 
without  asserting,  however,  that  there  were 
three  Gods;  in  short,  that  in  the  godhead  there 
were  tres  distincti,  unitate  essentias  conjuneti. 
This  is  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  creeds  of 
the  Lutheran  church.  It  admits  of  a  simple 
and  intelligible  explanation,  and  in  the  manner 
now  pointed  out  may  be  kept  clear  from  refine- 
ment and  subtlety.  Vide  Morus,  p.  69,  70,  s. 
13,  extr.  n.  2.  Moreover,  it  is  a  doctrine  which 
is  taught  in  the  Bible,  as  we  have  seen  in  chap- 
ter first  of  this  article. 

III.  The  characteristics  by  which  these  persons  may 
be  distinguished  from  one  another. 

If  these  three  supposita  are  really  distinguished 
from  one  another,  there  must  be  some  signs  by 
which  this  distinction  can  be  recognised;  and 
these  signs  must  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  indi- 
cate a  real  personal  distinction.  In  short,  we 
must  be  able  by  these  signs  to  distinguish  these 
subjects,  not  merely  as  different  names  or  attri- 
butes of  God,  or  as  different  modes  by  which  he 
has  revealed  himself  to  men,  but  as  really  dis- 
tinct persons.  Now  there  are  two  classes  of 
signs  (characteres  personaks,  sive  hypostatict, 
a  tfitw^a-fa  axftixa}  by  which  theolo- 


156 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


gians  undertake  to  distinguish  these  persons 
from  one  another. 

1.  Internal,  characteres  interni.  These  are 
distinctive  signs  which  arise  from  the  internal 
relation  of  the  three  persons  in  the  godhead  to 
each  other,  and  which  indicate  the  mode  of  the 
divine  existence,  (peculiaris  subsistendi  modus, 
tpojtos  o>7tapf  fcoj.)  They  are  also  called  proprie- 
tates  personales.  To  discover  and  explain  what 
is  this  internal  relation  which  exists  in  the  god- 
head is  indeed  a  difficult  task,  since  we  have  no 
definite  notions  respecting  the  internal  nature 
of  the  Divine  Being.  But  rather  than  pass  the 
subject  in  silence,  theologians  have  laid  down 
the  following  distinctions,  which  they  derive 
from  the  names  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  and 
from  some  other  Biblical  phraseology.  • 

(a)  The  Father  generates  the  Son,  and  emits 
the  Holy  Spirit,  general  Filium,  spiral  Spiritum 
Sanctum ;  and  possesses,  therefore,  as  his  per- 
sonal attributes,  generatio  activa  and  spiratio 
activa.  By  these  representations  nothing  more 
is  intended  than  that  the  divine  nature  was  com- 
municated from  eternity  to  the  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,  and  that  there  is  a  certain  internal,  ne- 
cessary, and  eternal  relation  between  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit,  which,  however,  we  are  not  able 
fully  to  explain.  This  personal  characteristic 
of  the  Father  was  called  by  the  early  writers 
apapgMh  paternitas.  "I5toi>  tov  narpo$ 
ta,  said  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Oral.  31. 
"  Pair is  est  GENERARE,  non  GENERARI."  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Father  was  said  to  be  avap^oj 
wyivvrjtos,  artj'fixJT'oj,  aiJT'o^foj,  rt^yjj,  alrt,a,fons, 
radix,  principium  divinitatis. 

(6)  The  Son  is  generated  by  the  Father ;  Filii 

est   GENERARI,  non   GENERARE  ',    ibiov  -toy   Tlov   q 

ytw^u;,  according  to  Gregory,  in  the  passage 
above  cited.  So  that  the  Son  possesses  as  his 
personal  attributes,  yzcMpTM,  filiatio  generatio 
passiva,  and  also,  as  he  is  supposed  to  emit  the 
Spirit  in  conjunction  with  the  Father,  spiratio 
activa ;  with  regard  to  the  latter  characteristic, 
however,  there  was  dispute  between  the  Eastern 
and  Western  church,  of  which  we  shall  shortly 


(c)  The  Holy  Spirit  neither  generates  nor  is 
generated,  but  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  Son; 
Spiritus  Sancti  est,  nee  generare  nee  generari,  sed 
PROCEDERE  ;  tStov  ifov  TLv£vlud'to$  fy 
said  Gregory,  as  above.  What  he  calls  I 
is  called  by  other  Greek  writers,  ttvoq,  rfpoj3oa,jj, 
and  by  Basilius,  rfpoo5o$  ix  QBOV. 

Respecting  these  attempts  to  determine  ex- 
actly in  what  the  internal  distinction  between 
the  persons  in  the  godhead  consists,  we  have  to 
remark, 

First,  that  they  were  wholly  unknown  to  the 
oldest  writers,  both  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
church,  and  were  first  made  by  the  catholic  party 
of  the  fourth  century,  when  they  wished  to  draw 


the  line  of  distinction  between  themselves  ai.d 
the  Arians  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Sabellians 
on  the  other,  as  finely  as  possible,  as  we  have 
already  seen  in  No.  I. 

Secondly.  In  stating  these  internal  personal 
characteristics  of  the  three  persons  in  the  god- 
head, theologians  have  indeed  selected  terms 
which  occur  in  the  Bible,  (such  as  beget, proceed, 
&c.,)  and  would  seem  to  have  drawn  their  whole 
phraseology  on  this  subject  directly  from  thence. 
But  even  if  we  should  allow  that  these  terms  are 
always  used  in  the  Bible  to  denote  the  internal 
relation  existing  between  these  divine  persons, 
we  should  not  be  at  all  advanced  by  them  in  oui 
knowledge  of  what  this  relation  is,  since  we  aro 
wholly  unable  to  detect  that  secret  meaning 
which  lies  concealed  beneath  them,  and  which 
God  has  not  seen  fit  to  reveal.  We  cannot  con- 
cede, however,  that  all  these  terms  are  used  in 
the  Bible  to  denote  the  communication  of  the 
divine  nature  and  the  internal  relation  existing 
between  the  persons  of  the  Trinity;  certainly 
not,  that  they  are  always  so  used.  The  term  to 
beget,  for  example,  denotes  in  many  passages, 
not  the  communication  of  the  divine  nature  to  the 
Son  of  God,  but  his  appointment  to  the  kingly 
office,  or  the  Messiahship.  Thus  the  passage, 
Psa.  ii.  7,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  be- 
gotten thee,  though  often  cited  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, is  never  brought  to  prove  the  divine  na- 
ture of  the  Son  of  God,  but  is  always  supposed 
to  refer  to  the  confirmation  of  his  Messiahship 
by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead.  The  same 
might  be  said  of  many  other  passages  in  which 
similar  phraseology  is  used.  Vide  s.  34,  No. 
4;  s.  37,  ad  finem;  and  Morus,  p.  64,  n.  2. 
The  name  Son  of  God  is  indeed,  in  some  pas- 
sages, given  to  Christ,  in  designation  of  his 
higher  nature,  his  equality  with  the  Father,  and 
his  internal  relation  to  him  ;  though  even  then  it 
does  not  enable  us  to  understand  what  this  re- 
lation is,  which  we  have  reason  to  think  lies 
beyond  the  reach  of  our  knowledge.  All  the 
idea  which  we  are  justified  in  deriving  from  this 
name  is,  that  Christ  as  truly  participates  in  the 
divine  nature  as  the  Father,  tea  ®fp  Ilatpi,  just 
as,  among  men,  the  son  as  truly  participates  in 
human  nature  as  the  father,  laa  Hatpi,  av^purtq. 
Again,  the  proceeding  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the 
Father,  which  is  spoken  of,  John  xv.  26,  denotes 
merely  his  being  sent  and  commissioned,  and  by 
no  means  his  divine  nature  and  internal  relation 
to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Vide  s.  39,  II.  1 ; 
and  Morus,  p.  67,  note. 

Thirdly.  With  regard  to  the  Holy  Spirit  more 
particularly,  we  may  remark,  that  during  the 
first  three  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  there 
was  nothing  decided  by  ecclesiastical  authority 
respecting  his  nature,  the  characteristics  of  his 
person,  or  his  relation  to  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
The  learned  men  of  this  period,  therefore,  being 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


157 


left  unshackled  by  authority,  indulged  them- 
selves freely  in  philosophizing  upon  this  subject, 
and  adopted  very  different  theories;  as  we  find 
in  the  writings  of  Justin  the  Martyr,  Origen,  and 
others.  Cf.  s.  42.  Nor  was  anything  more 
definite  with  regard  to  his  nature  and  his  rela- 
tion to  the  other  persons  of  the  Trinity  than  what 
has  already  been  stated,  established  by  the 
council  at  Nice,  or  even  by  that  at  Constantino- 
ple. To  believe  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  ovv 
llcwpi)  XM  Tt^j  (Sv/Artpoaxwovpsvov,  and  tx  tov 
Hatpos  fxTtopsuo^f vov,  was  all  that  was 
required  in  the  symbol  there  adopted.  It  was 
i  not  long,  however,  before  dissension  arose  with 
i  regard  to  the  latter  phrase  between  the  Greek 
j  and  Latin  church.  The  Greek  fathers  adhered 

*  for  the  most  part  to  this  formula,  without  going 
;  into  any  more  minute  distinctions;  so  Basilius, 
j  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and 

•  others ;  though  Epiphanius  added  to  the  formula, 
;  tx  fov  riatpos  £xjtopf.v6[A£vov,  the   explanatory 

clause,  tx  Tfov  Ttov  ka^jSou/ov,  according  to  John, 
xvi.  15;  and  John  of  Damascus,  in  the  eighth 
;  century,  represented  that  the  Spirit  did  not  pro- 
ceed from  the  Son,  but  from  the  Father  through 
\  the  Son — a  representation  which  had  before  been 
i  made  by  Novatian,  (Spiritum  Sanctum  a  Paire 
per  Filium  procedere,}  and  which  undoubtedly 
i  \vas  derived  from  John,  xv.  26,  I  will  send  you 
ike.  Comforter  from  the  Father.     With  this  modi- 
fication the  formula  adopted  by  the  Council  at 
Constantinople,  and  appended  to   the  Nicene 
symbol,  was  retained  in  the  Greek  church.     But 
there  were  many,  especially  in  the  Latin  church, 
who  maintained  that  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not 
proceed  from  the  Father  only,  but  also  from  the 
Son.     They  appealed  to  John,  xvi.  13,  and  to 
the  texts  where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  the 
Spirit  of  Christ — e.  g.,  Rom.  viii.  9,  seq.     To 
this  doctrine  the  Greeks  were  for  the  most  part 
opposed,  because  they  did  not  find  that  the  Spirit 
was  ever  expressly  said  in  the  New  Testament 
to  proceed  from  the  Son.     It  prevailed,  however, 
more  and  more  in  the  Latin  church;  and  when, 
in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  the  Arians,  who 
then  prevailed  very  much  in  Spain,  urged  it  as 
an  argument  against  the  equality  of  Christ  with 
the  Father,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeded  from 
the  Father  only,  and  not  from  the  Son,  the  ca- 
tholic churches  of  that  region  began  to  hold  more 
decidedly  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeded  from 
both,  (ab  utroque,*)  and  to  insert  the  adjunct  Fi- 
lioque  after  Paire  in  the  Symbolum  Nicseno-Con- 
xtuntinopolitanum.   In  this  the  churches  of  Spain 
were  followed,  first  by  those  of  France,  and  at  a 
later  period  by  nearly  all  the  Western  churches. 
But  as  the  Eastern  church  still  adhered  substan- 
tially to  the  more'  ancient  formula,  it  accused  the 
Western  church  of  falsifying  the  Nicene  sym- 
bol ;  and  thus  at  different  periods,  and  especially 
in  the  seventh  and  ninth  centuries,  violent  con- 


troversies arose  between  them.  The  true  causes 
of  these  unhappy  dissensions  were,  however, 
very  different  from  those  which  were  alleged ; 
and  we  have  reason  to  suspect  that  they  were 
less  animated  by  zeal  for  the  truth  than  by  the 
mutual  jealousies  of  the  Roman  and  Byzantine 
bishops.  But  to  whatever  cause  they  are  to  be 
ascribed,  these  disputes  terminated  in  the  ele- 
venth century  in  that  entire  separation  of  the 
Eastern  and  Western  churches  which  continues 
to  the  present  time.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  67,  s.  11, 
note.  Walch,  Historia  Controversies  Graecorum 
Latinorumque  de  processione  Spiritus  Sancti ; 
Jense,  1751,  8vo.  Ziegler,  Geschichtsentwicke- 
lung  des  Dogma  vom  hejligen  Geist,  th.  i. 
Num.  2  of  his  "Theologische  Abhandlungen," 
where  he  gives  an  historical  account  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  time  of  Justin 
the  Martyr.  Cf.  especially  s.  204,  ff.  of  this 
essay.  [Respecting  the  controversy  in  the 
Eastern  and  Western  church  concerning  the 
Holy  Spirit,  cf.  also  Neander,  b.  ii.  Abth.  2,  s. 
891 ;  and  Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  &c.,  s.  247,  s.  57.] 
Note. — Since  these  ecclesiastical  terms  de  cha- 
raderibus  personalibus  internis  have  now  become 
common,  they  cannot  be  entirely  omitted  in  the 
religious  instruction  of  the  people.  Let  the  doc- 
trine, therefore,  (according  to  the  advice  of 
Morus,  p.  64,  No.  2,  and  p.  67,  Note  extr.)  be 
first  expressed  plainly  and  scripturally  thus: 
The  Son  is  equal  to  the  Father,  and  has  the  same 
nature  with  him  ;  but  has  this  from  eternity 
through  the  Father.  It  may  then  be  remarked, 
that  this  doctrine  is  briefly  expressed  by  the 
words,  the  Son  is  generated  by  the  Father.  Re- 
specting the  Holy  Spirit,  let  it  be  said,  That  he 
is  equal  to  the  Father  and  Son,  and  possesses 
the  same  nature  with  them;  and  it  may  then  be 
added,  that  this  is  commonly  expressed  by  the 
words,  he  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  from  the 
Son. 

2.  External,  characteres  externi.  Morus,  p. 
68.  Note  3.  These  are  characteristics  of  the 
persons  of  the  Trinity  arising  from  the  works  of 
the  Deity  relating  to  objects  extrinsic  to  itself, 
and  called  opera  externa,  sive,  ad  extra.  They 
are  twofold : 

(a)  Opera  Dei  seconomica,  those  institutions 
which  God  has  founded  for  the  salvation  of  the 
human  race.  They  are  the  following: — The 
Father  sent  the  Son  to  redeem  men,  John,  iii. 
Ifi,  17.  He  also  gives  or  sends  the  Holy  Spirit, 
John,  xiv.  26.  The  Son  is  sent  from  the  Father 
to  accomplish  the  work  of  redemption,  and  sends 
the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  Father,  John,  xv.  26. 
The  Holy  Spirit  formed  the  human  nature  of 
Christ,  Luke,  i.  35,  and  anointed  it,  (unxit,  Acts, 
x.  38,)  i.  e.,  endowed  it  with  gifts;  and  is  sent 
into  the  hearts  of  men,  and  carries  them  forward 
towards  moral  perfection. 

(6)  Opera  Dei  attributiva,  such  divine  works 


158 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


as  are  common  to  the  three  persons,  and  are 
sometimes  predicated  of  them  all;  but  which 
still  are  frequently  ascribed  (attributive)  to  one 
of  the  three.  Theologians,  therefore,  have  the 
rule,  Opera  ad  extra  (attributiva),  tribus  personis 
sunt  communia.  To  the  Father  is  ascribed  the 
decree  to  create  the  world,  the  actual  creation, 
and  the  preservation  of  it.  To  the  Son  also,  the 
creation,  preservation,  and  government  of  the 
world  is  ascribed ;  also  the  raising  of  the  dead 
and  sitting  in  judgment.  To  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
ascribed  the  immediate  revelation  of  the  divine 
will  to  the  prophets,  the  continuation  of  the 
great  work  of  salvation  commenced  by  Christ, 
and  the  communication  and  application  to  men 
of  the  means  of  grace.  [Cf.  Hahn,  Lehrbuch, 
s.  238.] 

SECTION  XLIV. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  DOCTRINE    OF  THE  TRINITY 
SINCE  THE  TIME  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 

IF  we  consider  how  obscure  and  full  of  diffi- 
culties the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  must  have 
been,  as  commonly  taught  after  the  Nicene 
Council,  we  shall  not  wonder,  that  when,  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  the  spirit  of  inquiry  and  spe- 
culation revived  in  the  West,  many  attempts 
should  have  been  made  to  illustrate  and  explain 
the  prevailing  theory,  to  rectify  its  mistakes,  or 
wholly  to  abandon  it  for  another  more  rational 
and  scriptural.  Many  of  the  writers,  whose  in- 
tention it  was  to  explain  and  vindicate  the  an- 
cient theory  adopted  at  the  Council  of  Nice, 
unconsciously  deviated  from  it,  and  thus  placed 
themselves  in  the  ranks  of  the  heretics.  None, 
however,  of  the  very  numerous  attempts  which 
have  been  made  since  the  sixteenth  century  to 
illustrate  this  doctrine,  and  vindicate  it  against 
the  objections  of  reason,  can  lay  claim  to  entire 
originality.  The  germ,  at  least,  of  many  mo- 
dern hypotheses  may  be  found  in  the  writings 
which  belong  to  the  period  between  the  second 
and  fourth  centuries ;  arid  after  all  the  inquiries 
then  made,  and  the  theories  then  published,  it 
is  not  probable  that  much  remains  to  be  said. 
Nearly  all,  therefore,  of  those  who  have  written 
on  this  subject  since  the  Reformation,  belong  to 
some  one  of  the  general  classes  which  have  been 
before  mentioned ;  though  it  needs  to  be  re- 
marked, that  those  who  bear  a  common  name 
often  belong  to  very  different  classes.  This 
was  the  case  with  those  who  spread  from  Italy 
in  such  numbers  in  the  sixteenth  century,  under 
the  general  name  of  Unitarians. 

1.  Some  have  attempted  to  illustrate  and  ex- 
plain this  doctrine  by  philosophy  ;  and  not  a  few 
have  gone  so  far  as  to  think  that  they  could 
prove  the  Trinity  a  priori,  and  that  reason  alone 
furnishes  sufficient  arguments  for  its  truth ; 
though  others  of  this  class  have  looked  to  reason 


for  nothing  more  than  an  illustration  of  this  faol 
with  regard  to  the  divine  existence,  for  the  know- 
ledge of  wrftch  they  believed  man  indebted  to 
revelation  alone.  In  the  latter  class  we  may 
place  Philip  Melancthon,  who,  in  his  "  Loci 
Theologici,"  explained  the  Trinity  in  the  fol- 
lowing somewhat  Platonic  manner : — God,  from 
his  infinite  understanding,  produces  thought, 
which  is  the  image  of  himself.  Our  minds,  too, 
produce  thoughts,  which  are  the  images  of 
things;  but  we  are  not  able  to  impart  personal 
existence  to  our  thoughts;  to  his  thought,  how- 
exer,  God  can  do  this;  and  this  his  thought 
bears  the  impress  of  the  Father,  is  his  likeness 
and  resemblance,  and  is  hence  called  by  John, 
Xoyoj.  This  illustration  of  the  Trinity  was  re- 
received  without  offence  or  suspicion,  until  the 
heresy  which  lurks  beneath  it  was  detected  and 
exposed  by  Flacius.  In  connexion  with  this 
illustration,  we  may  mention  those  drawn  from 
nature.  Many  such  are  found  in  the  writings 
of  the  fathers.  Take,  for  example,  that  of  Au- 
gustine, drawn  from  the  human  sou/,  which,  he 
says,  is  one  substance,  with  three  principal  pow- 
ers, memory,  understanding,  and  will;  respect- 
ing which  it  may  be  remarked,  that  it  is  hard  to 
see  why  many  other  powers  might  not  have  been 
named  as  well  as  these.  Vide  Semler,  Inst.  ad 
doctrinam  Christianam,  305.  Or  take,  as  an- 
other example,  that  illustration  of  the  Trinity 
given  at  an  earlier  period  by  Lactantius,  who 
compares  it  with  light,  which  unites  in  itself 
fire,  splendour,  and  heat.  In  all  illustrations 
of  this  nature  the  fault  is,  that  the  mere  powers 
and  qualities  of  things  which  have  no  personal 
existence  are  used  to  represent  the  subsistence 
of  a  trinity  in  unity.  Hence  such  illustrations 
are  more  favourable  to  the  theory  of  Sabellius 
than  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  drawn  from 
the  Bible,  and  established  at  the  Council  atNice. 
The  latest  attempt  to  explain  the  Trinity  in  this 
manner  may  be  found  in  the  September  number 
of  the  "  Berliner  Monatschrift,"  for  the  year 
1790,  s.  280,  where  there  is  an  article  entitled, 
"  Neues  Gleichniss  von  der  Dreyeinigkeit," 
written  by  Schwab,  counsellor,  and  professor 
at  Stuttgard.  Space,  he  says,  cannot  be  seen, 
felt,  or  recognised  by  any  of  our  senses,  and  yet 
must  be  regarded,  he  thinks,  as  something  sub- 
stantial. It  is,  indeed,  extended,  and  still  one. 
This  one  substance  has,  however,  three  distinct 
dimensions,  which  are  not  arbitrarily  assumed, 
and  which  cannot  be  considered  merely  as  parts 
or  accidents  of  space,  but  which  belong  essen- 
tially to  it — viz.,  length,  breadth,  and  thickness. 
Some  chemists  and  theosophists  suppose  that 
there  is,  throughout  the  whole  kingdom  of  na- 
ture, and  even  in  material  bodies,  a  threefold 
elementary  principle,  (as  to  the  nature  of  which, 
however,  they  are  not  agreed,)  and  they  refer  to 
this  as  an  illustration  of  the  Trinity. 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


159 


But,  as  we  have  said,  there  were  others  who 
supposed  that  the  Trinity  could  not  only  be 
illustrated  by  reason,  but  mathematically  proved 
&  priori.  Among  these  were  Bartholomew  Kec- 
kermann,  who  wrote  a  "  SystemaTheologicum," 
Peter  Poiret,  and  Daries,  who  published  an  Es- 
say, "  in  qua  pluralitas  personarum  in  Deitate  e 
sojis  rationis  principiis,  method o  Mathemati- 
corum,  demonstratur;"  Leovardiae,  1735,  8vo. 
The  attempt  of  this  kind  which  deserves  most 
attention  is  that  made  by  Reusch,  a  celebrated 
theologian  and  philosopher  of  Jena,  in  his  "In- 
troductioin  theologiam  revelatam," — an  attempt 
which  was  regarded  by  the  late  Dr.  Gruner  as 
entirely  successful,  and  was  adopted  by  him 
substantially  in  his  "Institutions  theol.  dog- 
mat,"  1.  i.  c.  5.  This  demonstration  is  very 
much  as  follows  : — In  the  divine  understanding 
lere  are  three  acts :  (a)  God  comprehends  in 
understanding  the  ideas  of  all  things  which 
can  be  conceived,  and  so  far  as  he  does  this  he 
is  called  Father,-  (b)  he  connects  these  ideas 
as  means  to  an  end,  and  devises  all  possible 
schemes  or  connexions  of  things  in  the  possible 
world,  and  so  far  he  is  called  Son;  (c)  from  all 
these  possible  schemes,  he  selects,  by  his  infi- 
nite wisdom,  that  which  is  best,  and  so  far  is 
I  called  Holy  Spirit.  These  acts  of  the  divine 
understanding,  in  each  of  which  there  must  have 
been  a  special  exercise  of  the  divine  will,  must 
be  supposed  distinct  from  each  other;  and  yet, 
being  in  God,  they  cannot  have  been  successive ; 
and,  finally,  they  must  be  regarded  as  personal, 
or  as  actus  hypostatici,  and  be  designated  by 
particular  personal  names.  But  how  this  last 
consequence  follows,  it  is  hard  to  see ;  and  where 
is  the  text  from  which  it  can  he  made  to  appear 
that  any  one  of  the  inspired  writers  connected 
any  such  ideas  with  the  names  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit?  Another  metaphysical  demonstration 
has  been  proposed  by  Dr.  Cludius,  in  his  inau- 
gural disputation,  Philosophica  expositio  et  de- 
fensio  dogmatis  orthodoxi  de  Trinitate ;  Gottin- 


2.  There  have  also  been  some  in  modern  times 
who  have  expressed  themselves  so  boldly  on  the 
subject  of  the  Trinity  that  they  have  seemed  to 
approximate  towards  tritheism,  like  those  whom 
we  have  already  mentioned  in  the  sixth  century. 
Vide  s.  43,  I.  ad  finem.  To  pass  by  those  who 
have  merely  been  unguarded  in  the  manner  in 
which  they  have  defended  and  interpreted  the 
Athanasian  theory,  we  may  mention  in  this  class, 
Matthew  Gribaldus,  a  Jurist  of  Padua,  who  flou- 
rished in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  was  for 
some  time  professor  at  Tubingen.  He  main- 
tained that  the  divine  nature  consisted  of  three 
equally  eternal  spirits,  between  whom,  however, 
he  admitted  a  distinction  in  respect  to  rank  and 
perfections.  [Henry  Nicolai,  William  Sher- 
lock, and  Pierre  Faydit,  belong  to  this  class.] 


3.  Other  modern  writers  have  inclined  to 
adopt  the  Sabellian  theory  as  the  ground  of  their 
views  on  the  Trinity.  Among  these  is  Michael 
Serveto,  or  Seryetus,  a  native  of  Spain  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  who  published  his  views  in 
seven  books,  "De  trinitatis  erroribus,"  and  in 
his  Dialogues, "  De  Trinitate."  He  taughtthat 
there  is  one  God,  who,  however,  has  made  known 
his  will  to  men  in  two  personales  represeniationes 
— i.  e.,  personal,  or  personified  modes  of  reve- 
lation, called  Aoyoj  and  HVEVJJ.O,  ayiov.  For  these 
opinions  he  was  brought  to  the  stake  by  Calvin, 
at  Geneva,  1553.  Vide  Mosheim,  Leben  Ser- 
vet's ;  Helmstadt,  1748,  8vo,  republished  with 
additions  at  the  same  place,  1750.  The  repre- 
sentation of  the  Trinity  which  Grotius  gives  in 
his  "  Silvee  Sacrs"  leans  towards  Sabellianism, 
and  agrees  substantially  with  the  theory  ad- 
vanced by  Stephen  Nye,  an  Englishman,  in  his 
"  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;"  London,  170K 
God,  he  said,  is  a  being  who  knew  and  loved 
himself  from  eternity;  and  his  understanding  is 
the  Son,  and  his  affection  the  Holy  Spirit.  [For 
a  more  full  statement  of  this  supposed  demon- 
stration of  the  Trinity,  vide  Lessing,  Das  Chris- 
tenthum  und  die  Vernunft;  Berlin,  1784,  8vo. 
Mich.  Sailer,  Theorie  des  weisen ;  Spottes, 
1781,  8vo.  Marheinecke,  Grundlehren  der 
christ.  Dogmatik,  s.  129,  370,  seq.;  Berlin, 
1819.  Leibnitz,  Defensio  logica  Trinitatis.] 

In  this  class  we  must  place  the  hypothesis  of 
Le  Clerc,  who  supposes  that  the  terms  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  designate  the  different 
modifications  of  the  divine  understanding,  and 
the  plans  which  God  forms.  God  is  called  the 
Father,  so  far  as  his  understanding  comprehends 
all  things  and  surveys  them  at  once ;  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit,  so  far  as  he  produces  and  executes 
a  particular  thought.  Of  the  same  nature  is  the 
view  of  the  Trinity  which  Dr.  Loffler  has  ap- 
pended to  his  translation  of  Souverain.  In  God, 
he  says,  according  to  the  New  Testament,  there- 
is  but  one  subject,-  the  Logos  and  Spirit  are  his 
attributes,  powers,  relations,  or  modes  of  opera- 
tion, and  the  term,  Son  of  God,  so  far  as  it  de- 
notes a  personal  subject,  is  applicable  only  to 
the  man  Jesus.  Among  the  Arminians,  and 
even  among  the  Puritans  of  England,  there  have' 
always  been  many  who  have  inclined  towards- 
Sabellianism.  [This  is  the  error  into  which 
Weigel  and  Jacob  Boehmen  fell,  and  which  has- 
always  proved  more  seductive  than  any  other  to- 
mystics  and  pietists,  and  persons  who  have- 
mingled  feeling  and  imagination  with  philoso- 
phical investigation.  In  this  divergency  from 
the  established  creed  of  the  church,  by  far  a 
greater  proportion  of  the  modern  theologians 
and  philosophers  of  Germany  are  found  than  in 
the  Arian  heresy,  which  was  formerly  so  much 
more  prevalent.  They  have  so  explained  the 
Trinity  as  to  lose  the  idea  of  three  divine  persons 


160 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


in  the  godhead,  for  which  they  have  substituted 
either  three  distinct  powers  or  attributes,  (as 
Meier,  Seiler,  Cludius,  and  Tollner,)  or  a  three- 
fold agency  in  God — three  eternal  actions  dis- 
tinct from  each  other,  as  S.  G.  Schlegel,  Kant, 
Tieftrunk,  Daub,  Schelling,  De  Wette,  and 
Fessler.  Among  these  Sabellian  hypotheses, 
the  one  which  is  less  devious  from  scriptural 
truth,  and  which  is  defended  with  the  most  so- 
ber argument,  is  that  of  Schleiermacher,  who 
supposes  that  the  established  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  a  proposition  which  connects  what 
we  are  taught  in  the  scripture  as  to  the  three- 
fold mode  of  the  divine  existence — viz.,  the 
being  of  God  in  himself,  absolutely  considered  ; 
his  being  in  Christ(the  Son,)  and  his  being  in 
the  Christian  church  (the  Spirit.)  To  this  view 
Neander  appears  inclined,  from  his  general  re- 
marks prefixed  to  his  history  of  this  doctrine, 
and  also  Tholuck,  from  various  passages  in  his 
Commentary  on  John.  For  a  more  full  state- 
ment of  these  modern  Sabellian  hypotheses,  cf. 
Hahn,  s.  57,  Anm.  3,  a.;  and  s.  58,  Anm. 
2,  /. ;  Bretschneider,  Handbuch,  b.  i.  s.  68, 
82.— TR.] 

4.  The  Arian  theory  (which,  however,  we 
have  shewn,  s.  43,  to  be  in  every  important  re- 
spect older  than  Arius)  has  also  found  advocates 
among  protestant  theologians,  especially  those 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  Some,  especially  in 
England,  embraced  and  zealously  defended  the 
entire  system  of  the  high  Arians  of  former  times 
— e.  g.,  Whiston,  Harwood,  and  even  Wetstein. 
But  the  system  which  has  met  with  the  most 
approbation  is  that  more  refined  subordinationism 
taught  by  Sam.  Clark,  in  his  "  Scripture  Doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity ;"  London,  1712;  which  was 
translated  into  German,  and  published  with  a 
preface  by  Semler ,  Leipzig,  1774.  Vide  Morus, 
p.  69,  s.  15,  note  1.  It  had  not  a  few  advocates 
among  the  English,  especially  of  the  presbyte- 
rian  order,  and  among  the  Armenian  theolo- 
gians of  Holland,  as  well  as  among  protestants 
elsewhere.  The  names  of  Whitby,  Benson, 
and  (Priestley])  are  found  on  the  list  of  its  de- 
fenders in  England.  This  theory  is  as  fol- 
lows:— God  is  the  author  of  all  things.  With 
him  existed  from  the  beginning  (so  indefinite 
is  the  statement  of  Clark)  the  Logos  and  the 
Spirit,  both  as  personal  subjects.  What  their 
real  internal  nature  and  connexion  is  cannot 
indeed  be  known,  but  so  much  the  scrip- 
ture reveals,  that  the  Father  alone  is  self-ex- 
istent avtoovGios)  and  the  source  and  author 
of  all  the  works  and  agency  of  the  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit.  How  the  Son  received  his  be- 
ing before  the  creation  of  the  world  cannot  be 
determined ;  but  he  has  in  fact  received,  com- 
municated to  him  from  the  Father,  all  the  com- 
municable divine  perfections.  He  is  not  to  be 


regarded  as  himself  the  creator  of  the  world,  but 
was  employed  by  the  Father  as  his  organ  in 
this  work.  Though  subordinate  to  the  Father, 
he  yet  claims  from  us  divine  honour.  The 
Holy  Spirit  derives  his  origin  from  the  Father, 
is  dependent  upon  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and 
subordinate  to  them  ;  he  yet  has  a  nature  supe- 
rior to  that  of  angels,  and  is  intermediate,  as  it 
were,  between  them  and  the  Son.  The  subor- 
dination of  persons  taught  in  this  theory,  though 
subtile,  is  yet  so  evident  that  its  advocates  are 
justly  called  subordinationists.  This  mode  of 
representation  is  by  no  means  new,  and,  as  we 
have  shewn,  s.  42,  43,  was  common  in  the  se- 
cond and  third  centuries,  long  before  Arius  ap- 
peared. It  resulted  naturally  from  the  applica- 
tion of  the  principles  of  the  Platonic  philosophy 
to  the  declarations  of  the  Bible.  The  hypothe- 
sis of  Paul  Maty,  a  Netherlander,  in  some  re- 
spects resembles  this.  According  to  him  there 
are  three  persons  in  the  godhead,  distinct  from 
each  other.  The  first  is  the  entire  Deity,  who 
created  and  governs  all  things,  and  is  called  the 
Father.  This  God,  before  the  creation  of  the 
world,  produced  two  finite  beings,  with  whom 
he  entered  into  a  most  intimate  connexion,  in 
such  a  way  that  he  with  them  composes  three 
persons,  somewhat  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
divine  nature  in  Christ  is  connected  with  the 
human.  So  that  the  union  between  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  may  be  called  a  personal 
union.  According  to  this  theory,  the  only  union 
which  exists  between  the  persons  of  the  Trinity 
is  an  unio  moralis,  and  the  whole  representation 
is  very  similar  to  that  which  was  adopted  by 
the  Council  at  Antioch,  343.  But  it  wants  the 
support  of  scripture,  and  fails,  as  much  as  any 
other  theory,  of  shewing  any  ground  or  neces- 
sity for  this  union  of  persons.  There  is  nothing 
in  reality  either  illustrated  or  explained  by  it. 

Note. — The  real  source  of  the  Arian  hypothe- 
sis is  the  New  Platonic  philosophy,  to  which 
it  can  be  traced  much  more  directly  than  to  the 
holy  scriptures.  One  strong  objection  to  this 
theory  is,  that  it  presents  to  view  a  plurality  of 
unequal  gods,  thus  encourages  the  worship  of 
higher  spirits,  and  so  leads  on  to  the  most  mul- 
tiform superstition.  In  this  point,  as  well  as 
in  others,  the  doctrine  of  the  numerical  unity  of 
the  divine  nature  has  greatly  the  advantage  over 
Arianism. 

5.  Still  another  class  of  modern  sectarians 
remains  to  be  mentioned — the  Socinians,  some- 
times called  Photinians,  because  they  agree  in 
the  main  with  Photinus,  who  flourished  in  the 
fourth  century,  and  whose  scheme  was  noticed, 
s.  43.  The  founders  of  this  sect  were  Lcelius 
Socinus  and  his  nephew  Faustus  Socinus,  both 
of  whom  flourished  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
They  maintained  that  the  Nicene  theory  leads 


DIVINE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES. 


161 


to  tritheism,  and  on  account  of  the  uncommon 
purity  in  which  they  supposed  themselves  to 
hold  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity,  called 
themselves  Unitarians.  They  brought  over  con- 
siderable numbers  to  their  doctrine  in  Poland 
and  Transylvania,  whom  they  formed  into  sepa- 
rate societies ;  and  since  their  death  their  sys- 
tem has  prevailed  to  some  extent  both  in  Eng- 
land and  Germany.  The  Socinian  theory  is 
briefly  as  follows : — The  Father  is  the  only  true 
God.  Christ  is  the  son  of  Mary,  and  a  man 
like  ourselves,  though  produced  by  a  miracu- 
lous divine  influence.  When,  therefore,  he  is 
called  God,  it  cannot  be  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  the  Father  is  so  called.  He  was  endow- 
ed by  God  with  very  unusual  gifts  and  qualifi- 
cations, and  after  his  ascension  to  heaven  was 
promoted  above  all  other  created  beings,  and 
exalted  to  divine  honour.  The  Holy  Ghost  is 
not  a  person,  but  merely  an  attribute  of  God,  or 
a  mode  of  divine  operation.  On  the  question, 
whether  divine  worship  should  be  paid  to  Christ, 
they  were  not  themselves  agreed  ;  and  although 
most  of  them  answered  in  the  affirmative,  it  was 
not  without  dissent  from  others  of  their  number. 
With  regard  to  this  theory,  it  may  be  remarked 
that  it  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  the  most 
express  declarations  of  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  especially  of  John  and  Paul, 
much  of  whose  writings  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  it  without  great  violence.  Nor  is  it  at  all 
more  capable  of  being  reconciled  with  sound 
philosophy,  which  rejects  at  once  the  idea  of  a 
deified  man — a  deus factitius. 

6.  A  new  theory  on  the  Trinity  was  proposed 
by  Dr.  Urlsperger,  in  a  number  of  essays,  the 
views  of  which  were  condensed  by  himself  into 
a  work  entitled,  "  Kurzgefasstes  System  seines 
Vortrags  von  Gottes  Dreyeinigkeit,"  published 
at  Augsburg,  where  he  was  then  pastor,  1777, 
8vo.  His  theory  bears  a  general  resemblance 
to  that  of  Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  and,  like  that, 
was  condemned  by  many  as  favouring  Sabel- 
lianism.  In  this,  however,  they  were  manifestly 
unjust;  since  his  object  was  to  unite  the  three 
principal  ancient  theories — the  Arian,  Sabellian, 
and  Nicene,  making  the  latter  the  foundation  of 
his  system.  He  endeavoured  to  effect  this  com- 
bination by  making  a  distinction  between  tri- 
nitas  essentialis,  the  internal  threefold  distinction 
necessarily  belonging  to  the  divine  nature ;  and 
trinitas  ceconomica,  the  three  persons  revealed  to 
us  in  the  work  of  redemption.  But  this  theory 
derives  no  support  from  the  scriptures.  Vide 
Revision  der  deutsch.  Lit.  Ite  St.  for  the  year 
1776.  [Cf.  Bretschneider,  Handbuch,  b.  i.  s. 
474.] 

Concluding  Remarks. 

From  all  that  has  now  been  said,  the  conclu- 
21 


sion  is  obvious,  that,  while  we  are  taught  by  the 
scriptures  to  believe  in  three  equal  subjects  in  the 
godhead,  who  are  described  as  persons,  we  are  still 
unable,  after  all  that  has  been  done  by  theologians 
and  interpreters,  to  determine  IN  WHAT  MANNER 
or  IN  WHAT  SENSE  these  three  have  the  divine  na- 
ture so  in  common  that  there  is  only  ONE  God. 
Vide  s.  33.  It  must  therefore  be  unwise  for  the 
religious  teacher  to  enlarge  in  his  public  instruc- 
tions upon  those  points  where  the  scriptures  are 
silent;  and  he  will  do  well  to  confine  himself  to 
what  is  clearly  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  has  a 
practical  influence  upon  the  feelings  and  con- 
duct; for  this  doctrine  was  not  given  us  to  em- 
ploy our  understanding  in  speculating  upon  it, 
but  to  encourage  our  hearts  by  the  disclosures 
which  it  makes  of  the  Divine  Being,  to  incite 
us  to  a  grateful  remembrance  of  the  benefits 
which  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  bestow  upon 
us,  and  to  lead  us  to  avail  ourselves  of  these 
benefits.  Instead,  then,  of  perplexing  his  hear- 
ers with  learned  speculations,  let  the  minister 
of  the  gospel  content  himself  with  teaching  the 
doctrine  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as 
represented  in  the  holy  scriptures,  describing 
them  as  three  distinct  subjects,  designating  the 
distinction  between  them  by  the  word  person, 
shewing  that  to  three,  and  to  one  as  much  as 
another,  divinity  and  equal  divine  perfections 
belong,  while  still  there  is  only  one  God ;  and 
especially  insisting  upon  the  benefits  which 
these  persons  confer  upon  men,  the  opera 
ad  extra  which  we  mentioned  in  the  last  sec- 
tion. 

As  Christians,  we  should  repose  our  confi- 
dence in  the  FATHER,  as  the  author  and  giver  of 
all  good,  and  especially  as  the  author  of  salva- 
tion. He  bestows  this  good  and  these  blessings 
upon  us  (a)  through  the  Son,  to  whom  we  are 
indebted  for  making  known  the  way  of  salvation 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  on  condition  of  faith 
in  his  sufferings  and  death,  and  for  eternal  bless- 
edness; and  (6)  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
continues  the  great  work  of  enlightening  and 
saving  men,  which  Christ  began,  and  who,  in 
the  use  of  appointed  means,  carries  us  forward 
from  one  stage  to  another  of  moral  improvement. 
If  such  is  the  light  in  which  we  regard  this  doc- 
trine, (and  such  is  the  light  in  which  it  is  pre- 
sented in  the  scriptures,)  we  then  yield  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  the  religious  worship 
required,  and  receive  the  favours  which  they  be- 
stow as  divine  favours,  for  which  we  are  indebt- 
ed to  none  but  God  himself.  Whatever  more 
than  this  it  may  be  necessary  for  others  to  know 
with  regard  to  this  doctrine,  the  Christian,  as 
such,  needs  to  know  nothing  more;  he  can  dis- 
pense with  the  learned  subtleties  with  which 
many  are  chiefly  employed.  He  does  not  wish 
to  know  this  truth,  merely  for  its  own  sake,  but 
o2 


162 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


for  that  higher  end  for  which  all  religious  know- 
ledge should  be  sought — viz.,  that  he  may  con- 
form in  feeling  and  practice  to  the  truth  which 
is  known.  When  this  is  the  case  with  Chris- 


tians, and  not  till  then,  the  groat  doctrines  of  re- 
ligion will  exert  their  proper  influence  upon  the 
heart  and  the  life.  Vide  Morus,  p.  70,  s.  14; 
and  Griesbach,  Praktische  Dogmatik,  s.  62. 


PART  II.-THE  WORKS  OF  GOD. 


ARTICLE  V. 

OF  THE  CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

SECTION  XLV. 

OF  THE    MEANING   OF  THE    WORD  "WORLD,' 
OF  SYNONYMOUS  WORDS. 


AND 


HE  attentive  study  and  con- 
templation of  the  visible 
world  leads  us  to  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Divine  Being 
and  of  his  glorious  attri- 
butes. Paul  well  says, 
Rom.  i.  20,  that  the  attri- 
butes of  God,  which  are  in  themselves 
invisible,  are  brought  within  the  sight 
and  cognizance  of  man  since  the  world 
has  been  created.  The  Bible  accord- 
L  ingly  earnestly  recommends  this  source 
of  divine  knowledge,  (vide  Ps.  viii.  1;  xix. 
1 — 6,  coll.  s.  15;)  and  it  should  therefore  be 
ranked  among  the  first  and  most  essential 
parts  of  religious  instruction.  The  practical 
import  of  this  doctrine  is  exhibited  by  Morus, 
p.  74,  s.  4,  5.  The  first  of  these  works  of  God 
is  the  creation  of  the  world;  and  to  the  consi- 
deration of  this  we  shall  now  proceed. 

Meaning  of  the.  word  "World"  and  of  other 
Synonymous  Words. 

World,  in  the  strict,  philosophical  sense, 
means  everything  extrinsic  to  God — the  animate 
and  inanimate,  rational  and  irrational  creation. 
Rude  and  uncultivated  nations  do  not  commonly 
have  any  idea  of  a  world;  certainly  they  do  not 
concern  themselves  with  the  question  how  it 
originated,  or  perhaps  believe  that  only  particu- 
lar parts  of  it  were  created.  The  Caffres  have 
no  idea  of  a  creation ;  they  believe  that  the  world 
always  existed,  and  will  always  continue  as  it 
is.  Vide  Le  Vaillant,  Reise  ins  Innere  Afrika's, 
s.  365,  translated  by  Forster,  in  his  "  Magazin 
von  merkwiirdigen  neuen  Reisebeschreibun- 
gen,"  th.  ii.  But  when  the  first  early  inquirers 
into  nature  attained  to  the  principle  that  every- 
thing which  exists  must  have  a  beginning,  they 
unconsciously  fell  into  the  belief  that  chance  or 
necessity  was  the  cause  of  all  things.  Vide  Mei- 


i  ners,  Historia  doctrinae  de  vero  Deo,  p.  i.  It 
was  only  by  slow  degrees  that  they  proceeded 
to  those  higher  inquiries  which  are  indicated  in 
s.  46.  Their  gradual  progress  in  the  knowledge 
of  this  subject  is  strikingly  exhibited  in  the 
terms  which  at  different  periods  they  employed 
to  designate  the  general  notion  they  had  of  the 
world  ;  on  these  terms,  therefore,  we  shall  offer 
a  few  remarks. 

1.  When  men  first  began  to  reflect  upon  the 
objects  which  surrounded  them,  they  naturally 
divided  the  whole  universe  into  two  great  por- 
tions— viz.,  the  earth,  upon  which  they  dwelt, 
and  the  heavens,  which  they  saw  above  them. 
Accordingly,  we  find  that  in  most  of  the  ancient 
languages  the  general  notion  of  the  universe  is 
expressed  by  the  simple  and  original  phrase,  the 
heavens  and  earth.     So  we  find   it   frequently 
among  the  Hebrews.     Gen.  i.  1 ;  ii.  1 ;  Psalm 
cxv.  15.     The  nations  who  inhabited  the  sea- 
coasts,  and  beheld  the  boundless  expanse  of  the 
ocean,  frequently  divided  the  universe  into  three 
portions — heaven,  earth,  and  sea.    So  too  the  He- 
brews, Ps.  cxlvi.  6;  Acts,  xvii.  24.     This  was 
the  most  ancient  mode  of  describing  the  universe 
even  among  the  Greeks.     Homer  conceived  of 
the  universe  as   divided  into  these   three  por- 
tions— heaven,  earth,  and  sea.  Odys.  i.  52 — 54, 
coll.  II.  xv.  189,  seq.   This  ancient  phraseology 
is  the  ground  of  Aristotle's  definition  of  the 
world,  Koftytoj  tati  Gvatq/jLa  ^f  ovpavov  xai  y»?f» 
xai  *twv  ev  to-ufois  rtfpt£^o^w£vwv  ^utffwv,  De  M un- 
do, c.  1. 

2.  But  in  process  of  time  other  terms  were 
introduced  into  the  various  languages,  by  which 
this  idea  was  expressed  more  briefly  and  dis- 
tinctly.  These  terms  were  derived  from  various 
sources ;  most  of  them  from  certain  obvious  at- 
tributes, whether  perfections  or  imperfections, 
of  the  world.    The  following  may  be  here  stated 
as  those  best  known ; — 

(a)  The  Hebrews,  Chaldaeans,  and  Syrians 
called  the  world  oSty,  D^pSijr,  to  which  correspond 
the  atwv,  aiuvts,  of  the  Grecian  Jews.  This 
term  was  derived  from  the  duration  and  age  of 
the  world.  Cf.  s.  20,  III.  No  passage,  how- 
ever, occurs  in  the  books  written  before  the  Ba- 
bylonian exile,  in  which  these  words  are  clearly 
used  in  the  sense  now  ascribed  to  them.  In 
the  earlier  books  they  stand  simply  for  the  ideas 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


163 


of  continuance,  duration,  age.  The  word  * 
which  occurs  in  Ps.  xlix.  2,  is  of  similar  origin, 
being  derived  from  nSn;  although  in  this  pas- 
sage it  rather  means  the  earth  than  the  world. 
Vide  Anmerk  zu  Ps.  xvii.  14.  The  word  *?-tn, 
on  the  contrary,  which  occurs,  Isaiah,  xxxviii. 
11,  in  the  sense  of  world,  or  earth,  is  of  exactly 
an  opposite  origin,  the  mutability  and  perishable- 
ness  of  the  world  being  the  foundation  of  this 
appellation,  although  some  consider  the  reading 
incorrect,  and  wish  to  substitute  iSn.  Corres- 
ponding with  the  former  appellation  of  the 
world,  taken  from  its  long  duration,  is  the  Ger- 
man word  Welt,  or,  as  it  is  always  written  in 
the  old  books,  Werelt,  and  in  the  Danish  Weret, 
which  is  derived  from  the  word  wdhren,  to  con- 
tinue, endure;  though,  according  to  others,  it  is 
abbreviated  from  Werld,  and  so  derived  from 
werlen,  to  revolve,  turn  round,  the  earth  being 
considered  as  an  oval  surface.  On  the  latter 
supposition  this  term  would  resemble  the  Latin 
ORBIS  terrarum,  and  the  English  world. 

(6)  From  the  beautiful  and  wonderful  order 
and  arrangement  of  all  parts  of  the  world,  the 
Greeks  called  it  6  xoapos,  and  the  Latins,  mun- 
dus,  which  is  a  mere  translation  of  the  Greek 

/j,os.  This  term,  however,  does  not  occur  in 
Homer ;  nor  indeed  is  the  notion  of  world  ever 
expressed  by  a  single  word  either  in  Homer  or 
Moses.  The  word  x6>j(jio$  was  employed  by  the 
oldest  Grecian  writers,  to  denote  merely  the 
starry  firmament,  from  its  beauty  and  splendour. 
And  in  a  similar  limitation  the  word  mundus 
was  frequently  used  by  Lucretius  and  other 
Latin  poets,  and  even  by  Seneca.  Afterwards 
the  Sophists — i.  e.,  the  learned,  or  the  philoso- 
phers, began  to  apply  this  word  to  the  whole 
universe,  as  was  the  case  with  Socrates  as  cited 
by  Xenophon.  When,  therefore,  Xenophon 
3rnploys  the  term  in  this  sense,  he  is  careful  to 
say,  o  vjtb  tftov  Gotyitrtidv  xa'kov^vo^  xottytoj .  After 
his  time  it  gradually  passed  in  this  sense  into 
the  language  of  common  life.  Pythagoras  is 
usually  esteemed  the  first  who  employed  the 
term  xoapos  to  denote  the  whole  universe.  Cf. 
Scr.  var.  arg.  p.  532,  seq.  This  word  was 
afterwards  used  in  various  other  significations 
which  occur  in  the  writings  of  the  Grecian  Jews, 
and  in  the  New  Testament.  Among  these  is 
the  sense  of  the  earth,  olxov^vri,  Spn ;  and  also  of 
particular  provinces  of  it — a  meaning  which  be- 
longs to  the  words  just  mentioned,  and  to  the 
Latin  orbis  terrarum.  Koff^oj  was  also  used  in 
the  sense  of  the  world  of  men,  the  whole  human 
>  ace,  and  then,  the  wicked  as  a  whole,  the  heathen. 
By  Christian  writers  it  was  sometimes  used  to 
denote  the  Jewish  world.  Finally,  xo<tyto$  was 
used  to  denote'rmi/e,  perishable,  earthly  things 
and  possessions,  (res  terrenx,  extern^,  ad  corpus 
pertinentes,*)  in  opposition  to  things  invisible, 
heavenly,  and  divine. 


(c)  Metaphorical  appellations  of  the  world, 
like  those  of  the  Greeks  and  Latins,  occur  also 
among  the  Jews.    The  Hebrews  called  the  stars 
the  host,  tax,  host  of  heaven,  host  of  God,  Judges, 
v.  20.     But  afterwards  they  called  all  created 
things  the  host  of  God,  which  they  represented 
as  standing  in  his  service  and  accomplishing  his 
will,  Ps.  ciii.  21,  coll.  ver.  20,  22  ;  also  Gen.  ii. 
1  .     The  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  all  the  host  of 
them,  Diax.  Sai.     Hence  the  supreme  God  is  call- 
ed mo*  nw,  Lord  of  hosts  —  i.  e.,  of  the  world. 
Cf.  s.  17.     This  term  resembles  the  xbap.o$  of 
the  Greeks,  in  that  it  was  originally  applied  to 
the  heavens  only,  and  afterwards  so  extended 
in  its  signification  as  to  embrace  all  created  ob- 
jects. 

(d)  After  the  belief  in  spirits  and  demons  be- 
came common  among  the  Israelites,  the  phrase 
tfa  opotfa  xal  aopatfa  was  employed  to  designate 
the  sum  of  created  objects,  and  occurs  in  this 
sense,  Col.  i.  16. 

The  Greek  term,  to  rtav  (universum),  is  the 
appropriate  philosophical  appellation  of  the 
world,  and  does  not  occur  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, except  indeed  in  the  plural, 


SECTION  XLVI. 

WHAT  WE  MEAN  WHEN  WE  SPEAK  OF  THE  CREA- 
TION OF  THE  WORLD  ?  THE  PROOF  OF  A  CREA- 
TION ;  THE  MATERIAL  FROM  WHICH  IT  WAS 
MADE  ;  WITH  A  SKETCH  O.F  THE  VARIOUS  OPI- 
NIONS ENTERTAINED  ON  THIS  SUBJECT. 

I.DefinitionandProofofthe  Creation  of  the  World. 

BY  creation  we  understand  that  act  of  God  by 
which  he  gave  existence  to  the  world,  or  to  things 
exterior  to  himself;  or,  as  it  is  commonly  ex- 
pressed, by  which  he  made  the  world  OUT  OF  NO- 
THING; which  last  definition  will  be  considered 
at  length  in  No.  II.  The  proof  of  the  position 
that  the  world  derives  its  existence  from  God, 
is  made  out  from  reason,  by  the  very  same  argu- 
ments by  which  we  prove  from  nature  that  there 
is  a  God;  respecting  which,  vide  s.  15.  For 
from  the  very  reason  that  the  world  could  not 
produce  itself,  we  conclude  that  there  must  be  a 
God  who  produced  it.  Vide  ubi  supra.  We 
proceed,  therefore,  to  the  more  important  inquiry 
respecting  — 

[I.  The  Material  from  which  the  World  was  formed, 
and  the  Various  Opinions  entertained  upon  this 
subject. 

1.  Philosophers  have  always  allowed  the  ex- 
istence of  a  first  material,  since  otherwise  they 
would  be  compelled  to  admit  a  progrcssio  caus- 
sarum  in  infinitum,  which  is  not   supposable. 
But, 

2.  The  ancients  found  great  difficulty  in  ex- 
ilaining  the  origin  of  this  first  material.     The 


164 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Grecian  philosophers  and  other  ancient  writers 
insisted  upon  the  principle,  ex  nihilo  nihil  fit ; 
and  could  not  admit,  therefore,  that  it  was  even 
possible  for  God  to  create  the  world  out  of  no- 
thing. Accordingly,  they  believed  almost  uni- 
versally in  two  eternal,  original  principles — viz., 
God,  and  self-existent  matter,  neither  of  which  is 
the  ground  of  the  other.  The  former  they  sup- 
posed to  be  a  rational  and  thinking  principle, 
and  the  author  of  all  good  ;  the  other,  irrational 
and  unintelligent,  and  the  author  of  all  evil. 

As  to  the  question,  how  the  world  arose  from 
this  pre-existing  matter,  the  opinions  of  the  an- 
cients were  very  various.  Plato  taught,  that 
God,  of  his  own  will,  united  himself  with  matter, 
and  produced  the  world  from  it;  so  that  he  could 
say  that  the  world  was  not  eternal  and  uncre- 
ated, although  matter  might  be  so.  Aristotle, 
the  peripatetic,  and  Zeno,  the  stoic,  taught  that 
this  union  of  God  with  the  world  was  necessary  ; 
and  accordingly  they  affirmed  the  eternity  of  the 
world,  (Cic.  Qu.  Acad.  iv.  38,)  although  they 
differed  from  one  another  in  explaining  the  man- 
ner of  this  connexion.  Epicurus  separated  God 
entirely  from  the  world,  and  taught  that  matter 
consists  of  innumerable  small  atoms,  which  from 
eternity  had  floated  about,  like  dust  on  the  water 
or  in  the  air,  untH  at  last  they  assumed  the  form 
of  the  present  world.  This  ancient  opinion  of 
the  eternity  of  matter  found  an  advocate  in  mo- 
dern times  in  Bayle,  who  was  of  opinion  that  it 
resulted  necessarily  from  the  principle,  which 
cannot  be  disputed,  ex  nihilo  nihil  fit.  But  as 
we  have  before  shewn,  s.  15,  II.,  the  doctrine, 
that  matter  is  eternal  and  necessary,  is  the  foun- 
dation of  a  theoretical  atheism. 

If  we  follow  the  principles  of  philosophy  in 
its  present  improved  state,  or  rather,  if  we  fol- 
low the  Bible,  to  which  alone  our  modern  phi- 
losophy is  indebted  for  its  improvement,  we 
shall  be  unable  to  admit  the  validity  of  the 
maxim  ex  nihilo  nihil  fit,  in  opposition  to  the 
doctrine  of  creation  from  nothing.  This  maxim 
is  indeed  incontrovertibly  true  when  applied  to 
the  causa  materialis ;  for  there  must  be  in  every 
case  a  ground — a  prima  materia — from  which 
whatever  exists  proceeds.  But  it  is  not  true  if 
understood  of  the  causa  efficiens,  to  which  omni- 
potence is  ascribed.  Consequently,  if  our  theory 
respecting  God  and  his  attributes  is  well  esta- 
blished, this  principle  applied  to  him  as  the  effi- 
cient cause  must  be  regarded  as  false;  for  if  God 
is  omnipotent,  he  can  of  course  from  nothing 
produce  something,  or  bring  into  existence  what 
did  not  exist  before.  If  he  could  not  do  this,  he 
would  not  be  omnipotent.  Moreover,  if  it  is  true 
that  matter  is  not  necessary,  (vide  s.  15,)  it  can- 
not exist  of  itself,  but  must  derive  its  existence 
from  God,  or  depend  upon  God,  who  at  first  cre- 
ated it  out  of  nothing. 

The  greatest  philosophers  of  antiquity  appear 


therefore  to  have  stopped  short  of  the  truth,  and 
to  have  been  inconsistent,  when  they  worshipped 
God  as  the  creator  of  the  world,  indeed,  but  not 
of  matter.  They  admitted  merely  a  creatio  me- 
diata,  ex  praeexistente  materia,  and  not  imme- 
diata — i.  e.,  they  did  not  believe  in  the  produc- 
tion of  matter  itself  from  nothing.  God,  with 
them,  was  merely  the  builder,  and  not  the  cre- 
ator, of  the  world. 

The  ancient  Greeks,  as  we  perceive,  reasoned 
upon  this  subject  from  principles  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  those  which  we  at  present  adopt; 
and  not  one  of  them  ever  advanced  to  the  dis- 
tinct conception  of  a  creation  from  nothing.  It 
is  no  valid  objection,  however,  against  the  posi- 
tion that  God  made  matter  from  nothing,  that 
we  cannot  conceive  how  what  is  possible  should 
become  real,  through  the  mere  will  of  God;  for 
this  is  a  matter  of  which  we  have  never  had  any 
experience ;  and  yet  experience  assures  us  of  the 
reality  of  many  events,  the  manner  of  whose 
occurrence  is  incomprehensible  to  the  human 
understanding.  How  much  less,  then,  are  we 
capable  of  judging  respecting  things  of  which 
we  have  had  and  can  have  no  experience ! 

The  truth,  that  everything  which  exists  was 
created  by  God  from  nothing,  is  the  uniform 
doctrine  of  the  Bible — of  the  old  Jewish  pro- 
phets, and  of  the  Christian  teachers.  In  respect 
to  this  important  doctrine  of  religion  they  were 
far  in  advance  of  the  other  cultivated  nations  of 
antiquity,  though  confessedly  behind  them  in 
general  intellectual  improvement.  This  sublime 
truth,  which  appears  to  us  so  simple,  since  we 
have  been  taught  it,  was  unknown  to  the  an- 
cient philosophers,  long  after  it  had  been  taught 
by  the  writers  of  the  neglected  Jewish  scrip- 
tures ;  and  indeed  it  is  from  these  that  our  mo- 
dern philosophers  have  derived,  however  un- 
willingly, all  their  better  views  on  this  subject. 
To  the  sacred  writers  we  owe  the  doctrine  that 
God  gave  existence  to  what  was  not.  They  do 
not,  indeed,  dwell  so  much  on  the  theoretical 
ground  of  this  truth  as  notice  its  practical  con- 
sequences ;  they  were,  however,  the  first  who 
established  the  position  itself.  Philosophers 
have  only  reinvestigated  the  doctrine  which 
they  established,  and  developed  the  reasons  of 
the  truth  which  they  taught. 

But  it  may  be  asked — Is  then  the  doctrine  dt 
creatione  ex  nihilo  really  so  important  1  is  it  not 
rather  a  doctrine  interesting  only  to  speculative 
philosophers?  To  these  questions  we  must 
answer,  that  this  doctrine  is,  on  the  contrary, 
one  of  great  practical  importance,  which  is  the 
reason  why  the  holy  scriptures  so  frequently 
and  urgently  inculcate  it.  For  (a)  if  matter 
was  created  by  God  from  nothing,  it  follows 
that  he  must  fully  understand  it  in  all  its  parts ;  • 
he  must  have  wisely  assigned  to  everything  j 
its  definite  position  in  space,  and  have  pre-  i 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


lf,5 


served  it  as  he  originally  created  it.  But  in 
case  he  were  not  the  creator,  but  only  the 
former  of  the  world,  according  to  the  opinion 
of  the  ancients,  it  would  then  be  necessary 
for  him  to  acquaint  himself  with  this  mat- 
ter, which  he  himself  had  not  produced,  and 
which  was  foreign  to  his  own  nature.  But  we 
may  confidently  affirm,  that  he  never  would  have 
become  acquainted  with  matter  if  he  had  not 
himself  made  it,  (as  even  Malebranche  con- 
cludes;) because  he  derives  all  his  knowledge 
from  himself  alone,  and  nothing  exterior  to  him- 
self can  either  add  to  his  information,  or  in  any 
j  way  exert  an  influence  upon  him.  (6)  A  mere 
builder  may  leave  his  building,  when  it  is  once 
completed,  and  concern  himself  no  further  about 
it,  except  perhaps  in  certain  extraordinary  cases. 
And  considering  that  almost  all  of  the  philoso- 
!  pliers  and  religious  teachers  of  the  heathen  world 
'proceeded  upon  the  notion  that  God  was  the 
'former  only,  or  builder  of  the  world,  and  not  its 
creator,  it  is  not  strange  that  their  ideas  of  Pro- 
vidence were  no  more  pure  and  consonant  to  the 
divine  nature.  They  generally  believed,  either 
|  that  God  concerned  himself  not  at  all  with  the 
world,  or,  at  least,  that  his  providence  did  not 
extend  to  small  and  minute  affairs.  When  once 
Phaeton  had  misguided  the  chariot  of  the  sun, 
Jupiter  indeed  found  it  necessary  to  see  whether 
the  firmament  had  been  shattered ;  but  except  in 
such  extraordinary  cases,  he  remained  uncon- 
cerned with  the  aifairs  of  the  world,  and  every- 
thing here  below  was  supposed  to  be  left  to  go 
on,  like  a  clock,  when  it  has  been  once  wound 
up.  Thus  it  appears,  that  the  belief  that  the  world 
was  created  from  nothing  has  an  important  in- 
fluence on  the  doctrine  concerning  providence, 
and  so  is  of  great  practical  consequence.  This 
belief  alone  excites  in  us  ideas  of  providence 
which  do  honour  to  God,  and  are  consonant  with 
his  character.  If  God  is  the  creator  of  the  world, 
we  may  be  sure  -that  he  not  only  understands 
and  provides  for  the  whole,  but  that  his  know- 
ledge and  providence  extend  to  every  particular 
part  of  the  universe,  though  ever  so  small.  The 
schoolmen,  with  entire  truth,  called  the  pre- 
servation of  the  world  a  continued  creation.  And 
the  Bible  frequently  argues  from  the  fact  that 
God  created  all  things  in  the  universe,  that  he 
j  must  be  perfectly  acquainted  with  them,  and  that 
they  depend  for  their  preservation  solely  upon 
his  will.  Vide  Psa.  xciv.  8 — 11 ;  cxxxix.  Cf. 
Kastner,  Ueber  die  Lehre  der  Schopfung  aus 
Nichts,  und  deren  praktische  Wichtigkeit; 
Gottingen,  1770,  4to.  Heydenreich,  Progr. 
Num  ratio  humana  sua  vi,  et  sponte  contingere 
possit  notionem  creationis  ex  nihilo  ]  Lips.  1790. 
He  shews  that  this  is  the  only  reasonable  opi- 
nion respecting  the  origin  of  the  world.  [Re- 
specting the  practical  importance  of  this  doc- 
trine, cf.  also,  Neander,  Allgem.  Gesch.  der 


christ.  Rel.,  b.  i.  abth.  3,  s.  974.     Also  Hahn, 
Lehrbuch,  s.  271. ] 

Note. — The  phrase  itself,  to  create  from  no- 
thing, does  not  occur  in  the  canonical  books  of 
the  Bible,  although  the  idea  is  scriptural.  The 
phrase  is  taken  from  2  Mace.  vii.  28;  in  the 
Vulgate,  ex  nihilo  fecit  Deus  cailum  et  terram,  in 
the  Greek,  i|  ovx  ov-tuv.  The  phrase  fa  prj 
tyaivo/j,fva,,  which  occurs,  Heb.  xi.  3,  is  of  the 
same  import.  Morus  (p.  72)  and  some  others 
have  rejected  the  phrase,  creation  from  nothing, 
because  it  seems  to  imply  that  nothing  is  the 
material  from  which  the  world  was  made.  But 
this  subtilty  is  unnecessary,  since  the  same  lan- 
guage is  used  in  other  cases,  and  is  never  mis- 
understood. When  we  say,  for  example,  there 
is  NOTHING  in  the  chest,  there  is  NOBODY  there,  we 
do  not  mean  to  imply  that  there  is  in  the  first 
case  a  material  substance,  and,  in  the  second, 
a  person  existing  in  the  places  intended. 

III.  The  Nature  of  the  First  Material. 

The  idea  of  chaos  resulted  very  naturally  from 
the  opinion  of  the  ancient  Greeks  that  matter  is 
eternal  and  uncreated,  and  that  God  merely  ar- 
ranged and  combined  the  materials  which  he,  as 
the  great  architect,  found  furnished  for  his  use. 
The  word  #ao$  is  derived  by  some  from  ^aw, 
hio,  vacuus  sum,-  by  others  from  %tu,fundo,  be- 
cause they  imagine  chaos  to  be  something  mov- 
able and  fluid.  The  corresponding  Latin  word  is 
silva,  which  denotes  what  is  confused,  unar- 
ranged,  and  then,  unorganized  material  from 
which  anything  is  made;  as,  silva  rerum,  sen- 
tentiarum,  Cicero;  silva  medicinas,  Pliny.  The 
Greek  word  which  is  used  by  Plato  and  other 
philosophers  is,  v^rj,  which  signifies  both  silva 
and  materia.  The  ancients  imagined  that  these 
primordia — the  unorganized  elements  of  things 
— were  of  the  nature  of  a  thin  air,  or  a  subtle 
ether,  fluid  and  movable,  without  order  or  con- 
nexion, rudis  indigestaque  moles.  Vide  Ovid, 
Met.  i.  7,  seq.  But  the  whole  conception  of 
chaos  is  rather  poetical  than  philosophical — the 
progeny  of  fancy,  and  not  of  reason.  The  phi- 
losopher can  see  no  satisfactory  reason  for  be- 
lieving that  disorder  must  have  preceded  the 
present  system.  The  poet,  however,  fancies  a 
state  before  the  world  was  formed,  like  that 
which  would  appear  if  all  the  objects  of  the  pre- 
sent world  were  torn  to  pieces,  dissolved,  and 
thrown  together  ;  and  this  state  he  calls  chaos, 
and  supposes  that  there  the  elements  of  things 
conflicted  with  one  another,  until  the  Deity  at 
length  interposed  to  end  the  strife.  The  Greeks 
now  supposed  that  the  universe  proceeded  from 
this  state,  as  from  a  fluid  and  fermenting  mass; 
the  Hebrews,  on  the  contrary,  represented  the 
origin  of  the  world  under  the  image  of  a  build- 
ing, of  the  materials  of  which,  as  well  as  of  the 
structure  itself,  God  was  the  author.  Cf.  the 


(Kosmogenie?),  in  his  "  Memorabilien,"  No. 
III.  Stuck  4;  Leipzig,  1793,  8vo.  Some  have 
thought  they  perceived  a  description  of  chaos  in 
the  iriai  trin  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  crea- 
tion, Gen.  i.  2.  But  Moses  says  this  merely  of 
the  earth.  After  God  had  created  the  universe, 
(the  heavens  and  the  earth,)  the  earth  was  still 
waste,  empty,  and  unfinished.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  Mosaic  account  to  justify  the  idea  of  the 
Grecian  chaos,  in  which  everything  in  the  uni- 
verse lay  together  in  a  promiscuous  and  disor- 
derly mass,  of  which  God  was  no  more  the  cre- 
ator than  the  architect  is  of  the  pile  of  stones 
from  which  he  forms  his  edifice. 

The  history  of  the  opinions  of  ancient  and 
modern  philosophers  respecting  the  nature  of  the 
first  material  of  the  universe  belongs  appropri- 
ately to  the  history  of  philosophy.  The  follow- 
ing remarks  must  suffice  for  this  place. 

We  cannot  form  any  distinct  notion  of  the  ele- 
ments, and  of  the  primitive,  essential,  and  con- 
stituent parts  of  the  bodies  which  now  exist, 
since  our  senses  are  not  adapted  to  take  cog- 
nizance of  them.  That  such  elements  actually 
exist,  however,  there  is  no  doubt;  and  that  each 
of  these  particles  has  properties  which  distin- 
guish it  from  every  other — its  peculiar  use,  size, 
shape,  &c. — is  equally  clear ;  for  otherwise  there 
could  be  no  distinction,  variety,  or  alteration 
in  the  world.  Pythagoras  proceeded  on  this 
ground,  when  he  taught  that  the  povds  was  the 
origin  and  ground  of  all  things.  For  as  num- 
bers consist  of  their  units,  as  constituent  parts, 
so  he  supposed  the  world  was  composed  of  many 
such  units  or  monades.  This  thought  led  Leib- 
nitz to  his  theory  of  monades.  According  to 
this  theory,  these  monades  are  what  God  ori- 
ginally produced  from  nothing;  and  all  the  va- 
riety of  things,  the  world  itself,  has  arisen  from 
their  original  difference,  and  their  various  com- 
binations. This  theory,  therefore,  clearly  in- 
volves the  doctrine  of  a  creation  from  nothing. 
But  what  is  the  nature,  and  what  are  the  quali- 
ties of  these  first  productions  of  creative  power, 
we  cannot  know,  because  our  senses  do  not  reach 
so  far.  And  when  the  atomic  system,  or  mona- 
dology,  is  extended  to  inquiries  like  these,  it 
.becomes,  as  Kant  has  well  shewn,  merely  hy- 
pothetical, and  without  any  practical  interest. 
The  science  which  has  for  its  object  the  powers 
and/orces  which  act  in  the  world — dynamics,  as 
it  is  called — is  more  important  to  us  than  the 
science  which  relates  merely  to  the  minute 
atoms  or  particles  of  which  bodies  are  composed, 
whether  they  are  called  monades  or  any  other 
name. 

In  this  whole  subject  we  must  guard  against 
the  supposition  of  any  successive  acts  in  God  ; 
as  if  she  had  first  created  the  materials,  and  then 


step  by  step,  like  a  human  artist.  Vide  s.  20, 
respecting  the  immutability  of  God.  In  God, 
thought  and  execution  are  one  and  the  same  act. 
He  speaks,  and  U  is  done,  Ps.  xxxiii.  9.  He  says, 
Let  there  be  light,  and  there  is  light,  Gen.  i.  3. 
Nor  is  any  alteration  produced  in  God  by  the 
creation  of  the  world.  He  designed  from  eter- 
nity that  the  world  should  exist  at  a  certain  time. 
Morus  expresses  this  differently,  p.  72,  s.  2. 
Cf.  on  this  particular  point,  and  on  the  general 
subject,  Ziegler,  Kritik  iiber  den  Artikel  von 
der  Schopfung,  nach  unserer  gewohnlichen 
Dogmatik,  in  Henke's  "  Magazin  fur  Religions- 
philosophie,"  b.  ii.  st.  1,  Abhandl.  1. 

SECTION  XLVII. 

THE  DOCTRINE  AND  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  BIBLICAL 
WRITERS  RESPECTING  THE  CREATION  IN  GENE- 
RAL, AND  HOW  THEY  ARE  TO  BE  UNDERSTOOD. 

I.  Respecting  the  Eternity  of  Matter. 

THE  holy  scriptures  constantly  describe  God 
as  the  author  and  creator  of  the  world  ;  not  mere- 
ly of  the  form  which  it  now  has,  as  the  ancient 
philosophers  supposed,  but  of  the  materials 
themselves  from  which  it  is  formed.  With  this 
fundamental  principle  Moses  begins  his  geo- 
gony,  Gen.  i.  1.  We  find  this  mentioned  as  the 
principal  characteristic  of  the  true  God,  through- 
out the  Bible ;  Is.  xlii.  5 ;  Ps.  cxv.  3,  seq. ;  Acts, 
xvii.  24;  and  the  other  passages  cited  s.  14,  ad 
finem,  and  Morus,  p.  72,  s.  2,  note  1.  It  may 
be  considered  as  an  established  point,  that  the 
eternity  of  the  world  is  nowhere  affirmed  in  the 
Bible.  Vide  Ps.  xc.,2;  cii.  26,  coll.  s.  20. 

But  notwithstanding  this,  there  have  always 
been  philosophers  and  theologians,  even  among 
Christians,  who  have  advocated  the  eternity  of 
the  world,  or  at  least  of  matter.  The  Platonists 
among  the  first  Christians  very  naturally  fol- 
lowed Plato,  who  believed  in  the  eternity  of 
matter,  though  not  of  the  world.  Vide  s.  46. 
Thus  Justin  the  Martyr  affirmed,  that  God 
formed  the  world  from  an  eternal,  misshapen, 
unorganized  material,  Apol.  i.  39;  though  in 
other  parts  of  his  writings  he  appears  to  derive 
matter  originally  from  God  as  its  author,  and 
thus  to  differ  from  Plato. 

The  schoolmen,  who  followed  Aristotle,  and 
wished  to  defend  his  opinion  respecting  the  eter- 
nity of  the  world  (s.  46),  taught  that  we  might 
say,  God  had  CREATED  the  world  from  eternity — 
a  statement  in  which  its  dependence  upon  God 
would  be  vindicated  at  the  same  time  that  its 
eternity  was  maintained.  This  opinion  was 
expressed  by  Boethius  as  early  as  the  fifth  and 
beginning  of  the  sixth  century.  Others,  how- 
ever, only  wished  that  the  possibility  of  this  sup- 


position  should  be  granted.  The  schoolmen 
made  this  distinction  : — Deus  est  ^TERNUS  ; 
mundus  est  AB  ^STERNO,  sc.  productus  &  Deo. 
For  God,  they  said,  had  the  power  to  act  from 
eternity,  and  we  can  see  no  reason  why  he 
should  not  have  exerted  this  power. 

Some  protestant  theologians  of  modern  times 
have  also  asserted  the  possibility  of  the  eternity 
of  the  world.  Some  have  thought  it  to  be  a  con- 
tradiction to  speak  of  an  eternal  God  who  is  not 
an  eternal  creator.  Even  Wolf,  in  his  metaphy- 
sics, affirmed  that  it  could  not  be  shewn  from 
philosophy  that  the  world  and  the  human  race 
have  had  a  beginning.  But  even  if  the  world 
had  been  produced  from  eternity  by  God,  it 
would  not  therefore  be  eternal  in  the  same  sense 
as  God  is.  It  would  only  have  existed  through 
infinite  time,  while  God  is  anterior  to,  and  inde- 
pendent of  time.  It  would  perhaps  be  better  to 
say,  that  eternity  (a  parte  ante}  is  a  necessary 
attribute  of  God,  but  not  of  the  world  :  the  world 
is  eternal  because  God  willed  its  existence  from 
the  first ;  and  not  from  an  internal  necessity  of 
its  existence,  as  there  is  of  the  existence  of  God. 
The  followers  of  Wolf,  Ribbow,  and  others, 
-held  the  same  opinion.  Others  contend,  that 
this  opinion  does  violence  to  the  laws  of  the 
human  understanding.  If  the  word  eternity  is 
understood  in  the  proper  sense,  in  which  it  ex- 
cludes time  (s.  20),  it  is  hard  to  see  how  it  can 
be  said,  with  propriety,  that  the  world  was  cre- 
ated by^God  from  eternity.  For  as  soon  as  we 
suppose  that  the  world  was  created,  we  neces- 
sarily admit  that  it  had  a  beginning;  and  if  it 
had  a  beginning,  it  exists  in  time;  and  time  ex- 
cludes eternity.  We  may  imagine,  if  we  please, 
an  eternal  series  of  created  things  ;  but  such  a 
series  can  have  no  real  existence ;  for  a  series 
consisting  of  things  which  have  a  beginning 
cannot  be  without  a  beginning. 

But  the  reason  why  we  never  obtain  satisfac- 
tion, after  all  our  philosophizing,  upon  this  sub 
ject,  and  why  we  find  so  many  difficulties  attend- 
ing any  supposition  we  may  make  respecting 
the  eternity  of  the  world,  is  this,  that  the  whole 
subject  far  transcends  our  limited  capacities.  The 
forms  of  time  and  space,  which  are  inherent  in 
our  mental  constitution,  so  limit  our  minds  that 
we  cannot  conceive  of  anything  as  existing 
without  them.  Vide  s.  20,  I.  Time  takes  its 
origin  from  the  succession  of  one  thing  after 
another.  It  is  a  notion  of  finite  beings,  who  can 
think  of  only  one  thing  at  a  time,  in  whom, 
therefore,  one  idea  must  succeed  another ;  and 
is  not  a  quality  of  external  objects.  Vide  lo. 
Ernesti  Schubert,  Diss.  de  impossibilitate  mun- 
di  aeterni;  Jenae,  1741.  Kant,  Kritik  der  reinen 
Vernunft.  When  Augustine  was  asked  the 
question  what  God  had  done  before  the  creation 
of  the  world  1  he  replied,  Nescio,  quod  nescio. 


The  simple  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is,  that  God 
lad  an  eternal  purpose  to  make  the  world ;  it 
does  not  teach  us  that  he  did  create  it  from  eter- 
nity ;  but  rather  the  contrary.  Vide  the  texts 
cited  in  Morus,  p.  72,  s.  2,  Note  1. 

II.  Respecting  Creation  from  Nothing. 

1.  The  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  creation 
from  nothing,  its  philosophical  proof,  its  scrip- 
ural  ground,  &c.,  have  been  already  exhibited, 
s.  46.  It  only  remains  to  cite  the  most  import- 
ant texts  relating  to  this  subject.  But  before 
Droceeding  to  do  this,  it  is  important  to  repeat 
the  remark,  that  the  Bible  makes  no  mention  of 
a  chaos,  in  the  sense  of  the  Grecian  fabulists 
and  philosophers.  Moses,  in  his  first  book,  and 
the  other  sacred  writers,  always  exhibit  the 
simple,  great  idea,  that  God  by  his  mere  will 
rought  into  existence  the  world,  which  did  not 
before  exist — i.  e.,  in  other  words,  that  he  cre- 
ated it  from  nothing  ;  that  he  willed  that  what 
was  not  should  be,  and  it  was ;  Morus,  p.  72. 
So  Paul  says,  Heb.  xi.  3,  By  faith  in  God  (i.  e., 
his  declaration,  assurance  in  the  scriptures)  we 
are  certain  that  the  world  (aiwvas)  was  created 
f^pT'tff^at,  |i3),  by  the  decree  or  will  ((j^a-r't) 
of  God;  so  that  what  we  see  (fttcrtyuva  and  |8te- 

psva,  what  appears  or  exists,)  was  made  out 
of  nothing,  (ta  \n.Tr\  (Jxufo/iEva.)  The  phrase  "to, 
pri  <j>awo,ti£va  is  here  synonymous  with  to,  ovx 
ov-ta,  which  occurs  in  2  Mace.  vii.  28,  God  made 
heaven  and  earth,  t|  ovx  ovtuv.  Here  too  the 
text,  Rom.  iv.  17,  is  cited :  Abraham  trusted  in 
God  tov  ^coortotovvT'oj  T'OVJ  vsxpov$  xal  xahovv- 
T?O$  (creantis)  TO,  ^  ovto,  wj  owta*.  The  phrase- 
ology in  this  text  is,  indeed,  derived  from  that 
used  to  describe  the  creation  from  nothing ;  but 
it  is  here  figuratively  applied  to  the  numerous 
posterity  of  Abraham,  which  did  not  yet  exist, 
and  of  which  there  was  no  probability;  but 
which  was  afterwards  brought  into  being.  The 
word  xatecp  here  answers  to  the  word  NI,%  Isa. 
xli.  4;  xliv.  7,  and  signifies  creare,  producere. 
So  Philo  says,  ta  ^u>2  ovfa,  Ixateatv  si$  to  sivai. 
Vide  Carpzov  on  Heb.  xi.  3.  The  doctrine  that 
God  made  the  world  from  nothing,  is  also  im- 
plied, where  it  is  said  that  he  created  the  world 
by  his  word,  his  decree,  or  by  the  breath  which 
proceeded  out  of  his  mouth.  Vide  Ps.  xxxiiu 
6,  9.  Gen.  i.  "  He  spake,  and  it  was  done,'r 
&c.  Cf.  s.  34,  No.  5.  It  is  said  in  Rev.  iv.  11, 
<jv  s  xtiaas  Ttdwta,  xai  8  ta  -to  ^cX^^ta  ( ttip3, 
Daniel,  viii.  4;  xi.  3,  16)  aov  tiai,  "Thou  hast 
made  all  things,  and  they  depend  for  existence 
upon  thy  will." 

2.  Nothing  can  be  determined  from  the  Bible 
respecting  the  particular  manner  in  which  God, 
by  his  mere  will,  created  the  world  from  no- 
thing; and  we  are  unable  even  to  form  any  con- 
ception of  the  subject,  as  we  have  nothing  ana- 


1G3 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


logous  to  wnich  we  can  compare  it.  The  New 
Testament  usually  ascribes  the  work  of  creation 
to  the  Father ;  and  God  is  called  Father,  (Ila-r^p 
maj/T'cov,)  so  far  as  he  is  creator  and  preserver  of 
all  things.  Theologians  say,  Creatio  est  opus 
Dei  ad  extra,  quod  Patri  adscribitur  appropria- 
tivd  sive  terminative,  Morus,  p.  72,  note  1. 

But  creation  is  also  ascribed  to  the  Son,  or  to 
the  Aoyo$  (vide  s.  38,  I.  2)  ;  as  John,  i.  3,  Hdvta 
8t,'  avtov  (Aoyov,  ver.  1,  2)  sysveto,  x.  t.  7,. ;  and 
again,  in  ver.  10,  o  xocr^toj  6t'  avtov  iysvsto.  It 
is  the  object  of  this  passage  to  describe  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Logos  to  the  world  and  created  things. 
The  particle  Sia  with  the  genitive  frequently,  in- 
deed, denotes  merely  the  causa  instrumentalist 
(so  Luke,  i.  70;)  but  it  also  denotes  the  causa 
effidens ;  as  Rom.  i.  5,  and  1  Cor.  i.  9,  (®£o$.  5t' 
ov  ix%.i7&??£,)  and  Hebrews,  ii.  10,  (0f6j  oY  ov 
to,  Ttdvta.*)  That  it  is  used  in  this  sense  here 
may  be  shewn  from  the  analogy  of  other  pas- 
sages—e.  g.,  Col.  i.  15 — 17,  and  Heb.  ii.,  where 
it  is  expressly  said  that  everything  in  the  uni- 
verse was  created  by  the  Son.  Cf.  the  texts 
cited  in  s.  38.  But  some  theologians  have  en- 
deavoured to  explain  all  these  passages  as  figu- 
rative, and  as  exhibiting  a  mere  personification 
of  the  divine  understanding,  and  of  its  plan  exe- 
cuted in  the  creation;  somewhat  as  Wisdom  is 
said  in  Prov.  viii.  to  have  assisted  God  in  the 
creation,  and  to  have  been  the  instrument  by 
which  he  made  the  world.  Vide  s.  37,  and  s. 
41,  II.  This  interpretation  is  embraced  by  those 
who  favour  the  Sabellian  theory ;  but  certainly 
it  is  not  scriptural.  The  most  just,  scriptural, 
and  at  the  same  time  simple  view,  is  perhaps 
the  following.  Since  the  New  Testament 
makes  the  Son  of  God  equal  (t'cra)  with  the  Fa- 
ther, it  designs  to  teach  in  all  texts  of  this  kind 
that  he  stands  in  the  very  same  relation  to  the 
world,  and  to  all  created  objects,  as  the  Father 
does,  and  that  whatever  is  said  of  the  Father  is 
true  also  of  the  Son.  Hence  theologians  have 
the  canon,  Opera  Dei  ad  extra  (attributiva)  sunt 
tribus  personis  communia  ,•  intending  thereby  to 
intimate  their  equality  with  one  another.  Vide 
s.  43,  ad  finem.  Those  who  are  inclined  to 
Arianism  have  often  referred,  in  behalf  of  their 
hypothesis,  to  Heb.  i.  2,  where  it  is  said,  "  God 
appointed  his  Son  Lord  (x^povopw)  over  all. 
6V  ov  xai  T'OVJ  atwvas  iitobjtiev '.  the  meaning  of 
which  they  suppose  to  be  summed  up,  and  ex- 
pressed in  ver.  3,  "  He  (the  Son)  upholds  all 
things  (<j>£pcov  ta  rtavr'a)  by  his  power,  (jj^an 
Swa^fw?.)"  The  phrase,  the  Father  created 
the  world  through  the  Son,  occurs  only  this  once 
in  the  New  Testament,  for  which  reason  Dr. 
Griesbach  advises  to  alter  the  reading,  and  to 
substitute  Sto-r't  xai  for  6V  ov  xai,  Progr.  De 
mundo  a  Deo  Patre  condito  per  Filium ;  Jenae, 
1781.  But  no  sufficient  reason  can  be  given  for 


this  alteration;  and,  as  theologians  have  justly 
remarked,  it  does  not  follow  from  this  phrase- 
ology that  the  Son  is  less  than  the  Father,  as  the 
Arians  and  Subordinationists  (e.  g.,  Dr.  Clark) 
have  concluded.  For  the  person  through  whom 
I  accomplish  anything,  so  far  from  being  neces- 
sarily inferior  to  myself,  may  be  equal  or  even 
greater.  I  may,  for  example,  secure  a  favour  to 
any  one  from  the  king,  through  the  influence  of 
the  minister.  Some  of  the  old  theologians  at- 
tempted to  prove  from  Gen.  i.  2,  that  a  share  in 
creation  was  expressly  ascribed  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  considered  as  a  person.  But  it  is  at  least 
doubtful  whether  in  this  text  the  person  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  spoken  of.  Ps.  xxxiii.  6  has  no 
relation  to  this  subject.  Vide  s.  50, 1. 

3.  The  following  are  the  principal  words  and 
phrases  used  in  the  Bible  in  respect  to  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  and  of  the  earth. 

(a)  sn3,  to  create,  produce,  Gen.  i.  1,  et  passim. 
This  word,  however,  by  itself,  does  not  signify 
to  create  from  nothing.  It  frequently  denotes 
the  formation  of  a  thing  from  a  pre-existing  ma- 
terial, and  answers  to  xni^eiv.  So  in  Gen.  i. 
27,  it  is  used  in  relation  to  the  formation  of  man 
from  the  earth  ;  and  hence  to  denote  his  being 
born  and  begotten ;  so  Ps.  civ.  30.  It  often 
signifies,  too,  par  are.,  condere,  facere,  reddere ; 
so  Is.  xliii.  7;  Num.  xvi.  30,  seq.  Cf.  s. 
48,  I. 

(&)  All  the  words  which  signify  to  make,  to 
prepare,  to  form ;  as  nrp,  (hence  ni?j?c,  a  work, 
created  thing,  rtow/jua,  f'pyov,)  "»s%  to  form ,-  ]}3, 
xaTfap^i^siv,  to  prepare,  to  arrange,  Ps.  viii.  4 ; 
xxxviii.  18.  The  corresponding  verb  and  the 
derivate  substantive  have  the  same  meaning  in 
Arabic. 

(c)  All  the  words  which  relate  to  building,  to 
the  erecting  of  the  superstructure,  or  the  laying 
of  the  foundation.     np%  ^f^f^idco,  to  found,  to 
establish,  is  applied,  particularly  in  poetic  lan- 
guage, to  the  creation  of  the  earth ;  Ps.  cii.  26. 
Hence  the  Hellenistic  phrase  xatafiohri  xoapov, 
John,  xvii.  24,  coll.  ver.  5,  and  Eph.  i.  4.    The 
Hebrews  considered  the  earth  as  being  in  the 
centre  of  the  universe,  and  represented  the  hea- 
vens as  a  tent  spread  over  it,  according  to  their 
natural  appearance ;  and  to  these  popular  no- 
tions the  sacred  writers  everywhere  conform ; 
and  so  because  the  earth  is  firm,  and  undeviating 
in  its  course,  they  represented  it  as  established 
upon  pillars ;  Ps.  civ.  5.     HJS,  to  build,  &c. ;  but 
it  also  signifies  to  propagate  the  race,  to  acquire 
posterity,  Gen.  xvi.  2 ;  hence  J3,  son,  (the  builder 
of  the  family.) 

(d)  The  words  which  signify  to  say,  speak, 
call,  (call  forth,)  command,-  as,  nps,  Nnp,  respect- 
ing which,  cf.  No.  I.    These  are  the  words 
more  commonly  employed  to  designate  creation 
from  nothing. 


SECTION  XLVIII. 

THE  WORK  OF  CREATION  TWOFOLD ;  DIFFERENT 
CLASSES  OF  CREATURES;  OUR  KNOWLEDGE  OF 

THEM  ;    END  OF  GOD  IN  THE  CREATION   OF   THE 
WORLD  J    THE  BEST  WORLD. 

I.  The  Work  of  Creation  twofold. 

CREATION  is  divided  into  prima  or  immediate^ 
and  sccunda  or  mediata.  The  immediate  creation 
is  that  which  took  place  when  God  first  gave 
existence  to  all  this  variety  of  things,  when  be- 
fore there  was  nothing.  The  mediate  creation  is 
that  which  is  seen  since  the  original  creation  was 
completed,  in  the  production  of  plants,  the  ge- 
neration of  animate  creatures,  and  the  whole  na- 
tural propagation  of  the  various  kinds  of  beings. 
God  works,  since  the  creation  is  completed,  not 
immediately,  but  generally,  by  means  of  the 
powers  of  nature  which  he  himself  has  bestowed 
and  regulated.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  speak  of 
God's  having  left  the  world  to  the  powers  of  na- 
ture. But  such  phraseology  should  be  carefully 
avoided  in  religious  instruction.  It  seems  to 
remove  God  to  a  distance  from  us,  and  very  na- 
turally suggests  the  idea  that  he  has  given  up 
the  world,  and  concerns  himself  no  more  about 
it.  More  injury  is  done  by  such  expressions, 
especially  in  an  age  that  forgets  God,  than  is 
ever  supposed.  Instead  of  such  language  it 
would  be  better,  therefore,  to  say,  God  works  by 
means  of  nature,  or,  by  means  of  the  powers  which 
he  has  bestowed  upon  nature,  or  with  which  he  has 
furnished  his  creatures.  Even  Moses  says  ex- 
pressly, Gen.  i.  22,  28,  that  God  gave  his  crea- 
tures the  ability  to  preserve  and  propagate  their 
own  kind.  Still,  however,  all  creatures,  both 
animate  and  inanimate,  which  are  thus  mediately 
produced,  are  called,  with  perfect  truth,  crea- 
tures of  God,  considering  that  God  first  esta- 
blished and  upholds  this  natural  constitution  by 
means  of  which  they  come  into  being.  Vide 
Job,  x.  8 ;  xxxiii.  4 ;  Ps.  cxxxix.  13—16.  The 
word  xi3  and  the  derivative  noun  are  used  in 
both  of  these  senses ;  in  the  first,  that  of  imme- 
diate creation,  Gen.  i.  1,  27;  ii.  2,  seq. ;  Is.  xlv. 
18;  Ps.  cxlviii.  5;  in  the  second,  that  of  me- 
diate creation,  Psalm  civ.  30,  "They  (men)  are 
created" — i.  e.,  born.  Hence  tra  and  nS>  are 
interchanged  as  synonymous :  as,  s-qj  op,  popu- 
lus  creandus,  Psalm  cii.  19;  and  nSu  037,  populus 
nascendus,  Psalm  xxii.  32.  Hence  to  create, 
signifies  metaphorically,  in  the  scriptures,  to  re- 
new, to  found,  to  be  the  author  of  anything ;  Is. 
xlviii.  7 ;  Ps.  li.  12.  The  same  is  true  ofxtt&w 
and  jcr'ttfts,  Eph.  ii.  10,  15;  iii.  9  ;  and  also  of 
the  Latin  creare ;  as,  "  Romulus  CREATOR  urbis." 
u  Terra  CREAVIT  genus  humanum,"  Lucretius. 
CREARE  regem,  magistratum,  &c. 

Every  good,  therefore,  which  we  derive  from 
any  of  the  creatures  of  God,  is  truly  a  gift  and 
22 


favour  of  God  himself,  who  gave  to  his  creatures 
all  their  various  powers  with  the  intention  of 
making  them  useful  to  others.  Cf.  Hos.  ii.  21, 
seq.;  Matt.  vi.  25,  seq.;  Acts,  xvii.  25,  seq. 
Consequently  we  are  under  obligation  to  be 
thankful  to  God  himself  for  these  advantages, 
which  we  derive  from  his  creatures.  Vide 
Psalm  civ.  1,  seq.,  and  other  texts  of  the  New 
Testament. 

II.  Different  Classes  of  Creatures. 

The  kingdom  of  God  is  so  vast,  and  compre- 
hends such  an  innumerable  host,  (to  use  a  scrip- 
tural term,)  that  we  are  able  to  survey  but  a 
very  small  portion  of  it  at  once,  and  are  wholly 
inadequate  suitably  to  estimate  the  perfection, 
beauty,  and  harmony  of  the  whole.  What, 
then,  we  cannot  survey  at  once,  we  must  exa- 
mine in  separate  portions,  and  by  this  partition 
we  may  relieve  the  weakness  of  our  under- 
standing; and  this  course  is  both  reasonable  in 
itself  and  according  to  the  example  of  scripture. 

The  ancient  Hebrews  divided  the  universe 
into  heaven,  earth,  and  sea,  (s.  45,)  whichv  are 
properly  styled  the  provinces  (nicpp)  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  by  the  author  of  Psalm  ciii. ; 
and  this  is  the  division  according  to  which  the 
ancient  Hebrew  prophets  always  proceed  in  the 
classification  of  the  works  of  God.  Vide 
Psalm  civ.,  cxlviii.  The  former  of  these 
Psalms  is  an  admirable  ode  on  the  creation  and 
the  wise  constitution  of  the  world.  The  various 
objects  in  heaven,  on  the  earth,  and  in  the 
waters,  are  there  mentioned  in  their  natural 
order;  their  dependence  on  God  is  shewn,  and 
their  uses,  and  the  ends  for  which  they  were 
made,  is  described.  The  sublime  descriptions 
in  Job,  xxxvi.  and  xli.,  may  be  cited  in  this 
connexion.  Cf.  Ps.  cxlv.  cxlvii. 

The  Bible  always  gives  the  preference  to  ani- 
mate creatures  (creatures  who  have  breath;  in 
whom  is  the  breath  of  life,  as  Moses  says)  over 
the  inanimate  creation.  It  justly  considers 
them  as  the  more  noble,  exalted,  and  perfect 
work  of  God  ;  and  it  assigns  to  man  a  pre-emi- 
nence among  the  creatures  which  belong  to  the 
earth.  Vide  Gen.  i.  26,  seq.,  and  Ps.  viii., 
which  treat  of  the  dignity  of  man,  and  of  his 
superiority  to  the  other  creatures  of  the  earth,  es- 
pecially ver.  4 — 9.  This  passage  may  be  consi- 
dered as  a  comment  upon  Gen.  i.  26,  seq. 
There  it  is  said  that  God  made  man  in  his  own 
image,  and  placed  him  over  the  rest  of  the 
creation.  This  pre-eminence  consists  in  the  ra- 
tional and  moral  nature,  and  the  freedom  of  will 
which  man  alone  possesses  among  all  the  crea- 
tures by  which  he  is  surrounded. 

Respecting  the   division  of   creatures    into 

visible   (corporeal)   and   invisible,   (immaterial, 

spiritual,)  which  occurs,  Col.  i.  16,  vide  s.  45, 

ad  finem.     JLngels  and  the  human  soul  belong 

P 


170 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


to  the  second  class;  but  the  whole  man  belongs 
alike  to  the  corporeal  and  spiritual  kingdom. 

III.  The  Knowledge  of  the  Works  of  God. 

The  ancients  had  a  very  imperfect  acquaint- 
ance with  natural  science.  They  remained  con- 
tented for  the  most  part  with  the  first  impres- 
sions which  were  made  upon  their  senses,  with- 
out being  able  to  penetrate  into  the  internal  na- 
ture of  the  objects  around  them.  We  cannot, 
therefore,  expect  to  find  any  very  thorough  and 
accurate  acquaintance  with  natural  science  in 
the  writings  of  a  nation  in  so  early  a  stage  of 
improvement  as  the  ancient  Hebrews  were. 
They  were  wholly  incapable  of  a  high  degree 
of  the  knowledge  of  nature.  And  although 
some  have  thought  they  discovered  it  in  the 
geogony  of  Moses,  they  have  done  so  only  by 
ascribing  their  own  thoughts  to  his  words,  and 
embodying  their  own  information  in  his  account. 
The  ancient  hearers  and  readers  of  this  history 
had  no  taste  for  all  this,  and  would  not  have 
understood  it. 

The  more  cultivated  nations  of  antiquity,  es- 
pecially the  Greeks,  and  their  disciples  the  Ro- 
mans, advanced  indeed  much  beyond  the  He- 
brews in  natural  science.  But  they  too  were 
destitute  of  the  requisite  instruments  and  helps, 
and  often  trusted  more  to  reasoning  a  priori 
than  to  experiment;  and  consequently  their 
knowledge  of  nature,  as  a  whole,  bears  no  com- 
parison with  ours,  though  in  particular  depart- 
ments they  did  much,  considering  the  age  in 
which  they  lived ;  as  appears  from  the  works 
of  Aristotle,  Theophrastus,  Hippocrates,  Galen, 
Pliny,  Seneca,  and  others.  More  considerable 
advances,  however,  have  been  made  by  Euro- 
peans in  modern  times,  especially  since  the  fif- 
teenth century,  by  means  of  the  telescope,  mi- 
croscope, and  other  newly  invented  philosophi- 
cal instruments,  by  which  the  secrets  of  nature 
have  been  disclosed. 

We  have  made  these  observations  upon  the 
study  of  nature  in  this  place,  not  only  because 
this  study,  and  the  general  prevalence  of  correct 
natural  science,  contribute  greatly  to  intellectual 
improvement,  and  in  many  respects  to  the  en- 
nobling of  man,  but  especially  because  they 
stand  in  intimate  connexion  with  religion.  On 
these  accounts  it  must  appear  to  be  the  duty  of 
every  man  of  education,  and  especially  of  the 
religious  teacher,  to  acquaint  himself  with 
natural  science,  and  also  to  give  instruction  to 
the  common  people  and  the  young  in  those 
parts  of  it  which  they  are  capable  of  learning — 
always  employing  it,  however,  for  religious 
purposes.  This  knowledge  can  and  should  be 
used — 

1.  As  a  very  easy  and  practical  means  of  at- 
taining to  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  and 
attributes  of  God,  and  as  well  adapted  to  pro- 


mote a  disposition  and  conduct  corresponding  to 
such  knowledge,  vide  s.  15,  I.,  where  some 
physico-theological  works  are  mentioned  ;  abo, 
Morus,  p.  74,  s.  4,  5. 

2.  As  a  preventive  of  superstition,  and  a  re- 
medy for  its  evil  consequences.  The  supersti- 
tious are  those  who  believe  things  to  be  real,  of 
whose  reality  they  have  no  evidence,  and  who 
expect  things  will  come  to  pass  without  the 
least  reason  for  so  doing.  This  is  their  pecu- 
liar infirmity ;  and  the  only  suitable  remedy  is, 
for  them  to  learn  to  judge  correctly  respecting 
the  reality  of  things;  to  observe  closely  and 
examine  properly  the  evidence  of  what  they  be- 
lieve, and  then  to  believe  only  so  far  as  their 
observation  and  evidence  will  warrant.  The 
superstitious  easily  believe  that  an  event  ac- 
complished by  natural  means  is  accomplished 
by  direct  supernatural  agency,  and  thus  allow 
themselves  to  be  deceived  by  tricks  and  artifices. 
These  false  views  cannot  be  proved  to  them  to 
be  groundless  in  any  way  so  clearly  and  effec- 
tually as  by  giving  them  a  thorough  knowledge 
of  nature ;  since  by  this  we  can  shew  them  that 
an  event  which  they  had  regarded  as  superna- 
tural was  entirely  in  the  usual  course.  This 
will  have  more  influence  than  all  the  laws 
which  could  be  enacted  against  superstitious 
practices,  magic,  and  fortune-telling,  and  more 
than  all  the  punishments  which  could  be  inflict- 
ed upon  magicians  and  fortune-tellers.  The  best 
laws  and  regulations  of  this  kind  are  of  little 
use,  if  the  first  source  of  such  superstitious  no- 
tions cannot  be  discovered  and  removed  by 
proper  instruction.  This  is  the  reason  why 
even  the  wise  regulations  of  Moses  upon  this 
subject  were  ineffectual  among  the  Israelites. 

Natural  science  ought,  therefore,  by  no  means 
to  be  neglected  in  the  instruction  of  the  common 
people  and  of  the  young;  since  it  contributes  so 
much  to  mental  and  moral  improvement,  to  ge- 
nuine religion,  and  to  the  whole  happiness  of 
man.  Cicero  has  an  excellent  remark  upon  this 
subject:  Omnium  rerum  naturd  cognitd  levamur 
super  siitione, — non  conturbamur  ignoratione  re- 
rum,  e  qua  ipsd  horribiles  ssepe  existunt  formi- 
dines  ,-  denique  etiam  morati  melius  erimus,  De 
Fin.  i.  19.  Bayle's  work  on  comets  should  be 
read,  as  a  thorough  antidote  to  superstition. 
Cf.  Wiegleb,  Natiirliche  Magie,  continued  by 
Rosenthal,  which  explains  by  natural  causes 
many  things  considered  by  the  common  people 
as  supernatural. 

In  giving  this  instruction  in  natural  science 
which  has  now  been  recommended,  the  religious 
teacher  must  carefully  avoid  all  learned  specula- 
tions and  hypotheses,  and  introduce  only  that 
which  can  be  made  intelligible  to  the  least  im- 
proved understanding.  He  must  not  come  for- 
ward in  the  character  of  a  naturalist,  for  the 
purpose  of  merely  instructing  his  people  in 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


171 


natural  science.  This  is  not  his  calling.  He 
must  give  this  instruction  only  as  a  means  of 
inspiring  his  people  with  reverence  for  God,  of 
promoting  their  piety  towards  him  and  confi- 
dence in  him,  and  of  making  them  more  happy 
and  contented  in  their  condition.  He  should 
exhibit  it  in  connexion  with  the  positive  truths 
of  Christianity,  and  in  such  a  way  that  it  will 
have  no  tendency  to  produce  doubts  and  scepti- 
cism with  regard  to  our  holy  religion.  Cf. 
Flatt's  Magazin,  Ueber  den  Inhalt  offentlicher 
Religionsvortrage  an  erwachsene  Christen,  St. 
i.  Num.  7,  and  St.  v.  Num.  3. 

IV.  End  of  God  in  the  Creation. 

The  scriptures  declare  expressly,  that  every- 
thing which  God  has  made  is  good — i.  e.,  ac- 
complishes exactly  the  purpose  for  which  he 
made  it.  Moses  represents  God  as  testifying 
his  pleasure  in  all  that  he  had  done,  when  the 
creation  was  completed,  Gen.  i.  31.  The  truth 
of  the  principle,  that  God  has  given  to  all  his 
creatures  the  highest  possible  degree  of  per- 
fection, is  evident  both  from  his  wisdom  and 
his  goodness.  Vide  s.  24,  28.  Either  our 
former  theory  respecting  these  attributes  is 
untrue,  (quod  non  potest  esse,)  or  this  principle 
is  true.  Acting  under  the  guidance  of  infinite 
wisdom,  and  under  the  impulse  of  infinite  good- 
ness, God  could  not,  but  choose  what  is  best. 

Upon  this  principle  rests  the  doctrine  of  the 
best  world,  or  optimism,  which  is  found  even  in 
Plato,  the  stoics,  and  other  ancient  writers. 
According  to  Seneca,  (Ep.  65,)  Plato  said, 
Deus  mundum  fecit  quam  optimum  potuit.  In 
modern  times,  this  doctrine  has  found  a  decided 
advocate  in  Leibnitz,  in  his  Theodicee,  th.  i. 
cap.  8.  Wolf,  in  his  Metaphysik,  and  others 
after  him,  have  more  fully  developed  it.  If  we 
presuppose  that  God  could  have  conceived  of 
many  worlds  as  possible,  the  present  world, 
which  he  preferred  to  the  others,  and  to  which 
therefore  he  gave  existence,  must  be  the  best. 
If  not,  then  God  might  prefer  the  worse  and 
less  perfect  to  the  best  and  most  perfect;  which 
would  bespeak  an  imperfection  both  of  intelli- 
gence and  will.  When  God  created  the  world, 
he  foresaw,  most  clearly  and  infallibly,  all  his 
creatures — their  nature,  actions,  and  their  con- 
nexion with  the  whole  system.  He  must  also 
be  supposed  to  have  had  the  best  end  in  view 
in  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  to  have  been 
able  to  apply  the  best  means  for  the  attainment 
of  it;  s.  24,  28.  Moreover,  his  power  is  so 
unlimited  that  nothing  could  prevent  him  from 
giving  the  world  a  different  constitution  from 
that  which  it  now  has ;  or,  which  is  same  thing, 
from  creating  a  different  world  from  that  which 
now  exists.  Now  since  he  has  created  the  pre- 
sent world,  it  follows  that  no  other  world  is  so 
well  adapted  to  the  attainment  of  the  divine 


purposes  as  this.  WTe  are,  indeed,  unacquaint- 
ed with  his  designs,  or  with  the  final  cause  of 
the  creation  of  the  world.  God,  doubtless,  had 
many  ends  in  view,  which  we  do  not  know,  and 
of  which  we  do  not  even  think.  Vide  Morus, 
p.  75,  s.  6.  So  far,  however,  as  we  consider 
the  designs  of  God  in  respect  to  his  creatures, 
(and  in  this  respect  alone  can  we  consider 
them,)  it  was  his  object  to  give  them  indivi- 
dually that  degree  of  perfection  and  of  well- 
being  of  which  they  might  be  susceptible. 
This  what  is  meant  in  the  Bible,  when  it  is  said, 
He  created  everything  for  his  own  glory,  (rather, 
glorification,}  in  reference  to  us  rational  beings, 
who  are  to  learn  his  majesty  and  his  glorious 
perfections  from  the  works  of  his  hand.  This 
is  enough  for  us  to  know  in  order  to  make  a 
wise  use  of  the  world.  The  theological  doc- 
trine, that  God  had  his  own  glory  as  his  highest 
object  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  when  thus 
explained,  is  just  and  scriptural.  Cf.  s.  24, 1; 
s.  18,  I.  Note. 

Now  if  optimism  be  thus  defined,  and  if  the 
supposition  that  many  worlds  were  possible  is 
admitted,  it  is  a  true  doctrine.  When,  however, 
Leibnitz  and  Wolf  maintained  that  the  best 
world  could  not  exist  without  imperfection,  evil, 
and  sin,  (which  will  be  farther  considered  in 
the  articles  on  Providence  and  the  Apostasy,) 
the  theologians  of  that  age  were  unable  to  re- 
concile it  with  their  common  theories  and  modes 
of  expression,  and  supposed  that  by  this  doc- 
trine God  was  made  the  author  of  sin.  This 
was  the  case  with  Buddeus,  Lange,  Weismann, 
and  others.  Vide  Baumeister,  Historia  doc- 
trinae  recentius  controversy  de  mundo  optimo; 
Gorlit.  1741. 

The  philosophy  of  Kant  sets  aside  the  theory 
of  optimism  as  incapable  of  proof,  and  resting 
upon  arbitrary  notions  of  the  moral  attributes 
of  God.  Kant's  objections  against  this  doc- 
trine, or  rather,  against  the  abuse  of  it,  may  be 
found  in  his  Kritik  der  Urtheilskraft ;  Berlin, 
1790,  8vo;  and  in  Rehberg,  Verhaltniss  der 
Metaphysik  zur  Religion,  Abschn.  5,  6.  [Cf. 
Hahn,  s.  60,  Anmerk.  4,  5.  Bretschneider,  b. 
i.  s.  584.] 

SECTION  XLIX. 

OF  THE  MOSAIC  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  CREATION, 
ITS  OBJECT,  AND  THE  VARIOUS  HYPOTHESES 
ADOPTED  TO  EXPLAIN  IT. 

I.  Object  of  this  Narration,  and  whence  it  was 
derived. 

THESE  points  must  be  determined  before  we 
can  attain  a  position  from  which  we  can  survey 
the  whole  subject  in  all  its  bearings.  Moses 
wrote  primarily  for  his  own  nation,  the  Israel- 
ites. And  the  surest  way  to  determine  what 


172 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


end  he  had  in  view  in  writing  this  narrative,  is 
to  consider  the  circumstances  and  wants  of  the 
Jews  at  the  time  he  wrote ;  and  these  are  best 
learned  from  his  own  books. 

1.  One  principal  object  which  Moses  had  in 
view  in  this  account,  was  to  shew  that  the  God 
whom  the  Israelites  worshipped  was  the  being 
from  whom  all  things  derived  their  existence^  and 
that,  consequently,  their  national  God  was  the 
God  and  Lord  of  the  whole  universe,  and  not  a 
being  of  so  limited  a  nature  as  the  national  dei- 
ties at  that  time  were  usually  imagined.  The 
Israelites  had  a  very  strong  propensity  to  the 
polytheism  then  prevalent.  Even  many  among 
them,  who  worshipped  Jehovah  as  their  national 
God,  still  considered  the  heathen  idols  as  dei- 
ties having  rule  over  other  nations  and  coun- 
tries. And  so  they  frequently  regarded  Jehovah 
as  the  God  of  their  own  nation  only,  and  their 
own  land  ;  and  not  of  the  whole  earth,  or  world. 
Vide  s.  16.  And  as  they  had  seen  image-wor- 
ship in  Egypt,  they  frequently  worshipped  their 
own  God  under  various  forms — e.  g.  that  of  a 
golden  calf,  Ex.  xxxii.  This  tendency  among 
the  Jews  gave  rise  to  those  severe  laws  which 
Moses  enacted  against  image  and  idol  worship, 
Ex.  xx.  4;  Deut.  iv.  15—17.  Many  of  the  Is- 
raelites worshipped  the  stars.  Vide  the  texts 
above  cited. 

Now  this  history  of  the  creation  clearly  shews 
that  the  God  whom  the  Israelites  worshipped  is 
the  Creator  and  Lord  of  the  whole  universe; 
that  the  firmament  and  the  stars,  as  well  as  the 
earth  and  its  inhabitants,  are  his  work,  and  his 
alone;  that  there  are  not  many  gods,  but  ONE 
only,  the  author  of  all  things  ;  that  these  things 
were  created  by  God  for  the  good,  advantage, 
and  service  of  man,  and  not  to  be  worshipped 
by  him,  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  he  himself  is 
appointed  by  God  to  be  the  lord  and  ruler  of  the 
earth,  and  of  all  the  inferior  creatures  that  in- 
habit it. 

Such  a  history  was  the  more  necessary,  from 
the  fact  that  almost  all  the  ancient  books  of  le- 
gislation and  religion  began  with  cosmogonies. 
This  was  the  case  with  the  books  of  the  Pheni- 
cians,  Greeks,  &c.  The  same  might  therefore 
have  been  expected  from  Moses  by  his  country- 
men, especially  as  many  of  the  cosmogonies  of 
other  nations  were  false,  and  needed  to  be  cor- 
rected. 

2.  Moses  intended,  also,  by  this  account,  to 
confirm,  impress,  and  solemnize  many  of  his 
positive  institutions  and  laws.  Thus  what  he 
says,  in  the  account  of  the  work  of  the  fourth 
day,  (ver.  14,)  respecting  the  use  of  the  sun  and 
moon  in  the  reckoning  of  time,  was  designed  to 
recommend  the  custom  which  he  had  instituted 
among  the  Israelites  of  reckoning  time,  and  ob- 
serving feasts  and  public  solemnities,  according 
to  moons  and  lunar  years.  And  thus,  especially 


in  the  account  which  he  gives  of  the  seventh  day 
(ii.  2,  3),  on  which  God  rested  when  his  labours 
were  done,  he  has  an  obvious  reference  to  the 
institution  of  the  Sabbath.  This  becomes  still 
more  evident  on  a  comparison  of  these  verses 
with  Ex.  xx.  8 — 11;  for  it  is  there  expressly 
said  respecting  the  Mosaic  institution  of  the 
Sabbath,  "  that  no  labour  should  be  done  in  it, 
because  God  laboured  only  six  days,  as  it  were, 
and  rested  on  the  seventh  day  ;  wherefore  God 
consecrated  (-112)  the  seventh  day,  and  appoint- 
ed it  for  a  festival  (inch^)."  In  what  way, 
now,  could  this  solemn  festival  of  the  Jewish 
nation  have  received  a  higher  sanction  and  inte- 
rest, than  from  such  a  consideration  as  this  1  The 
Sabbath  was  thus  consecrated  as  a  solemn  festi- 
val in  remembrance  of  the  creation,  and  in  it  the 
Jews  were  required  to  rest  from  their  labour  in 
honour  of  God,  their  creator  and  the  creator  of  the 
world,  and  to  employ  this  rest  in  religious  me- 
ditation, and  in  celebrating  his  perfections. 
Hence  the  Hebrew  psalms  intended  for  the  Sab- 
bath day  were  hymns  of  praise  to  God  for  his 
greatness,  as  manifested  in  his  works — e.  g., 
Ps.  xcii.  1,  seq.  This  reference  of  Moses  to 
the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  in  what  he  says 
of  the  consecration  of  the  seventh  day  in  his 
history  of  the  creation,  is  so  evident,  that  it  was 
perceived  by  many  of  the  ecclesiastical  fathers 
— e.  g.,  Philoponus,  in  the  sixth  century,  in  his 
Hexaemer,  1.  i.  c.  3. 

Eichhorn,inhis  "Urgeschichte,"  has  endea- 
voured, very  ingeniously,  to  carry  out  this  idea 
respecting  the  object  for  which  Moses  wrote. 
Vide  Repertor.  fur  bibl.  Lit.  th.  iv.  s.  129—172 ; 
Leipzig,  1779;  and,  Eichhorn's  Urgeschichte, 
herausgegeben  mil  Einleitung  und  Anmerkun- 
gen,  von  Dr.  Job.  Phil.  Gabler,  1  th.  Altorf  und 
Nurenberg,  1790,  8vo,  and  Ite  Abth.  des  2n  th., 
at  the  same  place,  1791.  Cf.  Gabler,  Neuer 
Versuch  iiber  die  Mosaische  Schopfungsges- 
chichte  aus  der  hohern  Kritik;  Altorf,  1795, 
8vo ;  and,  Vater,  in  his  "  Commentar  zu  dem 
Pentateuch,"  th.  iii.  Eichhorn,  however,  main- 
tains that  Moses  fabricated  this  whole  history 
of  the  creation,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  esta- 
blishing some  truth,  or  of  sanctioning  some  of 
his  religious  institutions.  But  this  opinion 
cannot  be  proved,  and  only  involves  us  in  new 
difficulties.  There  is  no  reason  to  regard  this 
history  as  a  fabrication  of  Moses  himself,  be- 
cause he  is  not  known  in  any  other  case  to  have 
invented  fables  to  recommend  his  most  import- 
ant laws  and  institutions.  Others  are  of  opi- 
nion, that  he  found  this  history  previously  ex- 
isting, and  applied  it  to  the  confirmation  of  his 
institutions.  That  such  was  the  case  cannot, 
however,  be  proved,  as  he  himself  is  silent  upon 
the  subject.  Such  might  have  been  the  case; 
and  the  supposition  detracts  nothing  from  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Genesis.  This  opinion 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


173 


was  maintained  long  since  by  Astriic  in  his 
"Conjectures  sur  les  memoires  originaux  dont 
il  paroit  que  Moses  s'est  servi  pour  composer  le 
livre  de  la  Genese,"  (Bruxelles,  1753,  8vo,)  and 
by  Jerusalem,  in  his  "  Briefe  ueber  die  Mosa- 
ische  Schrift  und  Philosophic,"  (Braunschw. 
1762,  8vo;)  who  endeavoured  to  shew,  that 
Moses,  in  his  first  book,  made  use  of  ancient 
narratives  orally  transmitted,  and  of  written  me- 
morials, derived  in  part  from  the  antediluvian 
world.  The  design,  then,  of  Moses,  (as  the 
following  chapters  of  his  first  book  shew,)  was 
to  preserve  in  Genesis  such  venerable  remnants 
of  antiquity  as  had  been  handed  down  from  the 
patriarchal  age.  Now  if  it  is  apparent,  as  even 
Eichhorn  allows,  that  Moses  made  use  of  such 
fragments  in  the  composition  of  the  second  and 
third  chapters,  it  is  hard  to  see  why  he  should 
be  supposed  to  have  fabricated  the  whole  narra- 
tive in  the  first  chapter.  Besides,  it  is  common 
for  the  ancient  traditions  and  religious  memo- 
rials of  a  nation  to  begin  with  cosmogonies. 
And  it  is  therefore  probable,  that  an  ancient  ac- 
count of  the  creation  had  been  transmitted, 
which  Moses  either  inserted  as  he  found  it,  or 
remodelled  to  suit  his  own  purpose.  All  this, 
however,  is  mere  hypothesis  and  ingenious  con- 
jecture. 

The  number  seven  has  been  a  sacred  number 
in  all  the  East  from  the  earliest  times.  Here, 
say  some,  is  the  ground  of  the  representation 
that  the  creation  lasted  to  the  seventh  day. 
But  how  can  this  be  proved  1  With  as  much 
reason  one  might  reverse  the  statement,  and 
say,  this  account  of  the  creation,  which  was 
widely  circulated  in  the  ages  before  and  after 
the  deluge,  was  the  reason  why  the  number 
seven  was  adopted  as  the  sacred  number.  And 
no  one  is  able  to  disprove  this.  Such  hypothe- 
ses never  lead  to  a  certain  result. 

As  respects  the  Sabbath,  it  was  not  first  in- 
stituted by  Moses,  but  was  an  ancient  usage,  as 
Michaelis  has  shewn  in  his  "Mosaisches  Recht," 
•and  others  after  him,  with  much  reason.  Moses, 
however,  found  it  necessary  to  enact  new  laws 
for  the  observance  of  this  ancient  institution. 
Eichhorn,  indeed,  considers  this  opinion  un- 
founded, though  without  sufficient  reason.  For 
we  find  this  day  hallowed  as  a  day  of  rest  among 
the  Israelites,  even  before  the  legislation  of  Moses 
commenced.  Vide  Ex.  xvi.  23.  The  Sabbath 
is  there  called  a  day  of  holy  rest  in  honour  of 
Jehovah.  Cf.  J.  W.  Ran,  Progr.  de  fictione 
Mosaica,  falso  adserta;  Erlang.  1779.  Beck, 
De  fontibus  sententiarum  de  creatione ;  Lipsag, 
1782,  4to.  Paulus,  Abhandlung  ueber  die  An- 
lage  und  den  Zweck  des  ersten  und  zweyten 
Fragments  der  altesten  Mosaischen  Menschen- 
geschichte,  in  his  Neu.  Reper.  fur  bibl.  und 
morgendland.  Lit.  th.  ii.  Num.  5;  Jena,  1790, 
6vo.  He  considers  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 


as  an  ancient  Sabbath-hymn,  which  owes  its 
whole  form  and  structure  to  the  division  of  time 
into  six  days  for  labour,  and  a  day  of  rest. 

II.  Consequences  from  these  General  Remarks. 

If  the  remarks  made  in  No.  I.  are  true,  the 
following  rules  and  principles  must  be  adopted 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  history  of  the  crea- 
tion:— 

1.  Moses  did  not  write  as  a  naturalist  or  phi- 
losopher, intending  to  make  his  account  the  basis 
of  a  scientific  physiology.  Vide  Morus,  p.  73, 
s.  3,  Num.  2.  He  did  not  design  to  shew,  as  a 
naturalist  would  have  done,  the  manner  in  which 
particular  things  were  created.  The  opinion  was 
formerly  very  prevalent,  especially  among  the 
Jews,  that  the  Bible  was  a  general  repository  of 
every  kind  of  knowledge,  as  well  as  of  the  doc- 
trines of  faith  and  morality,  or  at  least  that  it 
contained  the  first  germ  of  all  the  sciences;  and 
as  improvements  were  gradually  made  in  natural 
science,  they  were  supposed  to  be  contained  in 
the  Bible,  and  from  the  general  and  comprehen- 
sive nature  of  scriptural  language,  often  with 
great  appearance  of  truth.  But  in  this  attempt 
the  true  object  of  the  Bible  was  overlooked ; 
which  was  the  reason,  also,  that  allegorical  in- 
terpretation found  so  much  approbation  for- 
merly. 

The  writings  of  Homer  met  with  the  same 
fate  among  the  Greeks  which  those  of  Moses 
have  experienced  among  the  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians. Everybody  forced  his  own  system  upon 
these  writings,  and  found  it  confirmed  by  them, 
without  ever  thinking  that  learned  sciences  did 
not  exist  at  so  early  an  age  of  the  world,  and 
that  they  are  unsuitable  to  the  common  people 
of  any  age.  They  could  not  have  been  pos- 
sessed by  the  writers  to  whom  they  are  attri- 
buted, nor  could  they  have  been  understood  by 
their  contemporaries. 

The  whole  representation  which  Moses  has 
given  of  the  creation  of  the  world  is  as  simple 
as  possible,  and  such  as  doubtless  was  perfectly 
intelligible  to  those  who  lived  in  that  infant  age 
of  the  world,  and  is  still  so  to  men  in  common 
life.  The  more  familiar  one  becomes  with  the 
views  and  wants  of  men  at  large — the  more  he 
is  able  to  place  himself  in  their  condition,  the 
more  justly  will  he  be  able  to  explain  this  pas- 
sage, and  the  more  fully  will  he  enter  into  the 
spirit  of  its  author.  In  the  Bible,  God  speaks 
with  men  after  the  manner  of  men,  and  not  in  a 
language  which  is  beyond  the  comprehension 
of  most  of  them,  as  the  learned  would  fain  make 
it  to  be.  Well,  indeed,  is  it  for  the  great  mass 
of  mankind  that  the  learned  were  not  consulted 
respecting  the  manner  in  which  the  Bible  should 
be  written ! 

WThen  the  study  of  nature  became  more  pre 
valent  in  the  seventeenth  century,  it  was  very 
p2 


174 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


common  among  Christian  interpreters,  who  at 
that  time  adopted  the  principle  before  stated, 
either  to  derive  their  systems  of  physiology  from 
the  writings  of  Moses,  or  to  force  them  upon 
him.  The  first  fault  was  committed,  though 
with  the  best  intentions,  by  the  otherwise  very 
deserving  Job.  Amos  Comenius,  in  his  "  Synopsi 
physices  ad  lumen  divinum  reformatse."  He 
had  many  followers.  The  latter  fault  was  first 
committed  by  some  adherents  of  the  Cartesian 
philosophy.  They  believed  that  they  found 
many  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Des  Cartes 
very  clearly  exhibited  in  the  writings  of  Moses. 
Des  Cartes  himself  appeared  to  be  of  this  opi- 
nion. Vide,  e.  g.,  Job.  Amerpoel  (Cartesius 
Mosaizans),  Beaufort,  Rambert,  and  others. 

The  same  was  done  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
and  in  still  more  modern  times.  There  have 
always  been  some  who  have  believed  that  they 
found  the  various  philosophical  systems  of  New- 
ton, Wolf,  Buffon,  and  Bergmann  in  the  writings 
of  Moses,  or  at  least  that  they  could  reconcile 
these  philosophers  with  him.  But  Moses  will 
as  little  confirm  the  theories  of  one  philosopher 
as  he  will  contradict  those  of  another.  All  the 
attempts  made  by  different  philosophers  to  an- 
swer objections  to  their  own  theory  drawn  from 
the  Mosaic  geogony,  or  to  draw  arguments  from 
it  to  confute  the  theories  of  others,  are  labour 
thrown  away.  Cf.  Silberschlag,  Geogonie,  oder, 
Erklarung  der  Mosaischen  Erderschaffung  nach 
physikalischen  und  mathematischen  Grundsat- 
zen,  3  thle;  Berlin,  1780—83,  a  work  which 
contains  much  of  the  sort  above  mentioned.  Cf. 
the  "Neue  Theorie  der  Erde,"  by  the  same 
author,  containing  many  very  good  scientific 
observations,  but  also  many  rash  and  untenable 
positions.  Vide  also,  De  Liic.,  Lettres  phy- 
siques et  morales  sur  1'histoire  de  la  terre  et  de 
1'homme,  &  la  Haye,  6  torn.  1779,  8vo.  Dr.  Ro- 
senmuller,  Antiquiss.  telluris  Historia  ;  UlmaR, 
1776,  8vo,  is  very  useful  as  a  collection  of  ma- 
terials for  a  history  of  opinions,  &c. 

2.  In  this  description  of  the  creation  regard  is 
shewn  to  the  comprehension  of  common  men, 
especially  of  men  in  that  early  age ;  and  it  is 
not  improbable,  as  remarked  before,  that  it  may 
foave  been  composed  by  Moses  from  ancient 
written  records. 

The  general  subject  of  this  passage  is  indi- 
cated in  ver.  1.  This  is  then  enlarged  upon  in 
the  following  verses,  not  to  gratify  the  curiosity 
of  scientific  men,  but  to  meet  the  wants  of  those 
who  lived  in  the  age  in  which  it  was  written, 
-and  of  common  men  in  aM  ages.  This  amplifi- 
cation is  entirely  simple  and  popular ;  and  when 
the  work  of  creation  is  here  represented  as  a  six- 
days1  work,  it  is  to  be  considered  as  a  picture,  in 
which  God  appears  as  a  human  workman,  who 
•accomplishes  what  he  undertakes  only  by  piece- 
meal, and  on  each  successive  day  lays  out  and 


performs  a  separate  portion  of  his  business.  By 
such  a  representation  the  notion  of  the  creation 
is  made  easy  to  every  mind  ;  and  common  peo- 
ple, seeing  it  so  distinctly  portrayed,  can  form 
some  clear  conceptions  concerning  it,  and  read 
or  hear  the  account  of  it  with  interest. 

Many  modern  writers  (e.  g.,  Paul  us)  are  of 
opinion  that  Moses,  or  the  author  of  this  history, 
whoever  he  may  be,  designed  this  description 
merely  as  a  philosopheme  respecting  the  manner 
in  which  the  creation  might  have  taken  place, 
not  intending  that  it  should  be  understood  as 
literal  fact.  And  it  cannot  be  denied  that  we 
find  many  difficulties  in  the  whole  narration  con- 
sidered as  literally  true.  These  difficulties,  how- 
ever, do  not  justify  us  in  affirming  that  Moses 
did  not  design  to  represent  these  events  as  ac- 
tually taking  place.  On  the  contrary,  it  clearly 
appears  from  many  other  texts  in  his  writings 
that  he  did  intend  to  relate  these  events  as  literal 
facts.  He  himself  elsewhere  alludes  to  the 
creation,  as  Morus  justly  remarks,  (p.  73,  s.  3, 
n.  2,)  as  to  res  in  facto  posita;  as  Ex.  xx.  11  ; 
xxxi.  17. 

This  Mosaic  history  of  the  creation  teaches  us 
the  three  following  truths :  (a)  that  the  world 
began  to  exist,  and  that  God  was  its  author, 
(Gen.  i.  1 ;)  and  that  the  world  therefore  is  not 
eternal,  and  God  is  wholly  distinct  from  the 
world.  (6)  That  the  constitution,  connexion, 
and  final  destination  of  all  existing  things  are 
from  God  alone,  ver.  2,  seq.  (c)  That  the  uni- 
verse, and  especially  our  earth,  was  not  brought 
at  once  by  the  hand  of  its  Creator  into  the  forr/i 
and  state  in  which  we  now  see  it ;  but  yet  within 
a  moderately  short  time. 

Herder's  "  Aelteste  Urkunde  des  Menschen- 
geschlechts"  contains  many  very  valuable  re- 
marks which  may  assist  one  in  placing  this  his- 
tory in  its  proper  light.  His  statements,  how- 
ever, are  frequently  obscure  and  enigmatical, 
and  built  in  a  great  measure  upon  hypothesis. 
Vide  a  review  of  this  work  in  the  "  Allgem. 
deutschen  Bibl.,"  thle.  25,  30.  But  the  «Ur- 
geschichte"  of  Eichhorn  is  the  most  important 
work  on  this  subject.  It  was  first  published  in 
the  "Repert.  fur  bibl.  Liter."  th.  4;  Leipzig, 
1779  ;  and  edited  with  notes,  by  Gabler  ;  Altorf, 
1790.  These  are  also  a  number  of  essays  on 
this  subject  by  Dr.  Paulus  and  others,  in  his  Re- 
pertorium,  Memorabilien,  and  Theological  Jour- 
nal. Cf.  Ilgen,  Urkunde  des  Jerusalenrschen 
Tempelarchivs,  and  Vater,  Commentar  iiber 
den  Pentateuch. 

3.  From  this  history  of  the  creation  it  follows, 
that  our  globe,  and  the  race  of  men  that  now 
dwells  upon  it,  is  about  six  thousand  years  old. 
I  say,  about  six  thousand  years.  For  Moses 
does  not  give  us  an  exact  chronology,  and  time 
cannot  be  reckoned  with  certainty  from  the  ge- 
nealogies of  the  patriarchs,  because  only  the 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


175 


most  remarkable  men  and  their  families  are 
mentioned,  while  less  distinguished  names  and 
generations  are  omitted.  This  is  the  common 
custom  in  oriental  genealogies;  and  is  the  case 
in  the  first  of  Matthew.  Besides,  there  is  a 
great  difference  between  our  present  Hebrew 
text  and  the  Cod.  Sam.  and  the  LXX.,  in  respect 
to  the  number  of  years ;  although  the  readings 
of  our  texts,  on  the  whole,  are  far  better  sup- 
ported than  the  others. 

The  human  race  is  much  older  than  this,  ac- 
cording to  the  belief  of  some  other  nations — 
e.  g.,  the  Chinese  and  Indian.  The  whole  sub- 
ject, indeed,  presents  many  difficulties;  it  is, 
however,  strange,  that  Voltaire  and  other  ene- 
mies of  the  Bible  should  have  embraced  in  such 
a  credulous  and  partial  manner  the  monstrous 
and  unfounded  calculations  of  the  Chinese  and 
Indians  in  preference  to  the  evidence  which  may 
be  derived  from  Moses.  Some  have  endeavoured 
to  confirm  the  truth  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the 
later  origin  of  the  human  race  from  the  more 
recent  origin  of  the  arts  and  sciences  among  men 
than  would  be  consistent  with  the  theories  be- 
fore mentioned,  and  from  many  other  considera- 
tions ;  which,  however,  in  themselves,  are  riot 
satisfactory. 

One  important  question  in  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject remains  to  be  investigated :  Does  Moses 
speak  in  the  first  chapter  of  ihe  first  creation  of 
the  globe,  or  only  of  a  new  creation,  a  remodel- 
ling of  it,  and  planting  it  with  a  new  race  "\  Cf. 
Morus,  p.  73,  n.  6.  Many  modern  naturalists 
affirm  that  the  earth  must  have  existed  much 
earlier  than  the  time  of  which  Moses  speaks, 
perhaps  a  thousand  years  ;  and  that  during  this 
earliest  period  it  must  have  undergone  astonish- 
ing revolutions,  to  which,  however,  no  history 
can  of  course  extend,  as  they  took  place  before 
the  existence  of  the  present  race  of  men.  They 
think  these  tremendous  revolutions  are  proved 
by  the  sea-animals  which  are  found,  sometimes 
singly  and  sometimes  in  whole  layers,  upon  the 
highest  mountains  and  in  the  deepest  clefts 
of  the  earth,  far  distant  from  the  present  bed 
of  the  ocean;  by  the  remnants  of  plants  and 
beasts  found  in  climates  entirely  different  from 
those  in  which  they  are  native — e.  g.,  the  bones 
of  the  elephant  found  in  Liberia,  &c. ;  by  the  pe- 
trifactions which  are  found  deep  in  the  interior 
of  the  earth,  &c.  All  these  appearances  are  con- 
sidered by  some  as  proof  that  great  alterations 
have  taken  place  in  the  earth  which  He  far  be- 
yond the  reach  of  our  history.  Vide  Biiffon  and 
Justi,  Geschichte  des  Erdbodens  aus  seinen 
innerlichen  und  aiisserlichen  BescharTenheiten 
hergeleitet  und  erwiesen;  Berlin,  1771,  8vo; 
Bergmann,  Physikalische  Beschreibung  der 
Erdkugel;  Greifswald,  1769.  Other  great  na- 
turalists, however,  even  Linneus,  Haller,  De 
Li'ic,  and  Silberschlag,  do  not  think  these  facts 


are  incontrovertible  proof  of  what  many  have  so 
confidently  deduced  from  them. 

Many  modern  interpreters  and  theologians 
have  supposed,  in  order  to  reconcile  more  easily 
the  account  of  Moses  with  the  assertions  and 
hypotheses  of  modern  naturalists,  that  Moses 
speaks  of  the  creation  of  the  whole  universe  in 
the  first  verse  only  ;  and  that  from  ver.  2  on- 
wards he  turns  exclusively  to  the  earth,  and  then 
describes,  not  its  first  creation,  but  only  a  re- 
formation and  new  constitution  of  it.  They  sup- 
pose, accordingly,  that  in  the  first  verse  he  in- 
tends to  say  simply,  God  created  the  whole 
universe,  without  determining  when,  and  that  in 
the  following  verses  he  has  particular  reference 
to  the  earth,  and  describes  its  present  formation, 
without  determining  whether  it  took  place  at  the 
very  time  when  God  created  the  universe  or  a 
thousand  years  afterwards,  when  the  earth  may 
have  been  already  once  or  many  times  inhabited 
by  different  races  of  beings.  They  have  endea- 
voured once  to  establish  this  hypothesis  even  by 
other  texts  of  scripture,  as  Ps.  civ.  6 — 9,  which 
indeed  is  an  amplification  of  the  Mosaic  account 
of  the  creation,  but  which  gives  no  information 
respecting  the  time  or  the  duration  of  this  revolu- 
tion, and  none  respecting  a  race  of  creatures 
previously  existing  upon  the  earth.  The  pas- 
sage, 2  Pet.  iii.  6,  is  cited  with  still  less  propriety 
in  support  of  this  hypothesis.  The  o  nbtt  xoa- 
juoj  refers  undoubtedly  to  the  men  who  lived  be- 
fore the  flood ;  as  appears  from  chap.  ii.  5. 

The  following  remarks  may  enable  us  to  de- 
cide with  regard  to  this  hypothesis : 

It  is  true  that,  from  ver.  2  onwards,  Moses 
confines  himself  principally  to  our  globe,  though 
still,  in  ver.  14 — 19,  he  describes  the  creation 
of  the  heavenly  bodies ;  which  description,  ac- 
cording to  this  hypothesis,  must  be  considered 
as  merely  optical,  intended  to  convey  the  idea 
that  these  bodies  then  for  the  first  time  became 
visible  from  the  newly-formed  earth.  But  it 
cannot  be  proved  that  Moses  intended  from  ver. 
2  to  describe  only  a  new  formation  of  the  earth. 

1.  He  always  distinctly  connects  the  creation 
of  the  earth  with  that  of  the  rest  of  the  universe, 
and  he  uses  expressions  so  entirely  similar  re- 
specting the  two  that  open  violence  must  be  done 
to  his  words  before  they  can  be  understood  to 
refer  at  one  time  to  a  re-formation  of  the  earth, 
and  at  another  to  its  original  creation,  according 
to  this  modern  hypothesis — e.  g.,  Gen.  ii.  Ir 
"Thus  the  heavens  and  the  earth  were  com- 
pleted, and  all  the  host  of  them" — i.  e.,  all  crea- 
tures.    Ex.  xx.  11,  "In  six  days,  God  made 
heaven  and  earth  and  sea,  and  all  which  there- 
in is." 

2.  Those  who  consider  this  history  of  the 
creation  as  a  mere  human  production,  as  is  very 
common  at  the  present  day,  cannot  consistently 
admit  that  Moses  intended  to  describe  only  a 


176 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


remodelling  of  the  earth.  For  this  notion  is  too 
little  in  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  world,  and  too 
nicely  adjusted  to  our  present  physiological  and 
astronomical  knowledge,  to  have  occurred  to  an 
uninspired  historian.  The  ancients  always  sup- 
posed the  earth  to  be  the  centre  of  the  universe, 
and  the  author  of  this  history,  living  at  that  early 
period,  and  left  to  himself,  could  hardly  have 
conjectured  that  it  had  previously  undergone  any 
such  revolutions  and  changes  as  are  spoken  of. 
Cf.  s.  48,  II.  An  uninspired  author,  writing  in 
ancient  times,  could  scarcely  have  conceived 
that  the  earth  should  have  been  created  later 
than  the  other  heavenly  bodies,  since  they  were 
supposed  to  exist  principally  for  the  sake  of  the 
earth.  Thus,  on  the  supposition  that  this  record 
is  a  mere  human  production,  and  that  Moses, 
without  any  divine  influence,  inserted  it  in  the 
book  of  Genesis,  we  may  draw  an  argument  xar' 
av^pcoTtov  against  the  truth  of  the  above  expla- 
nation. 

We  must  therefore  rest  in  the  belief  that  it 
was  the  real  opinion  of  Moses  that  God  created 
and  finished  the  whole  material  world,  the  whole 
visible  universe,  together;  and,  indeed,  in  that 
order  and  connexion  which  he  describes  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis. 

The  hypotheses  of  modern  naturalists  respect- 
ing the  material  of  our  globe  can  neither  be  con- 
firmed nor  refuted  from  the  writings  of  Moses. 
Which  of  all  those  that  have  been  suggested 
is  true  1  that  of  Whiston,  who  supposes  the 
earth  to  be  formed  from  a  comet ;  that  of  Leib- 
nitz, who  makes  it  a  sun  burnt  out;  that  of  Buf- 
fon,  according  to  whom  all  the  heavenly  bodies 
are  fragments  broken  off  from  the  body  of  the 
sun  by  the  concussion  of  a  comet;  or  that  of 
Wideburg,  who  supposes  the  earth  to  have  been 
originally  a  spot  on  the  sun,-  must  be  determined 
on  other  grounds  than  the  testimony  of  Moses. 
Vide  Silberschlag's  "  Geogonie"  for  an  account 
of  these  and  other  systems.  He  justly  rejects 
the  opinion  that  Moses  speaks  in  this  passage 
only  of  a  revolution  or  remodelling  of  the  earth. 

All  these  learned  speculations  and  inquiries 
respecting  the  material  of  the  earth  &c.  lie  be- 
yond the  object  and  sphere  of  Moses.  And  any 
of  these  hypotheses  of  the  naturalists  may  be 
adopted  or  rejected,  the  Mosaic  geogony  not- 
withstanding. Nor  can  the  authority  of  Moses 
be  brought  to  decide  the  question,  whether  the 
whole  globe,  or  only  the  higher  regions  of  Asia, 
received  at  first  their  full  and  complete  forma- 
tion and  present  structure.  Herder  and  Doeder- 
lein  suppose  the  latter ;  but  the  author  of  this 
record  appears  rather  to  favour  the  former.  He 
speaks  in  general  terms  of  the  earth — that  is, 
so  far  as  it  was  known  to  him.  Still  nothing 
can  be  determined  upon  this  subject  from  his 
authority. 

Note. — The  question  has  been  asked,  At  what 


time  in  the  year  was  the  world  created?  The 
Jews  commonly  answer,  according  to  the  Chal- 
daic  paraphrasts  and  the  cabalists,  that  the  world 
was  created  in  autumn.  They  found  their  opi- 
nion principally  upon  the  supposed  fact,  that  the 
patriarchs  in  the  most  ancient  times  commenced 
their  year  in  autumn;  but  of  this  there  is  no  de- 
finite proof.  Others  say,  in  the  spring;  with 
which  opinion  many  of  the  fathers  and  most  mo- 
dern Christian  writers  agree.  Scaliger,  in  the 
first  edition  of  his  work,  "  De  emendat.  tempp.," 
advocated  the  latter  opinion  ;  but  in  the  second 
edition,  the  former.  In  favour  of  this  opinion, 
Gen.  i.  11  is  cited,  "  Let  the  earth  bring  forth 
grass  and  herb  ;"  which  suits  better  with  spring 
than  harvest.  Exod.  xii.  2  is  also  cited,  where 
it  is  said  that  the  month  Nisan  (April)  shall  be 
the  first  in  the  year  of  the  Jews,  &c.  Accord- 
ing to  Solinus  and  Macrobius,  the  Egyptians 
gave  out  the  summer  as  the  first  season  of  the 
year.  The  whole  inquiry  is  fruitless  and  idle  ; 
for  the  season  can  only  be  relatively  determined 
in  respect  to  the  situation  of  the  country  in 
which  our  first  parents  lived.  For  the  time  of 
the  seasons  is  not  everywhere  the  same  ;  when 
it  is  summer  in  one  place,  it  is  winter  in  an- 
other. 

SECTION  L. 

EXPLANATION  OF  THE  MOSAIC  HISTORY  OF 
THE  CREATION. 

I.  General  Account  of  the  Creation  of  the  World. 


i.  e.,  the  first  of  all  the  events  in  the 
world,  that  with  which  the  history  of  all  things 
commenced,  was  the  creation  of  the  universe 
(heaven  and  earth,  s.  45)  by  God.  Philo  says, 
To-  i*  »f  g|7  iitoiifOsr,  laov  Irttt,  ^9'  rtpwror 
triads  tbv  ovpavov,  De  Opif.  Mundi,  p.  16,  Pf. 
And  so  Cicero  says,  "A  PRINCIPIO  omniafacta 
a  diis  et  constituta  sunt"  De  Officiis,  i.  4,  coll. 
De  Natura  Deorum,  i.  12.  Before  this,  God 
alone  existed  ;  and  he  gave  existence  to  every- 
thing which  is  exterior  to  himself.  In  the  same 
way  we  must  explain  iv  ap%y  v\v  o  Xoyoj, 
John,  i.  1.  "'E|  ap*7?j,"  (ab  initio.  mundi,) 
Hesiod,  Theog.  v.  45. 

After  prefixing  this  general  statement,  Moses 
now  (ver.  2)  proceeds  to  describe  the  creation 
of  the  earth;  vide  s.  49.  "The  earth  was 
waste  (inn  is  applied  by  the  Hebrews  and  Ara- 
bians to  deserts  and  wasted  towns)  and  empty, 
(ira,  void,  unoccupied,  like  a  chamber  without 
furniture;  so  in  Arabic.")  Both  terms  occur 
in  Isaiah,  xxxiv.  11.  The  earth  is  thus  repre- 
sented as  a  rude,  formless  mass,  which,  toge- 
ther with  the  rest  of  the  material  world,  is  now 
framed  by  the  artificer  in  the  space  of  six  days, 
and  which  gradually  receives  its  full  perfection. 
The  whole  description  is  after  the  manner  of 


WOIJKS  OF  GOD. 


177 


men,  and  is  adapted  to  common  apprehension. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  the  description  of  the 
creation  of  man  in  the  second  chapter;  he  was 
made  gradually,  and  was  formed  like  any  other 
work  of  art. 

"  And  darkness  was  upon  the  deep  waters." 
Dinn  is  rendered  by  Luther,  die  Tiefe,  the  deep; 
aj3r(5cTo$  by  the  LXX ;  but  is  also  deep  waters, 
prof undum,  prof  undurn pelagus  ,•  so  frequently  in 
the  scriptures,  i/ie  sea — e.  g.,  Gen.  xlix.  25 ;  Psa. 
cvi.  9.  The  meaning  here  is,  the  earth,  which 
was  then  overflowed  with  water,  was  in  dark- 
ness. Moses  and  the  ancient  Hebrew  prophets 
always  describe  the  original  condition  of  the 
earth  in  this  way.  It  was  all  an  open  sea,  dark 
and  dreadful.  The  water  gradually  subsided; 
the  higher  regions  first  became  visible,  and  then 
the  low  lands ;  and  they  were  covered  with  light, 
as  is  described  below.  A  fuller  delineation,  and 
a  poetic  comment  on  this  passage,  is  contained 
in  Psa.  civ.  5 — 9.  Moses  calls  the  mountains, 
the  eldest  sons  of  the  earth — those  which  the  earth 
first  produced,  Psa.  xc.  2,  because  the  mountains 
first  rose  from  the  water,  and  became  visible. 
Similar  opinions  respecting  the  original  con- 
dition and  primitive  form  of  the  earth  are  found 
among  other  nations — e.  g.,  the  Egyptians 
(Diod.  Sicul.  i.  7)  and  the  Phenicians,  (Euse- 
bius,  Praep.  Evan.  i.  10,  taken  from  Sanchuni- 
athon.)  They  supposed  that  in  the  beginning 
all  was  confused,  gloomy,  and  dark.  So  the 
Orphean  Hymns  represent.  And  this  supposition 
is  in  itself  very  natural ;  for  darkness  commonly 
precedes  light;  disorder,  order;  and  emptiness, 
fulness.  The  overflowing  of  water  is  still  the 
occasion  of  the  most  wide-spread  desolation,  and 
even  of  great  alterations  on  the  surface  of  the 
earth.  According  to  Homer,  'Qxtavos  was  the 
eldest  progenitor  of  all  the  gods ;  and  from  him 
everything  proceeded,  II.  xiv.  201,  246;  xv. 
187,  seq.  Many  modern  naturalists  suppose  that 
the  bottom  of  the  sea  was  pressed  up  by  subter- 
ranean fire,  and  that  in  this  way  the  mountains 
and  firm  land  arose  above  the  waters.  On  this 
supposition  the  sea-products  found  upon  moun- 
tains are  explained.  Vide  Silberschlag's  "  Ge- 
ogonie."  Moses  does  not  contradict  this  opi- 
nion ;  but  neither,  on  the  other  hand,  have  we 
reason  to  believe  that  he  intended  to  teach  it. 
He  only  relates  the  fact  that  the  dry  land  ap- 
peared, without  determining  how  this  was 
brought  about,  whether  from  the  subsidence  of 
the  waters,  from  the  action  of  internal  fire,  or 
some  other  cause. 

D?DH  ^-Sp  nornp  o^nSt*  nn.  What  is  here 
called  o^nS«  nn,  is  elsewhere  called  DTI^S  PCC;J, 
Gen.  ii.  7;  Psa.  civ.  30;  the  spirit,  the  breath 
of  God,  which  vivifies  everything — i.  e.,  the  ef- 
ficient, all-animating,  all-creative  power  of  God. 
On  the  word  nn,  vide  s.  9,  and  s.  19,  IL  «]rn 
23 


is  variously  explained.  The  LXX.  and  other 
Greek  interpreters  render  it  67te$e'pe*o,  moved 
over  the  waters.  The  Chaldaic,  Samaritan, 
and  both  the  Arabic  versions,  render  it  blew  over 
the  waters.  Others  render  it,  to  make  warm, 
calefacere,  (to  vivify;)  because  it  is  applied  to 
the  hatching  of  eggs  by  warmth,  Deut.  xxxii. 
1 1.  Michaelis  translates  it  from  the  Syriac,  to 
descend,  let  one's  self  down,  se  demittere.  '  In 
whatever  way  it  is  translated,  the  main  idea  re- 
mains the  same — the  effect  and  motion  produced 
by  the  almighty  power  of  God. 

II.  The  Six-days'  Work;  ver.  3,  seq. 

1.  Introductory  remarks  upon  the  question, 
What  is  here  meant  by  days?  and  respecting 
some  difficulties  which  occur  in  relation  to  the 
whole  description,  and  the  manner  of  obviating 
them. 

It  appears  from  the  preceding  sections,  that 
God  may  be  supposed  either  to  have  created  at 
once  the  whole  system  of  things,  as  it  now  ex- 
ists, or  to  have  first  produced  the  material  from 
which  all  things  were  formed,  with  the  power 
to  develop  itself  gradually,  and  that  he  may 
have  caused  this  further  development  to  proceed 
by  means  of  these  natural  powers,  himself  ex- 
erting a  direct  influence  only  where  they  were 
insufficient.  The  latter  is  the  scriptural  idea. 
The  object  of  exhibiting  the  creation  as  a  six- 
days'  work  has  been  shewn  to  be,  to  render  the 
subject  perspicuous  and  intelligible  to  men;  to 
depict  before  their  eyes  the  manner  in  which 
each  thing  in  succession  was  accomplished,  and 
the  whole  gradually  finished  under  divine  influ- 
ence and  direction. 

By  days  Moses  appears  to  have  meant  com- 
mon days  of  twenty-four  hours.  For  (a)  their 
limits  are  always  determined  by  morning  and 
evening,  which  being  understood  literally,  the 
day  must  be  literal  also.  (6)  In  all  other  texts 
where  Moses  alludes  to  the  account  of  the  crea- 
tion, literal  days  are  always  clearly  presup- 
posed— e.  g.,  Exod.  xx.  11,  where  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Sabbath  in  described  ;  and  chap, 
xxxi.  17.  But  interpreters  find  various  diffi- 
culties in  this  supposition.  How,  they  ask, 
could  so  much  be  done  in  one  day,  without 
heaping  together  too  many  miracles?  or,  how 
could  Moses  speak  of  days,  in  ver.  5,  8, 13,  be- 
fore the  sun  as  yet  existed,  which,  according  to 
ver.  16,  seq.,  was  not  until  the  fourth  day  ?  and 
many  more  questions  of  the  same  kind.  To 
avoid  these  difficulties  various  other  hypotheses 
are  invented.  Some  say  the  three  first  days 
were  periods  of  indefinite  length,  but  the  three 
last,  ordinary  days  of  twenty-four  hours;  so 
Michaelis.  Others  understand  by  D^DN  through 
the  whole  description,  periods  of  indefinite 
length ;  or  they  prolong  each  day  into  a  mon- 


178 


strous  duration.  According  to  Des  Cartes,  each 
day  was  a  thousand  years  ,•  six  thousand  years, 
therefore,  were  occupied  in  forming  the  earth! 
According  to  Whiston,  each  day  is  one  year 
only.  But  such  conjectures,  as  everybody  sees, 
are  arbitrary  and  groundless. 

If  we  would  form  a  clear  and  distinct  notion 
of  this  whole  description  of  the  creation,  we 
must  conceive  of  six  separate  pictures,  in  which 
this  great  work  is  represented  in  each  succes- 
sive stage  of  its  progress  towards  completion. 
And  as  the  performance  of  the  painter,  though 
it  must  have  natural  truth  as  its  foundation, 
must  not  be  considered  or  judged  of  as  a  deli- 
neation of  mathematical  or  scientific  accuracy, 
so  neither  must  this  pictorial  representation  of 
the  creation  be  regarded  as  literally  and  exactly 
true. 

First  picture ,-  ver.  3 — 5.  The  earth,  before 
dark  and  invisible,  is  enlightened,  that  the  spec- 
tator may  be  able  to  see  it,  and  that  the  builder 
may  be  able  to  mould  and  fashion  the  materials 
upon  which  he  is  to  work.  This  light  is  of  pe- 
riodical succession,  causing  day  and  night,  be- 
cause the  whole  is  divided  into  days'  works. 
Whence  this  light  proceeds  is  a  question  which 
cannot  properly  be  proposed  here ;  it  is  sufficient 
to  say  that  there  must  have  been  light  enough 
to  enable  the  spectator  in  some  measure  to  dis- 
cern the  objects  as  they  were  formed.  We 
cannot  conclude,  that  because  the  light  of  day 
at  present  proceeds  from  the  sun,  there  could 
have  been  no  light  before  the  sun  existed.  In- 
deed, there  are  other  luminous  bodies  besides 
our  sun,  which  shine  with  unborrowed  light. 
The  sun  itself  was  not  created  until  the  fourth 
day.  At  present  it  is  sufficient  that  it  is  alter- 
nately clear  and  obscure,  and  that  there  is  light 
both  for  the  artificer  and  the  spectator.  Proba- 
bly, however,  it  was  only  a  glimmering  and 
obscure  light,  like  the  morning  or  evening  twi- 
light. 

Second  picture ;  ver.  6 — 8.  Though  light  has 
dawned  upon  the  earth,  an  ocean  still  encircles 
the  globe,  and  cloud  and  vapour  float  over  the 
waters.  The  upper  water  is  now  separated  from 
the  under ;  so  that,  as  the  Egyptians  say,  hea- 
ven and  earth  may  no  more  be  commingled  and 
united  in  one  mass,  (Diod.  Sic.  1,  7,)  as  they 
were  on  the  first  day.  This  is  the  second  day's 
work.  <* 

Third  picture ;  ver.  9 — 13.  After  this  great 
division,  the  other  great  movements  can  now 
proceed  without  hindrance.  The  builder  first 
applies  his  hand  to  the  inferior  portion.  He 
causes  the  dry  land  to  rise  from  the  lower  waters, 
and  separates  it  from  the  ocean,  and  from  the 
smaller  collections  and  currents  of  water,  which 
now  flow  into  the  lower  regions  of  the  earth. 
This  land  is  next  furnished  with  plants  of  every 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 

kind.     The  naturalist  may  indeed  object,  that  it 


is  incredible  that  plants  should  spring  from  the 
earth  before  the  appearance  of  the  sun ;  but  it 
does  not  follow  that,  because  such  is  the  uni- 
form course  since  the  universe  and  the  earth  are 
finished,  therefore  such  must  have  been  the  case 
in  this  incipient  state.  Besides,  it  seems  that 
the  plants  were  only  created  on  the  third  day, 
and  grew  and  increased  immediately  on  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  sun  on  the  following  day.  On 
this  third  day  the  earth  was  sowed  and  planted 
for  the  first  time  by  Him  who  created  the  seeds 
and  plants.  And  as  we  frequently  sow  and 
plant  to-day  because  we  expect  that  to-morrow 
and  on  the  succeeding  days  there  will  be  wea- 
ther favourable  to  the  growth  and  germination 
of  the  seeds ;  so  may  God  have  now  sowed  and 
planted  the  earth,  in  prospect  of  the  sun  which 
on  the  morrow  he  should  place  in  the  heavens. 

Fourth  picture;  ver.  14 — 19.  The  superior 
portion  is  now  to  be  fashioned — the  upper 
waters,  or  the  atmosphere.  Here  now  the  ob- 
server discovers  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  appa- 
rently floating  in  a  high  and  immeasurable  dis- 
tance above  the  clouds.  These  henceforth  en- 
lighten the  earth  and  shed  their  influence  upon 
it.  The  little  moon  is  represented  as,  next  to 
the  sun,  the  greatest  light,  because  it  appears  so 
to  us.  A  painter  would  justly  be  accused  of  a 
fault,  if  he  should  otherwise  represent  it.  He 
must  represent  it  as  it  appears  to  the  eye. 

Fifth  picture  ;  ver.  20 — 23.  The  upper  and 
lower  waters  are  peopled  with  inhabitants- 
birds,  fishes,  and  other  creatures  of  the  sea. 
The  supposition  sometimes  made,  that  Mosea 
describes  the  birds  as  formed  from  the  waters, 
is  without  foundation. 

Sixth  picture ;  ver.  24 — 31.  The  inhabitants 
of  the  dry  land  are  now  produced,  after  every- 
thing is  properly  prepared  for  them,  and  pravi- 
sion  made  for  their  sustenance — all  the  beasts 
of  the  field,  quadrupeds,  and  reptiles;  and, 
lastly,  man  himself,  the  lord  of  this  lower  cre- 
ation. He  is  not  introduced  into  his  dwelling 
before  it  is  entirely  ready.  The  house  is  first 
built,  and  then  the  occupant  enters.  Vide  the 
Article  on  the  creation  of  man. 

At  the  end  of  the  sixth  day  the  builder  once 
more  reviews  his  whole  work — "  He  considered 
everything  which  he  had  made,  and  behold  !  it 
was  very  good."  The  same  formula  of  appro- 
bation occurs  at  the  end  of  the  several  days' 
works,  with  only  two  exceptions — viz.,  (a)  It 
is  entirely  wanting  at  the  end  of  the  second  day's 
work,  (ver.  8.)  In  some  MSS.  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  the  formula  is  here  introduced,  but  it  is 
wanting  in  others.  Zacharia  conjectures  (Bibl. 
th.  ii.  s.  34,  f.)  that  the  words,  "And  the  even- 
ing and  the  morning  were  the  second  day," 
which  now  stand  at  the  end  of  ver.  8,  should  be 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


179 


first  introduced  at  the  end  of  ver.  10,  before  the 
words,  "  and  God  saw  that  it  was  good  ;"  mak- 
ing what  is  now  the  beginning  of  the  third  day's 
work  a  part  of  the  second.  But  this  transposi- 
tion is  unnecessary.  The  use  of  this  formula 
of  approbation  appears  not  to  be  regulated  by 
the  division  of  days,  but  by  the  completion  of 
the  larger  portions  of  the  creation.  All  the 
changes  which  the  water  was  to  undergo  were 
not  finished  at  the  end  of  the  second  day — they 
continue  even  into  the  third ;  and  this  appears 
to  be  the  reason  why  the  formula  of  approbation 
is  omitted  at  the  end  of  the  second  day.  (b) 
This  formula  stands  in  the  middle  of  the  de- 
scription of  the  work  of  the  sixth  day,  imme- 
diately after  the  mention  of  the  creation  of  the 
beasts  in  ver.  26.  Michaelis  and  Eichhorn  well 
observe  here,  that  it  answers  the  purpose  of  a 
p:iuse,  before  the  transition  is  made  from  the  in- 
ferior creation,  here  completed,  to  the  production 
cf  man,  the  noblest  creature  of  the  earth. 

2.  Explanation  of  some  obscure  terms  which 
occur  in  the  description  of  the  six  days'  work. 

Ver.  3.  For  the  meaning  of  the  term  to  speak, 
as  used  here  and  in  the  rest  of  the  history  of  the 
creation,  vide  s.  47,  II.  1. 

Ver.  G.  rfn  is  translated  by  Luther,  F'este, 
because  the  Vulgate  \iasjirmamentum,  which  is 
a  translation  of  the  a-ftptufiu  of  the  LXX.  ftrn, 
the  root  of  this  word,  signifies,  to  stamp  (with 
the  feet),  Ezek.  vi.  11 ;  xxv.  6  ;  and  hence,  to 
spread  out,  to  expand,  to  hammer  out,  to  tread 
out,  (calcando  expandere.)  Moses  and  the  other 
sacred  writers  always  use  this  term  to  denote  the 
heavens — das  Gewulbe,  fornix,  camera — the  wel- 
kin, the  expanse  over  our  heads;  elsewhere,  the  tent 
of  the  heavens.  The  origin  of  the  term,  and  of 
the  idea  from  which  it  is  derived,  can  be  best 
learned  from  Ezekiel's  vision,  i.  22,  23,  26 ;  x. 
1.  jr«|-n  there  denotes  the  floor  of  the  throne  of 
God  in  heaven.  God,  the  Ruler  and  Judge, 
was  imagined  by  the  Jews  as  sitting  upon  a 
throne  in  heaven.  Other  nations  had  the  same 
conception.  According  to  Homer,  the  gods  sat 
with  Jupiter,  xpvaey  tv  SarttScp,  (upon  a  golden 
floor;)  II.  iv.  2.  The  upper  sanctuary  and  the 
throne  of  God,  then,  is  above  the  expanse  of  the 
heavens.  This  expanse  is  the  floor  upon  which 
he  places  his  feet,  and  over  which  he  rides  in 
his  chariot  of  thunder.  Vide  the  texts  cited 
from  Ezekiel.  Hence  the  whole  earth,  which 
has  this  yfn  for  a  covering,  is  frequently  called 
the  footstool  of  God.  By  y,-n  is  meant  (a)  the 
atmosphere,  which  bears  the  rainy  and  stormy 
clouds :  also  (6)  whatever  is  still  above  them — 
all  that  the  eye  can  see  over  us  in  the  heavens. 
In  the  immeasurable  distance  of  the  blue  sky, 
high  above  the  region  of  the  clouds,  float  the 
sun,  moon,  and  stars,  as  it  appears  to  the  eye. 
For  this  reason  they  are  placed  in  the  firma- 


ment, ver.  15,  17.  When  it  is  said,  ver.  8, 
"  God  called  the  ip,-n,  heaven,"  it  is  as  much  as 
to  say,  what  we  call  heaven  is  God's  footstool; 
what  we  behold  high  over  our  heads  is  under 
his  feet.  So  in  Homer  it  is  said,  "  Men  call  it 
so;  the  gods  call  it  differently."  The  Deity 
sees  everything  in  a  different  light  from  what 
we  do,  and  therefore  names  everything  differ- 
ently, to  speak  after  the  manner  of  men. 

Ver.  11,  12.  Ntr-i  is  the  generic  name  for 
everything  which  grows  out  of  the  earth — the 
green  plant,  vj?  is  the  specific  name  for  trees 
and  arboreous  plants,  ivy  stands  for  the  herb 
and  lesser  plants,  jru  is  used  in  Hebrew  in  re- 
ference both  to  sowing  and  planting,  like  the 
Latin  serere,  and  denotes  therefore  here  every 
kind  of  propagation. 

Ver.  14.  The  usefulness  of  the  heavenly  bo- 
dies to  the  earth  and  to  men  is  here  stated.  The 
word  niN,  sign,  signifies  a  mark  for  the  division 
of  time.  The  sun  and  stars  are  intended  to  de- 
termine the  times,  (onpio,)  the  days,  and  the 
years.  O>IJMD  are  not  so  much  the  four  revolv- 
ing seasons  of  the  year,  as  months.  For  (a)  they 
are  connected  with  years  and  days.  (6)  In  Ps. 
civ.  19,  the  O'njrio  are  said  to  be  determined  by 
the  moon,  because  they  are  defined  by  her  mo- 
tion : — "  He  created  the  moon  for  the  computa- 
tion of  time." 

Ver.  20.  y^S  webende  Thiere,  (moving  crea- 
tures,) Luther.  Y-\V  signifies,  to  swarm.  It 
denotes,  literally,  the  lively,  rapid  motion  of 
beasts  who  are  collected  in  great  multitudes. 
Hence  it  is  used  in  reference  to  fishes,  birds, 
and  other  animals — e.  g.,  Exod.  i.  7.  Here 
it  is  applied  to  sea  animals.  Cf.  Ps.  civ.  25. 
D'DS'n  V."~i??»  not  supra  cesium,  but  to  heaven,  to- 
wards heaven,  heavenwards';  as  the  flight  of  birds 
appears  to  the  eye. 

Ver.  21.  D'J-an,  WaUfische  (whales),  Luther, 
because  the  LXX.  have  xr^rj,  and  the  Vulgate 
ceti.  But  these  words  signify  all  great  fishes, 
pisces  cefacei.  The  Hebrew  word  is  used  for  all 
the  beasts  of  the  sea  of  the  greater  kind,  as 
Psalm  civ.  26 ;  for  the  crocodile,  Ezek.  xxix.  3 ; 
xxxii.  2 ;  also  for  great  serpents,  trrn  is  the 
name  for  all  creatures  which  move  upon  the 
belly;  hence,  the  worm.  It  is  applied,  how- 
ever, sometimes  to  creatures  that  swim,  and 
even  to  quadrupeds  who  do  not  go  upright,  like 
man. 

Ver.  22.  rp3  denotes  here,  as  frequently,  the 
propagation  of  the  species,  or  the  bestowment 
of  the  power  to  propagate  the  race ;  as  ver.  28  ; 
Gen.  xxiv.  60 ;  Ps.  cxxviii.  3,  4. 

Ver.  24.  A  division  of  land-animals;  (a) 
nfcra,  the  larger  kind  of  tame,  domestic  ani- 
mals, when  opposed  to  rvn.  (^)  &*p->,  the  smaller 
kind  of  tame  animals.  '  (c)  r^pi^n,  the  wild 
beast. 


180 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


ARTICLE  VI. 


OP  THE  CREATION  AND  ORIGINAL  CONDITION 

OF  MAN. 


SECTION  LI. 

OF  THE  NATURE  OF  MAN,  ESPECIALLY  OF  THE 
SOUL  OF  MAN,  AND  OF  HIS  DESTINATION. 

WITH  this  subject  it  will  be  most  convenient 
to  commence  this  Article.  After  this,  we  shall 
consider  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation  of 
man ;  then,  his  happy  original  condition,  not  only 
as  described  by  the  Bible  and  by  Christian 
writers,  but  also  by  those  who  have  not  enjoyed 
the  light  of  revelation ;  and  lastly,  the  preserva- 
tion and  propagation  of  the  human  race. 

I.  The  Nature  of  Man. 

1 .  Of  how  many  parts  does  man  consist  ?  The 
holy  scriptures,  and  even  those  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, constantly  teach  that  man  consists  of 
two  parts,  body  and  soul — e.  g.,  Eccl.  xii.  7, 
"The  dust  returns  again  to  the  earth,  of  which 
it  is  a  part;  the  spirit  returns  to  God,  who  gave 
it;"  Matt.  x.  28,  "Fear  not  those  who  kill  the 
body,  but  cannot  kill  the  soul;"  &c.  Nor  can 
we  suppress  the  conviction  that  there  is  within 
us  a  nature  different  from  the  body,  and  superior 
to  it — an  enlivening  and  quickening  principle, 
through  which  we  possess  the  power  of  feeling, 
thinking,  willing,  and  acting.  But  notwith- 
standing this  conviction,  there  have  always  been 
different  opinions  with  regard  to  the  constituent 
parts  of  human  nature.  Some  have  maintained 
that  either  the  soul  or  the  body  is  the  only  es- 
sential part  of  man ;  while  others  have  main- 
tained that  he  consists  of  three  essential  parts, 
body,  soul,  and  spirit.  This  opinion  had  its  ori- 
gin in  the  cabalistic  and  Platonic  philosophy. 
The  cabalists  divided  the  human  soul  into  rw 
(life,  anima  vegetiva),  nn  (the  sensitive  soul, 
anima  sensitiva},  and  nrtrj,  (the  rational  soul, 
anima  rationalis."}  By  this  division,  however, 
they  did  not  mean  to  teach  that  there  are  three 
different  substances,  but  three  different  powers  of 
one  substance.  Plato,  too,  as  appears  from  the 
history  of  philosophy,  ascribed  to  man  a  two- 
fold or  threefold  soul,  but  neither  did  he  pretend 
that  man  consists  of  three  parts.  Some  modern 
philosophers,  who  have  lived  since  the  time  of 
the  schoolmen,  have  also  adopted  the  opinion  of 
the  cabalists,  and  divide  the  soul  into  three  parts ; 
while  others  defend  the  opinion  that  the  soul  is 
twofold,  and  divide  the  whole  man  into  three 
parts.  But  they  express  themselves  so  obscurely 
and  ambiguously  that  it  is  often  doubtful  whe- 
ther by  these  divisions  they  understand  different 
substances,  or  only  various  powers  of  one  and 


the  same  substance.  The  Christian  theologians 
and  philosophers  who  believe  that  man  consists 
of  three  essential  parts  differing  from  each  other, 
sometimes  appeal  to  scripture  in  behalf  of  their 
opinion.  They  quote  the  texts,  Luke,  i.  46, 
47  :  "  My  soul  magnifies  the  Lord  ;  my  spirit 
rejoices  in  God,"  &c.  Is.  xxvi.  9,  and  espe- 
cially 1  Thess.  v.  23,  "That  your  spirit  and 
soul  and  body  may  be  preserved  blameless  to  the 
coming  of  Christ  ;"  also  Heb.  iv.  12.  The  first 
who  asserted  this  opinion  in  modern  times  was 
Theophrastus  Paracelsus,  who  was  followed  by 
Jacob  Boehmen,  Weigel,  and  other  theosophists  ; 
also  by  Andr.  Riidiger  in  his  Physica  Divina. 
Luther  likewise  adopted  this  division,  though 
it  is  very  clear  that  he  did  not  consider  spirit 
and  soul  as  different  substances,  but  only  as 
different  attributes  and  operations  of  the  same 
spiritual  essence.  Respecting  the  texts  of  scrip- 
ture above  cited,  it  may  be  remarked,  (a)  That 
in  most  of  those  cited,  rtvsvpa  and  4/v^rj  are  sy- 
nonymous; as  in  Isaiah  and  Luke;  also  in  Heb. 
iv.  12,  where  they  may  be  rendered  either  life 
or  soul,  as  the  passage  refers  to  death,  or  the 
separation  of  the  soul  or  life  from  the  body. 
(b)  The  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the  Thessalo- 
nians  may  be  explained  in  two  ways.  As  Paul 
evidently  here  writes  in  strong  excitement,  he 
may  have  heaped  these  words  together,  though 
they  do  not  differ  in  meaning,  in  order  to  give 
his  admonition  more  effect.  So  Augustine  sup- 
posed, (De  Anima,  iv.  21.)  But  the  probability 
is,  that  he  meant  to  distinguish  Ttvt  vua  and  ^v%rt  ; 
not  meaning,  however,  by  any  means,  to  imply 
that  man  consists  of  three  essential  parts  ;  but 
only  to  distinguish  rtvsvua  and  ^v^n  as  two 
different  powers  of  one  substance.  This  the 
Hebrews  and  Grecian  Jews  frequently  did. 
By  rtvfvua,  and  nn,  they  often  meant,  the  supe- 
rior faculties  of  the  soul,  the  reason  ;  and  by  -^vxn 
and  ctej  the  sensual  part,  which  we  possess  in 
common  with  the  brutes  —  the  desires,  Sinnlich- 
keit  ;  Ps.  cxxxi.  2,  seq.  Josephus  says,  Arch. 
i.  1.,  "ErtTuWiv  o  ©so?  ai/^piortoy,  %ovv  drto  t^ 


Philo  and  the  New-Testament  writers  frequent- 
ly use  4/i>27J  and  -4/v^txoj  in  this  sense.  Vide 
Jude,  ver.  19. 

[Note.  —  The  theory  according  to  which  man 
is  divided  into  two  parts  is  called  dichotomy  ,- 
that  by  which  he  is  divided  into  three  parts,  tri- 
chotomy. The  latter  of  these,  so  rare  at  the  pre- 
sent day,  was  the  prevailing  theory  with  the 
early  fathers.  Vide  Tatian,  Oral,  ad  Graecos,  p. 
151,  seq.  ;  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haeres.  v.  6,  7,  9  ;  Ori- 
gen,  rtupi  ap^wv,  iii.  4  ;  Nernesius,  De  Nat.  Horn. 
c.  1.  It  was  indeed  opposed  by  Tertullian,  and 
other  writers  of  the  Western  church;  but  it  was 
still  believed  by  many  distinguished  Christian 
teachers.  Trichotomy  is  chargeable  not  only 
upon  Paracelsus,  Boehmen,  Weigel,  and  other 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


181 


theosophists,  hut  also  upon  Spener,  and  other 
so-called  Pietists  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
It  seems  to  have  been  generally  believed  by 
those  of  a  more  deep  and  spiritual  religion,  and 
is  at  present  the  doctrine  of  the  more  evangeli- 
cal part  of  the  Lutheran  church.  Hahn  gives 
the  following  scheme  of  the  nature  of  man  :  — 


(6  t'ffw  di£pwrtoj)  (o 

1.  2.  \  3. 

SPIRIT,  (Geist,  IL/efya)  SOUL,  (ij/wtfj)  I  BoDY,( 

Peculiar  to  man,  with     Common  both  to  man  and 

brute,  with  the 
(a)  Reason  (a)  Under-  same  properties 


Will 
(c)  Conscience 


standing      as  other  matter, 

(b)  Desire     and  the  exter- 

(c)  Feeling  nal  senses, 


as  principal  attributes. 

Those  who  make  this  division  must  hold,  ac- 
cordingly, that  man  has  not  only,  in  a  higher 
degree,  that  same  understanding,  feeling,  and 
desiring  soul  which  is  seen  in  brute  creatures; 
but  that  he  possesses  also  a  nature  different  in 
kind  from  theirs,  and  by  which  he  is  raised 
above  them  to  the  rank  of  a  moral  being.  —  TR.] 

2.  The  notion  of  soul  is  expressed  in  all  the 
ancient  languages  by  terms  which  originally 
signify  wind,  air,  breath.  And  from  this  fact 
we  can  learn  what  were  the  notions  originally 
entertained  respecting  the  soul.  However  ob- 
scure and  indefinite  they  might  have  been  in 
some  respects,  the  soul  was  always  conceived 
to  be  that  invisible  power  or  being  from  which 
the  body  derives  its  life  and  activity;  and  this 
may  be  sufficient  for  practical  purposes.  Now 
a  man  lives  and  moves  only  so  long  as  he 
breathes.  Breath  is  that  mark  of  life  which  is 
most  obvious  to  the  senses.  Hence  such  terms 
as  literally  signify  breath,  were  naturally  em- 
ployed to  denote  the  life  and  the  soul  of  man. 
Thus  the  Hebrew  words  nn  and  nctfj,  and  the 
Greek  words,  4*2*7  an^  nvtvpa,,  stand  for  the 
soul.  Cf.  s.  9,  and  especially  s.  19,  II.  The 
word  ITS;),  from  raj,  signifies  primarily,  spiracu- 
lum,  anhelitus;  next  vita,  as  Ps.  xlix.  9,  16; 
then  animus,  as  Ps.  xvi.  10;  also  what  takes 
place  in  the  soul,  feelings,  desires,  &c.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  Latin  word  spiritus,  and  of 
the  words  animus  and  anima,  both  of  which 
originally  signify  aura,  flatus,  halitus,  and  seem 
to  be  the  same  word  as  the  Greek  avsp.o$. 

3.  The  question  respecting  the  internal  nature 
and  the  quality  of  the  human  soul,  is  one  of 
those  difficult  and  obscure  questions  which  can 
never  be  satisfactorily  answered  in  this  life. 
It  cannot  certainly  be  decided  by  anything  in 
the  Bible.  The  soul  is  there  merely  contrasted 
with  the  body  (-toa).  The  latter,  we  are  in- 
formed, will  return  to  the  earth  from  which  God 
created  it,  while  the  former  will  return  to  God, 


who  gave  it, — i.  e.,  produced  it  in  a  different 
way  from  the  body,  Eccles.  xii.  7.  This  is 
said  in  plain  allusion  to  the  account,  Gen.  i., 
respecting  which  vide  s.  52.  So  much  is  per- 
fectly evident  that  the  Bible  always  distin- 
guishes between  soul  and  body  as  different 
substances,  and  ascribes  to  each  peculiar  pro- 
perties and  operations  ;  and  this  is  in  full  accord- 
ance with  the  manner  in  which  this  subject  was 
understood  and  represented  in  all  the  ancient 
world. 

We  should  mistake  very  much,  however,  if 
we  should  suppose  that  the  ancient  Israelites, 
merely  because  they  distinguished  widely  be- 
tween soul  and  body,  possessed  those  strict, 
metaphysical  ideas  of  the  spirituality  or  imma- 
teriality of  the  soul,  which  are  prevalent  in  the 
modern  schools  of  philosophy.  Such  ideas  are 
by  far  too  refined  and  transcendent  to  belong  to 
that  age ;  as  also  are  the  pure  metaphysical 
ideas  of  the  spirituality  of  God  which  now  pre- 
vail. The  whole  ancient  world,  Jews  and 
Greeks,  (as  likewise  the  savage  nations  of  the 
present  day,)  supposed  everything  which  moved 
to  be  animated  by  a  spirit,  and  this  spirit  to  be  a 
substance,  different  indeed  from  grosser  matter, 
but  still  somewhat  corporeal — a  subtle,  material 
essence,  like  the  wind,  air,  or  breath.  This  is 
proved  by  the  ancient  languages.  Vide  No.  2, 
and  the  remarks  on  the  spirituality  of  God,  s.  19, 
II.  See  the  remarks  on  this  subject  in  the 
Progr.  "  Orig.  opinionum  de  immortalitate 
animi  apud  nationes  barbaras,"  in  Scripta  Varii 
argumenti,  No.  iii. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  evident, 
(a)  That  the  Bible  does  in  no  way  support, 
and  indeed  that  it  directly  contradicts,  that 
gross  materialism  which  denies  all  substan- 
tiality to  the  soul,  considering  it  a  mere  acci- 
dent of  matter  or  of  the  body.  Such  an  opinion 
respecting  the  soul  was  advocated  among  the 
Jews  by  the  Sadducees,  (Acts,  xxiii.  8,)  and 
among  the  Greek  philosophers  originally  by 
Dicaearchus,  who  entirely  denied  the  existence 
of  the  soul  as  a  substance  distinct  from  the 
body  ;  Cicero,  Tusc.  i.  10.  This  same  doctrine 
has  been  advocated,  as  is  well  known,  in  mo- 
dern times,  by  Hobbes,  Toland,  De  la  Mettrie, 
the  author  of  the  "  Systeme  de  la  Nature,"  and 
others.  Indeed,  an  attempt  was  made,  unsuc- 
cessfully it  need  not  be  said,  to  reconcile  this 
gross  materialism  with  the  holy  scriptures,  by 
William  Coward,  an  English  physician,  in  his 
"  Thoughts  on  the  Soul,"  London,  1704.  Priest- 
ley, too,  made  a  vain  attempt  to  prove  from  the 
Bible  his  ideas  respecting  the  soul,  which  lead 
so  decidedly  to  materialism.  But  from  what 
has  been  said,  it  is  equally  evident, 

(i)  That  the  Bible  does  not  support  the  mo- 
dern, fine-spun,  metaphysical  theories  respect- 
ing the  perfect  spirituality  and  immateriality  of 
Q 


182 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


the  soul.  The  notion  of  the  ancient  world  re- 
specting1 spirit  was  by  no  means  the  same  with 
that  of  our  modern  metaphysicians.  And  if  the 
question  of  the  perfect  immateriality  of  the  soul 
had  been  left  to  them,  and  theologians  had  stop- 
ped where  the  Bible  does,  and  omitted  these  in- 
quiries, the  object  of  which  lies  far  beyond  their 
sphere,  they  would  have  done  wisely.  This 
doctrine  respecting  the  immateriality  of  the  soul, 
in  the  strict  philosophical  sense  of  the  term,  is 
of  far  less  consequence  to  religion  than  is  com- 
monly supposed.  The  reason  why  so  much 
importance  has  been  supposed  to  attach  to  this 
doctrine  is,  that  it  was  considered  as  essential 
to  the  metaphysical  proof  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul.  But  since  the  immateriality  of  the 
soul,  in  the  strictest  sense,  can  never  be  made 
fully  and  obviously  certain,  whatever  philoso- 
phical arguments  may  be  urged  in  its  favour, 
the  proof  of  immortality  should  not  be  built  upon 
it.  Nor  were  the  fine-spun  theories  of  immate- 
rialism  ever  resorted  to  by  theologians  to  prove 
the  immortality  of  the  soul,  or  ascribed  by  them 
to  the  Bible,  until  Hobbes,  Toland,  De  la  Met- 
trie,  and  other  materialists,  had  so  perverted 
the  doctrine  of  materialism  as  to  deduce  from  it 
the  destructibility  of  the  soul,  or  its  annihila- 
tion at  the  death  of  the  body.  But,  in  truth, 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  does  neither  depend 
for  proof  upon  its  immateriality,  nor  can  be  cer- 
tainly deduced  from  it.  It  is  possible  for  one 
to  doubt  whether  the  strict  immateriality  of  the 
soul  can  be  proved,  and  yet  to  be  convinced  of 
its  immortality.  The  strongest  advocates  of  im- 
materiality must  allow  that  God  might  annihi- 
late a  spirit,  however  simple  its  nature  may  be. 
Why,  then,  on  the  other  hand,  might  he  not 
make  a  substance  not  entirely  simple  immortal  1 
The  immortality  of  the  soul  will  be  examined  in 
Book  II.  s.  149  ;  its  origin  will  be  investigated 
in  this  Article,  s.  57. 

n.  The  Destination  of  Man. 

The  question,  What  is  the  destination  of  man? 
is  equivalent  to  the  inquiry,  What  am  /,  as  a 
rmn?  What  have  I  as  a  man  to  do  and  expect? 
Or,  more  definitely:  Whither  lead  those  tenden- 
cies by  which,  without  my  own  choice,  I  feel  my- 
self impelled  ?  What  have  I  to  do,  in  conformity 
with  those  more  deep  and  essential  powers  and  ca- 
pacities of  my  nature  which  cannot  be  overlooked 
or  effaced?  and,  When  I  have  acted  in  conformity 
with  them,  what  am  I  to  expect  ? 

A  feeling  of  morality — the  sentiment  of  an  in- 
delible distinction  between  right  and  wrong — 
lies  deep  in  the  soul  of  every  man.  There  is  a 
principle  implanted  in  our  very  nature,  by  which 
we  approve  that  disposition  which  corresponds 
to  right,  and  disapprove  that  which  is  opposed 
to  it.  This  regard  for  a  moral  law  is  deeply 
inwrought  into  the  heart.  Nor  is  there  any- 


thing more  fundamental  in  our  constitution  than 
this;  and  we  may  presume  that  the  good  to 
which  this  our  moral  nature  points  us  is  the 
very  highest  good;  and  it  consists  in  moral  per- 
fection, and  that  well-being  which  is  connected 
with,  and  dependent  upon,  holiness.  Increasing 
holiness,  then,  and  the  happiness  connected  with 
it,  are  the  destination  of  man.  Without  moral 
excellence  no  one  can  be  happy ;  and  to  seek 
for  happiness  without  it  is  mean  and  base.  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  scriptures  both  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament — e.  g.,  Lev.  xi.  44;  xix. 
2;  1  Thess.  iv.  3,  7;  2  Cor.  vii.  1;  Heb.  xii. 
10,  14,  seq.  In  the  creation  of  the  world,  God 
must  have  designed  to  impart  to  every  creature 
that  degree  of  perfection  and  of  well-being  of 
which  it  should  be  susceptible.  For  the  attain- 
ment of  this  great  end  he  employs  the  most  suit- 
able means.  This  results  inevitably  from  his 
wisdom,-  vide  s.  24,  I.  Now.  since  man  is  by 
far  the  noblest  of  all  the  living  creatures  who 
inhabit  the  earth,  and  possesses  the  most  supe- 
rior powers,  especially  of  an  intellectual  kind, 
he  must  have  been  created  by  God  for  a  more 
exalted  end,  and  with  a  higher  destination,  than 
that  of  other  creatures.  In  consequence  of  the 
greater  perfections  with  which  he  is  endowed, 
he  is  capable  of  a  higher  degree  of  happiness, 
for  the  attainment  of  which  he  is  incited  to  strive 
by  the  obligations  arising  from  his  moral  nature. 

1.  The  destination  of  man  in  this  life  embraces 
the  following  particulars  : — 

(a)  Man  possesses  the  right  and  the  power 
to  make  use  of  the  other  creatures  of  the  earth 
for  his  own  advantage.  He  is  dominus  in  res 
creatas,  Gen.  i.  26,  seq. ;  Psa.  viii.  This  right 
he  possesses  by  virtue  of  the  rational  and  moral 
nature  which  God  has  given  him. 

(&)  As  lord  of  the  other  creatures,  man  accom- 
plishes the  design  of  God,  or  his  own  destina- 
tion, when,  together  with  his  concern  for  his 
own  welfare,  he  promotes  in  every  possible  way 
the  comfort  and  welfare  of  all  his  fellow-crea- 
tures, and  especially  the  happiness  of  his  fel- 
low-men, with  whom,  according  to  the  design 
of  God,  he  stands  in  the  closest  and  most  inti- 
mate relation.  Cf.  Acts,  xvii.  26.  To  this  he 
is  also  obliged  by  the  divine  law,  which,  whe- 
ther externally  revealed,  or  written  on  his  heart, 
requires  him  to  love  his  neighbour  as  himself. 

(c)  God  must  have  designed,  in  endowing 
man  with  such  noble  capacities  and  powers, 
that  he  should  cultivate  and  exercise  them  all, 
and  employ  them  for  his  own  advantage  and 
that  of  his  fellow-creatures.  The  more  diligent- 
ly and  actively,  then,  we  employ  the  powers 
with  which  we  are  gifted  by  God  for  the  good 
of  ourselves  and  others, — the  more  we  seek  to 
develop,  cultivate,  and  by  constant  exercise  to 
strengthen  our  moral,  and  indeed  our  whole  na- 
ture, the  more  conformably  shall  we  live  to  the 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


183 


end  for  which  we  were  made.  Diligence,  la- 
bour, and  activity,  are  indispensably  requisite  to 
the  fulfilment  of  our  destination.  Even  the  life 
of  paradise  is  not  described  by  Moses  as  idle 
and  inactive.  Man  was  there  to  be  employed 
in  "  tilling  the  ground,"  Gen.  ii.  5,  15.  The 
improvement  of  all  our  powers  and  capacities  is 
the  end  of  our  rational  nature;  and  all  the  care 
and  effort  which  we  may  now  bestowupon  the  im- 
provement of  our  powers  will  prepare  us  richly 
for  whatever  we  are  to  be  or  to  do  hereafter. 
To  cultivate  and  improve  our  whole  nature  is 
the  duty  daily  allotted  us  by  God. 

(c?)  But  man  should  be  especially  attentive  to 
the  improvement  of  his  higher  nature — his  spi- 
rit. Man  alone,  of  all  the  creatures  on  the 
earth,  possesses  the  distinguishing  excellence 
of  a  rational  soul,  and  of  freedom  of  will.  This 
is  all  which  gives  his  existence  an  absolute 
worth ;  this  is  that  true  inborn  nobilify  which 
essentially  raises  him  above  the  rank  of  all  his 
fellow-creatures  upon  the  earth.  By  the  pro- 
per use  of  his  reason,  and  of  all  the  higher 
powers  of  his  spirit,  man  becomes  capable  of 
a  happiness  of  which  no  other  creature  on 
the  earth  is  capable.  This  higher  happiness 
is  founded  upon  the  knowledge  of  truth  and 
moral  good,  and  especially  upon  religion,  or 
the  knowledge  and  reverential  love  of  God,  of 
which  man  alone  is  capable,  and  which  is  the 
most  powerful  means  of  promoting  holiness. 
Vide  Introduction,  s.  2.  seq.  Now  it  is  a  law  of 
reason,  and  so  the  design  and  will  of  God,  who 
has  given  us  our  reason,  that  the  moral  powers 
and  faculties  of  our  nature  should  be  developed 
and  strengthened  by  exercise.  Consequently,  to 
exercise  these  powers — to  do  justly,  and  shew 
mercy,  in  all  the  circumstances  in  which  we  are 
placed — is  the  way  for  us  to  discharge  our  pre- 
sent duty,  and  to  testify  our  love  to  God.  And 
every  instance  in  which  we  neglect  to  improve 
the  opportunities  afforded  us  of  exercising  and 
improving  our  moral  powers  is  a  failure  in  duty, 
which  is  always  attended  with  hurtful  conse- 
quences. 

The  book  of  Ecclesiastes  contains  many  ex- 
cellent, rules  for  the  accomplishment  of  our  des- 
tination upon  the  earth,  most  of  them  in  the  form 
of  proverbs ;  as  ii.  24 ;  iii.  12,  seq. ;  v.  17 ;  ix.  9. 
They  may  be  briefly  expressed  as  follows : — 
Man  is  happy,  and  lives  according  to  the  end  for 
which  he  was  made,  "when  he  wisely  enjoys 
the  present ;  when  in  the  right  way  he  seeks  for 
peacefulness  of  soul,  cheerfulness,  and  serenity 
of  mind ;  when  he  fulfils  his  social  duties ;  when 
he  loves  and  serves  God,  and  is  active  and  dili- 
gent in  the  employment  of  his  powers ;  remem- 
bering that  he  does  not  exist  merely  for  himself 
and  for  the  sake  of  selfish  enjoyment,  but  for  the 
sake  of  benefiting  others,  as  far  as  he  is  able." 
2.  The  destination  of  man  beyond  the  grave. 


That  man  was  not  made  for  the  present  life  alone 
is  a  doctrine  which,  although  by  no  means  un- 
known before  the  time  of  Christ,  had  not  as  yet 
been  clearly  and  distinctly  revealed.  But  Christ 
and  his  apostles  inculcated  this  encouraging  and 
consoling  truth  with  great  earnestness,  and  made 
it  the  basis  of  all  their  exhortations.  Vide  2 
Cor.  iv.  18 ;  Phil.  iii.  20 ;  Col.  iii.  1—4.  It  may 
be  adopted  as  a  first  principle,  that  the  right  en- 
joyment and  the  proper  use  of  the  present  life  is 
the  best  preparation  for  happiness  in  the  life  to 
come;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  constant  and  ear- 
nest effort  to  prepare  for  happiness  in  the  future 
world  is  the  best  way  to  be  happy  here.  Cf.  1 
John,  iii.  2,  seq.  In  order  that  we  may  be  pre- 
pared for  future  happiness,  and  capable  of  en- 
joying it,  we  must  be  holy.  "  Without  holiness 
no  man  can  see  the  Lord,"  Heb.  xii.  14.  And 
the  greater  the  advances  we  make  in  holiness, 
knowledge,  and  the  practice  of  known  truth  in 
the  present  life,  the  greater  will  be  our  happiness 
in  the  life  to  come.  There  is,  and  must  be,  a 
close  and  unalterable  connexion  between  our 
holiness  here  and  our  happiness  hereafter. 

Note. — From  these  observations,  which  we 
think  just  and  scriptural,  we  conclude  that  man 
is  placed  in  the  present  life,  principally,  indeed, 
to  prepare  for  the  next,  but  not  solely  for  this 
purpose.  And  he,  it  must  be  allowed,  fails  of 
fulfilling  the  whole  end  of  his  being,  who  forgets 
the  present  in  the  hope  of  the  future,  or  who  la- 
bours in  such  a  way  to  prepare  for  the  life  to 
come  as  to  render  himself  inactive  and  useless 
in  this.  Future  blessedness  is  only  the  conti- 
nuation and  perfection  of  that  which  begins  here. 
And  we  must  now  begin  to  be  active,  holy,  and 
happy,  that  we  may  continue  to  be  so  in  a  more 
perfect  manner  hereafter.  The  present  is  the 
time  to  sow ;  the  harvest  will  come  in  the  future 
world.  He  therefore  who  does  not  sow  here 
cannot  expect  to  reap  beyond  the  grave.  It  is 
a  part  of  the  end  of  our  being  to  be  happy  even 
in  the  present  life,  however  inferior  may  be  the 
happiness  we  can  obtain  here  to  that  which  we 
hope  for  in  heaven.  Our  life  upon  the  earth  is 
an  end  as  well  as  a  means.  And  if  we  earnestly 
seek  to  do  the  will  of  God,  the  present  life,  even 
in  itself  considered,  is  not  worthless,  though  its 
value  is  infinitely  raised  by  the  certainty  of  a 
future  life.  In  regard  to  the  proper  use  of  the 
time  now  allotted  us,  we  have  a  pattern  in  the 
example  of  those  pious  men  who  are  recom- 
mended in  the  Bible  for  our  imitation ;  and  espe- 
cially in  the  example  of  Jesus,  which,  even  in 
this  respect,  is  the  most  perfect  of  all.  These 
hints  on  the  destination  of  man  are  carried  out 
in  Spalding's  "  Bestimmung  des  Menschen;" 
Leipzig,  1794;  and  in  the  Essay  of  T611nerr 
"  1st  das  gegenwartige  Leben  nur  eine  Prii- 
fungszeitl"  in  his  "  Theologishen  Untersu- 
chungen,"  th.  i.  s.  402,  f.  Cicero,  in  his  Book, 


184 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


"  De  finibus  bonorum  et  malorum,"  states  the 
theories  of  the  various  schools  among  the  Greeks 
respecting  the  summum  bonum,  or  the  finis  bono- 
rum. Seneca  calls  the  destination  of  a  thing-, 
or  of  a  man,  finis  naturae  suse,  suum  cujusque 
(rei  sive  hominis)  bonum.  To  attain  or  fulfil 
one's  destiny,  he  calls,  adfinem  naturae  suse  per- 
venire,  sive,  attingerefinem  naturoe  suse,  Ep.  76. 

SECTION  LII. 

OF  THE  MOSAIC  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE 
HUMAN  RACE. 

I.  General  Remarks. 

MOST  nations  have  some  ancient  traditions  re- 
specting the  origin  of  the  human  race,  which, 
however,  differ  widely  from  each  other.  Many 
of  the  heathen  nations  believed  that  their  fore- 
fathers, or  the  human  race,  sprung  originally 
either  from  the  earth,  rocks,  trees,  eggs,  teeth, 
or  other  inanimate  things,  or  that  they  were 
produced  by  wild  beasts.  Vide  the  passages 
cited  in  Meiners'  "  Geschichte  der  Menschheit," 
s.  245.  There  were  comparatively  few  of  the 
ancient  heathen  nations  who  supposed  that  the 
human  race,  or  particular  nations,  were  derived 
from  gods,  heroes,  or  giants ;  and  even  these 
differed  very  much  from  one  another  in  their  ac- 
counts; some  supposing  that  the  first  men  were 
brought  forth  in  the  way  of  natural  generation 
by  these  superior  beings ;  and  others,  that  they 
were  only  formed  by  the  gods  from  some  inani- 
mate material,  earth,  stones,  &c.,  and  then  en- 
dowed with  life. 

In  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Genesis, 
Moses  has  preserved  the  ancient  traditions  of 
the  Hebrew  nation  with  respect  to  the  origin  of 
man.  These  traditions  are  substantially  the 
same  with  those  of  other  oriental  nations,  and 
they  are  uniformly  followed  by  the  other  sacred 
writers.  As  here  recorded  by  Moses,  they 
breathe  the  very  spirit  of  the  ancient  world,  al- 
though they  exhibit  more  truth,  completeness, 
and  connexion,  than  are  found  in  the  traditions 
and  fables  of  other  nations  respecting  the  origin 
of  our  race. 

According  to  the  Mosaic  account,  the  whole 
human  race  is  derived  from  one  stock,  as  Paul 
expresses  it,  £f  svoj  afytai'oj  rtav  £$vo$  av^pcoTtov, 
Acts,  xvii.  26.  The  first  man,  Adam,  was 
formed  from  the  earth,  Gen.  ii.  and  iii. ;  Eccles. 
xii.  7 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  47 ;  6  Ttpwtfoj  a7£pcorto$  ix  y»Jj, 
^oi'xof.  Eve  was  formed  afterwards,  and  from 
Adam,  Genesis,  ii.  18,  seq. ;  1  Cor.  xi.  8,  ywrj 
(%  dvSpoj.  Some  modern  investigators  of  nature 
have  supposed  that  the  distinction  found  between 
the  races  of  men  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the 
supposition  that  they  all  have  proceeded  from 
one  stock.  They  have  conjectured,  accordingly, 
that  many  different  pairs  of  men  were  originally 


made.  That  climate,  manner  of  life,  means  of 
subsistence,  &c.,  could  have  produced  all  the 
variety  which  is  perceived  among  the  different 
races  of  men  is  what  they  will  not  allow.  But 
others  affirm  th?t  all  the  arguments  adduced  in 
support  of  this  hypothesis  are  unsatisfactory ; 
and  contend,  with  strong  reasons,  for  a  contrary 
opinion.  Among  these  is  Forster.  Cf.  his 
"  Bemerkungen  auf  seinen  Reise  urn  die  Welt," 
s.  226—254;  Berlin,  1783.  Also  Kant,  Ueber 
die  verschiedenen  Racen  der  Menschen;  K6- 
nigsberg,  1775,  4to;  Blumenbach,  De  generis 
humani  varietate  nativa;  Gottingae,  1776,  8vo. 
Other  nations  beside  the  Hebrews  have  believed 
that  the  human  race  descended  from  one  original 
pair.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  they 
derived  their  belief  on  this  point  from  the  ac- 
count of  Moses.  The  supposition  that  the  whole 
human  race  has  descended  from  one  pair  might 
naturally  arise  from  various  circumstances — 
from  the  gradual  peopling  of  countries  round 
about — from  the  old  family  tradition,  that  for- 
merly the  number  of  the  human  race  was  com- 
paratively small — and  from  the  observation  of 
the  large  and  rapid  increase  of  single  families. 
Besides,  these  other  nations  might  have  derived 
much  of  what  they  believed  respecting  the  ori- 
gin of  man  by  direct  oral  tradition  from  the 
earliest  times. 

[Note. — The  question  so  much  discussed 
among  anthropologists  respecting  the  different 
races  of  men,  and  their  descent  from  one  ori- 
ginal pair,  is  of  very  considerable  interest  both 
to  the  theologian  and  the  philanthropist.  It  has 
an  essential  bearing  upon  the  doctrines  of  in- 
herited corruption,  and  of  the  atonement.  But 
its  most  important  bearing  is  upon  our  duty  to 
a  very  numerous  race,  who  have  long  been  ex- 
cluded from  the  rights  and  privileges  of  frater- 
nity in  the  human  family.  Lactantius  has  well 
said,  (Div.  Inst.  v.  10,)  Si  ah  uno  homine,  quern 
Deus  finxit,  omnes  orimur,  certe  CONSANGUINEI 
SUMUS  ;  et  ideo  maximum  scelus  putandum  est, 
odisse  hominem  VEL  NOCENTEM.  And  this  prac- 
tical influence  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
consanguinity  of  all  nations  may  be  seen  in  the 
extensive  abolition  of  negro  slavery  by  Chris- 
tian nations. 

It  deserves  to  be  noticed  that  this  scriptural 
doctrine,  which  is  so  connected  with  the  highest 
interests  of  humanity,  has  been  successfully  vin- 
dicated on  the  ground  of  physiology  against  the 
ingenious  and  plausible  attacks  of  those  who 
make  equal  opposition  to  the  Christian  scriptures 
and  to  African  freedom.  In  addition  to  the 
works  recommended  by  our  author,  we  may 
mention  that  of  H.  F.  Link,  "  Die  Urwelt  und 
das  Alterthum;"  Berlin,  1821.  There  is  one 
physiological  argument,  which,  it  would  seem, 
must  be  conclusive  against  the  supposition  that 
the  negro  belongs  wholly  to  a  different  kind  from 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


185 


the  white — viz.,  the  offspring  of  the  mixture  of 
different  genera  cannot  propagate  their  own  spe- 
cies. We  know  this  is  not  the  case  with  regard 
to  the  children  which  are  born  from  the  min- 
gling of  the  white  and  negro  races.  The  essen- 
tial characteristic  marks  of  the  human  kind  are 
the  rational  and  moral  powers  with  which  man 
is  endowed  ;  and  those  in  whom  we  can  find  the 
least  traces  of  these  are  to  be  regarded  by  us 
as  brethren,  bearing  with  us  something  of  the 
image  of  God,  however  low  the  degree  in  which 
they  may  possess  these  powers,  and  however 
widely  they  may  differ  from  us  in  the  incidental 
circumstances  of  colour,  feature,  and  tempera- 
ment.— TR,] 

We  must  here  notice  the  opinion  that  men 
existed  before  Adam,  who  is  spoken  of  in  the 
Mosaic  account.  The  belief  in  Praeadamites 
has  been  embraced  for  various  reasons;  partly 
to  escape  some  supposed  natural  difficulties  of 
the  kind  just  mentioned,  partly  in  support  of 
various  theological  and  historical  hypotheses, 
and  sometimes  for  both  reasons  united.  Most 
of  those  who  have  entertained  this  opinion, 
however  different  their  views  respecting  the 
Praeadamites  themselves,  have  appealed  to 
Moses  and  other  sacred  writers  for  support,  or 
at  least  have  endeavoured  to  shew  that  they  be- 
lieved in  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  scriptural 
account.  But  they  evidently  do  the  greatest 
violence  to  the  passages  which  they  cite.  The 
plain,  scriptural  representation  is  that  which  we 
have  given.  This  hypothesis  was  first  raised  to 
notice  by  Isaac  Peyrere,  who  in  1655  published 
his  book  styled  "  Prasadamitae"  He  pretended 
to  find  his  Praeadamites  in  Rom.  v.  12 — 14.  The 
heathen,  according  to  him,  are  the  Praeadamites, 
being,  as  he  supposed,  created  on  the  same  day 
with  the  beasts,  and  those  whose  creation  is 
mentioned  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  Adam, 
the  father  of  the  Jews,  was  not  created  until  a 
century  later,  and  is  the  one  who  is  mentioned 
in  the  second  chapter.  Cf.  the  works  cited  by 
Morus,  p.  95,  s.  1,  note  1.  Since  the  time  of 
Peyrere,  this  hypothesis  has  been  exhibited  more 
connectedly;  and  has  been  asserted  independ- 
ently of  the  authority  of  Moses;  or,  in  other 
words,  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  human  race 
is  older  than  Moses  represents  it.  Vide  Irwing, 
"  Versuche  iiber  den  Ursprung  der  Erkenntniss 
der  Wahrheit  und  der  Wissenschaften ;"  Ber- 
lin, 1781,  8vo.  Cf.  Brun,  «*  Vergleichung  der 
griechischen  und  romischen  Nachrichten  von 
dem  altesten  Zustande  der  Menschen  mit  den 
hebraischen,"  in  Gabler's  "Theologischen 
Journal,"  b.  v.  st.  1,  s.  50.  u.  f. 

II.  The  Mosaic  Account. 

There  are  two  accounts  of  the  creation  of  man 
recorded    by  Moses.     The  first  is  very  brief, 
given  in  general  terms,  in  connexion  with  the 
24 


history  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  on  the  sixth 
day  of  which  man  was  formed,  Gen.  i.  26 — 30. 
The  second  account  is  more  full,  and  stands  by 
itself,  Gen.  ii.  4,  seq.  In  this  second  account, 
the  creation  of  the  world  and  the  state  of  the 
earth  before  man  was  placed  upon  it,  are  again 
cursorily  mentioned,  while  in  ver.  7  the  creation 
of  man  himself  is  more  fully  detailed.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  in  the  composition  of  these  first 
chapters  of  Genesis,  Moses  may  have  had  be- 
fore him  some  written  records  handed  down 
from  the  patriarchal  age,  and  he  may  perhaps 
have  inserted  them,  word  for  word,  in  his  own 
history.  Vide  s.  49,  I.  According  to  this  sup- 
position, we  have  here  inserted  one  of  these  ori- 
ginal records,  extending  from  Gen.  ii.  4  to  iii. 
24,  and  forming  a  complete  whole,  which  is  se- 
parated from  what  precedes  by  the  appropriate 
title,  "  This  is  the  history  of  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,"  ver.  4.  What  favours  the  supposi- 
tion that  Moses  drew  from  written  records  in 
composing  the  first  part  of  Genesis,  and  that  he 
even  preserved  them  in  the  very  language  in 
which  they  were  written,  is  the  fact,  that  in 
each  of  these  distinct  fragments  the  Supreme 
Being  is  uniformly  designated  by  a  different 
title, — in  one,  by  the  name  OTiSs,  in  another,  by 
the  name  niir,  and  in  a  third,  by  the  combined 
name  OTiSx  rn'rv.  This  was  first  observed  by 
Astriic  and  Michaelis,  and  is  often  made  use  of 
by  Eichhorn  in  his  "  Urgeschichte."  Cf.  s.  49, 
and  the  works  of  Herder,  Eichhorn,  Gabler, 
Paulus,  Ilgen,  Vater,  and  others.  But  Eich- 
horn and  Ilgen  have  spoken  with  far  too  much 
confidence  respecting  the  sources  from  which 
Moses  drew.  The  subject  is  not  so  well  under- 
stood as  to  allow  of  so  much  confidence.  Vide 
Koppen,  Die  Bibel  ein  Werk  der  gottlichen 
Weisheit,  th.  ii.  s.  456,  2te  Ausg.  These  ac- 
counts must  now  be  separately  considered. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  96,  s.  4. 

1.  Observations  on  the  first  account,  Genesis, 
i.  26—30. 

Here,  and  in  other  parts  of  the  history  of  the 
creation,  God  is  said  to  speak.  This  is  a  repre- 
sentation by  which  the  exertion  of  the  divine 
will,  or  the  determination  of  God,  is  intelligibly 
expressed,  and  corresponds  with  the  whole  pic- 
torial nature  of  the  account.  Cf.  Genesis,  vi. 
5;  xi.  6,  7.  After  the  production  of  so  many 
creatures  of  the  earth,  God  at  length  created 
man,  the  noblest  and  most  excellent  of  them 
all — the  lord  of  the  lower  creation. 

o-nj,  in  the  first  chapter,  is  not  a  proper,  but  a 
collective  noun — man.  We  might  suppose,  from 
this  passage,  if  the  account  in  the  second  chap- 
ter were  not  more  explicit,  that  the  first  human 
pair  were  created  at  the  same  time.  The  words, 
unio-ia  Mc'tta,  should  not  be  distinguished  as 
they  have  sometimes  been.  The  two  words 
thus  collocated  signify,  an  exact  or  a  very  similar 
Q2 


186 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


image;  as  chap.  v.  1,  3.  The  primary  sig- 
nification of  oSx  is,  a  shadow,  as  Psalm  xxxix. 
7  ;  then,  a  shadowy  image,  a  likeness.  In  what 
this  divine  likeness  consists, — whether  simply 
in  the  dominion  over  the  rest  of  the  creation, 
mentioned  immediately  after,  or  in  the  posses- 
sion of  higher  faculties,  will  be  investigated,  s. 
53.  The  dominion  of  man  over  animals  here 
spoken  of  denotes  merely  his  right  to  use  and 
employ  them  for  his  own  advantage.  The 
phrase,  God  blessed  them,  (ver.  28,)  is  to  be  un- 
derstood as  above,  in  ver.  22;  he  gave  them 
frui/fulness,  the  power  to  propagate  their  species. 
The  fruits  of  the  tree  and  of  the  field,  and  not 
the  flesh  of  animals,  constituted  the  original  food 
of  man  as  well  as  of  beast.  Vide  ver.  29,  30, 
where  it  is  said  that  God  gave  to  them  the  pro- 
duce of  the  earth  for  food.  Cf.  ii.  16.  Many 
reasons  may  be  given  for  this.  Had  it  not  been 
so,  there  would  have  been  ground  to  apprehend 
that  man  might  have  destroyed  whole  species 
of  animals,  while  they  were  yet  few  in  number, 
&c.  Vide  Michaelis,  in  loc.  The  fact  that 
man  at  first  fed  upon  fruits  and  herbs  is  con- 
firmed by  the  traditions  of  other  ancient  nations. 
They  uniformly  represent  the  practice  of  taking 
the  life  and  shedding  the  blood  of  living  crea- 
tures as  a  cruel  and  frightful  practice,  which 
could  not  have  existed  in  paradise,  or  in  the 
golden  age  of  the  youthful  world,  when  univer- 
sal friendship  and  happy  concord  reigned  among 
the  creatures  of  God.  Hence,  in  the  prophetic  de- 
scriptions of  that  happy  age  which  should  again 
return  to  the  world,  it  is  expressly  said  that  one 
beast  shall  not  destroy  another ;  "  the  lion  shall 
eat  straw  like  the  ox,"  Isa.  xi.  7,  coll.  ver.  6— - 
9.  The  same  trait  recurs  in  the  description 
which  the  Greeks  give  of  the  Saturnian  age. 
Vide  Plutarch,  rtspt  <japxo<f>oyta$.  Ovid,  too,  de- 
scribes the  vetus  aurea  setas  as  happy  f&tibus 
arboreis  et  herbis  ,-  necpolluit  ora  cruore,  Met.  xv. 
96,  seq.  Vide  Clerici  Comment,  in  Genesin. 
We  find,  therefore,  no  intimation  that  beasts 
were  slain  until  after  man  had  forfeited  paradise, 
Genesis,  iii.  21.  Shortly  after,  they  appear  to 
have  been  offered  by  men  in  sacrifice  to  God, 
Gen.  iv.  4.  Noah  was  the  first  who  received 
a  distinct  command  to  use  flesh  as  well  as  vege- 
tables for  his  sustenance,  Gen.  ix.  3.  And  it  is 
in  general  true,  that  rude  nations  eat  for  a  long 
time  only  herbs  and  fruits,  and  come  slowly 
into  the  use  of  animals  for  food,  even  after  they 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  slaying  them,  and 
using  their  skins  for  clothing.  This  can  be 
easily  accounted  for,  when  we  consider  that  ani- 
mal food,  as  then  prepared,  before  fire  and  salt 
came  into  common  use,  must  have  been  ex- 
tremely coarse  and  disgusting.  We  gather  from 
Homer,  that  the  use  of  salt  on  flesh  could  not 
have  been  very  common  in  his  day,  since  he 
always  gives  it  the  epithet  divine,  and  describes 


it  as  a  gift  of  the  gods.    The  Caribeans  at  the 
present  day  eat  flesh  without  salt. 

2.  Observations  on  the  second  account,  Genesis, 
ii.  4—24. 

(a)  After  the  mention,  in  ver.  5,  6,  of  the 
means  of  subsistence  which  God  had  provided 
for  man  from  the  vegetable  kingdom,  the  writer 
passes  now,  in  ver.  7,  to  the  creation  of  man 
himself.  "  God  formed  man  from  the  dust  of 
the  earth,"  nD^Nrrjp  -\oy — a  very  natural  idea, 
readily  suggested  by  analogy,  and  in  itself  pro- 
bable. The  decay  of  man,  and  the  mouldering 
of  his  body  to  dust  and  earth,  gave  rise  to  the 
phrase,  to  become  dust  and  earth.  And  so  dust 
and  earth  were  naturally  regarded  as  the  ele- 
ments of  the  human  body ;  and  to  describe  death 
they  said,  -\y_  aitf  icy,  to  return  to  the  dust,  from 
which  we  were  taken;  Psalm  civ.  29;  Genesis., 
iii.  19  ;  Job,  x.  9  ;  Eccles.  xii.  7.  Cf.  Job^, 
xxxiii.  6.  The  body  of  the  first  man,  which 
God  had  formed  from  the  earth,  was  entirely 
finished  before  it  was  endowed  with  life.  Here 
again  the  description  is  rendered  natural  and 
probable  from  the  analogy  of  the  human  bod} 
when  first  deprived  of  life.  The  form  and1 
structure  remain  complete  after  life  has  depart* 
ed  ;  and  the  body  moulders  slowly  into  dust  and' 
clay.  Thus,  on  the  other  hand,  the  body  firsu 
was  formed  under  the  plastic  hand  of  the  Artist; 
and  the  breath  of  life  was  not  imbreathed  until 
it  was  finished.  In  these  two  respects  there  i& 
a  great  resemblance  between  this  account  and 
the  Grecian  fable  of  Prometheus,  who  first 
formed  a  man  from  earth  and  water,  and  after- 
wards endowed  it  with  life  through  the  coope- 
ration of  the  Deity.  Vide  Ovid,  Met.  i.  82. 

The  ons  is  here  not  only  the  common  appel- 
lative for  man,  but  also  the  proper  distinguish- 
ing name  of  the  first  man.  The  first  man  is 
called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  man.  The 
word  is  not  derived  from  DIS,  red,  (supposed  by 
some  to  refer  to  the  red  colour  of  the  counte- 
nance, or  to  the  red  earth,  from  which  man  was 
formed,  as  the  Rabbins  and  Josephus  (Antiq.  i. 
1)  suggest.)  It  is  rather  derived  from  nnnN,  the 
earth,  and  so  describes  man  as  earthborn,  yyyevrj. 
Plato  says,  in  his  Politicus,  'Ex  y»J$  yap  av6,3tw<j- 
xovto  rtavr'ff. 

"  And  he  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life,"  o^n  npt?J  vcso  np'i.  God  vivified  the  pre- 
viously lifeless  body  of  man.  Breath  is  the  most 
obvious  and  certain  indication  of  life,  and  breath- 
ing is  performed  principally  through  the  nose ; 
and  hence  this  whole  figurative  representation. 
When  God  gives  life  to  his  creatures  he  is  said 
to  breath  out  his  breath,  or  to  breathe  it  into  them. 
When  he  causes  them  to  die,  he  is  said  to  take 
away  their  breath ;  as  Ps.  civ.  29,  30. 

Nothing  is  expressly  said  in  this  passage  re- 
specting the  rational  soul,  its  indivisibility,  and 
immortality.  That  only  which  is  obvious,  and 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


187 


perceptible  by  the  external  senses,  is  here  de- 
scribed ;  as  it  is  in  general  the  object  of  Moses 
in  this  passage  to  describe  the  origin  of  the 
world  only  as  far  as  it  falls  under  the  cogni- 
zance of  the  senses.  Cf.  the  remarks  on  nn,  s. 
51,  I.  rm  e?flj,  is,  a  living  creature,  or  being. 

(6)  In  ver.  9,  and  ver.  16,  17,  the  writer 
speaks  of  the  means  of  subsistence  appointed 
for  man,  from  the  vegetable  kingdom,  (Vide  No. 
I.,)  and  particularly  the  tree  of  life,  and  the  tree 
of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  or  of  the  distinc- 
tion of  good  and  evil;  which  were  found  in  the 
midst  of  the  garden,  (fan  TJIP?.)  They  are  men- 
tioned here  to  prepare  the  way  for  what  follows 
in  the  third  chapter.  Trees  of  life  denote  with 
the  Hebrews  such  trees  as  possess  a  healing, 
life-giving  power,  arbores  salutares,  whether  the 
virtue  belongs  to  the  fruit,  leaf,  bark,  or  root ; 
as  Prov.  iii.  18.  We  say,  officinal  herbs  or  trees. 
The  design  of  the  tree  of  life  was,  to  perpetuate 
human  life,  Gen.  iii.  22.  While  man  continued 
in  paradise,  his  body  was  endued  with  immor- 
tality, which,  however,  was  not  effected  in  an 
immediate  and  miraculous  way,  but  by  a  natural 
means,  divinely  appointed — viz.,  the  fruit  of  a 
tree,  in  partaking  of  which  human  life  might  be 
prolonged.  Hence  the  tree  of  life  is  described 
as  planted  in  heaven,  the  abode  of  immortality, 
Rev.  xxii.  2 ;  ii.  7.  The  Greeks,  too,  speak  of 
food  of  which  no  mortal  can  taste,  and  which 
the  immortals  alone  enjoy.  Homer,  Odys.  v. 
197,  199;  II.  xix.  38,  39. 

The  description  which  Moses  gives  of  the 
tree  of  life  would  naturally  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  other  tree  which  stood  opposite  was  a 
hurtful,  poisonous  tree,  destructive  of  life ;  and 
this  is  confirmed  from  ver.  17,  "The  day  thou 
eatest  of  it  thou  shalt  die."  Cf.  chap.  iii.  This 
account  too,  as  well  as  those  which  have  pre- 
ceded it,  is  very  probable  and  natural.  There 
are  injurious  plants  and  poisonous  trees  by  which 
we  are  made  sick  and  destroyed  ;  there  are  also 
useful  trees,  which  impart  health  and  prolong 
life.  Such  tr.ees  there  were  in  the  age  of  para- 
dise, conferring  perpetual  health  and  immor- 
tality; and  also  a  single  poisonous  tree,  placed 
in  the  garden  for  the  trial  of  man.  Cf.  Gen.  iii. 
3.  But  why  is  it  called  the  tree  of  the  know- 
ledge of  good  and  evil?  Because  by  means  of 
this  tree  man  was  to  learn  prudence,  to  be  made 
cautious  and  circumspect;  and  because  it  was 
intended  to  put  his  wisdom  to  the  test.  Cf. 
Morus,  p.  97,  s.  6.  If  he  did  not  eat  of  the 
tree  it  would  be  well  for  him,  and  he  would  act 
wisely  and  circumspectly  ;  if  he  ate  of  the  fruit 
of  the  tree,  it  would  be  to  his  hurt;  and  by  the 
evil  he  would  suffer  he  would  become  wise,  and 
learn  in  future  to  be  more  circumspect ;  he  would 
then  know  from  his  experience  the  unhappy 
consequences  resulting  from  transgression  of 


the  divine  command.  Cf.  Gen.  iii.  22.  The 
phrase,  to  know,  or  to  distinguish  good  and  evil, 
(or,  as  Horace  expresses  it,  curvo  posse  digno- 
scere  rectum,  Ep.  ii.  2,  44,)  always  signifies  in 
the  ancient  languages  to  be  or  become  wise,  to 
acquire  judgment.  So  frequently  in  Homer — e. 
g.,  Odys.  xviii.  227,  228;  xx.  309,  310.  Cf. 
Book  ii.  s.  75. 

(c)  In  ver.  19,  20,  we  have  the  following 
points — viz., 

(a)  Adam  lived  at  first  among  the  beasts ;  and 
they  were,  so  to  speak,  brought  before  him  by 
God.  They  were  more  nearly  related  to  him 
than  any  other  part  of  the  material  creation  by 
which  he  was  surrounded.  He  had  more  in 
common  with  them  than  with  inanimate  things. 
In  paradise  the  beasts  were  not  timid  and  wild, 
but  lived  with  man  in  familiarity  and  confidence. 
Cf.  Isaiah,  xi.  6 — 9.  Nor  is  this  representation 
of  the  original  state  of  man  confined  to  the  Jews ; 
it  is  found  among  other  nations,  and  is  more- 
over confirmed  to  our  present  observation.  We 
find  even  now,  that  in  regions  entirely  uninha- 
bited by  man,  and  where  his  persecutions  have 
never  been  felt  by  beasts  and  birds,  they  are 
tame  and  unsuspicious,  though  elsewhere  known 
as  wild  and  timid.  Cook  describes  the  tropical 
birds  which  he  saw  in  the  uninhabited  islands 
of  the  South  Sea — the  man  of  war,  and  other 
birds  which  are  commonly  very  shy — as  so 
tame  that  they  could  be  caught  by  the  hand. 
When  the  traveller  passes  through  the  wilds  of 
South  America,  which  are  seldom  trodden  by 
human  footsteps,  he  is  not  shunned  by  the  most 
timid  birds,  and  can  catch  even  partridges  as  he 
passes  along  by  a  mere  noose  fastened  upon  the 
end  of  a  stick.  Cf.  the  work,  "Zur  Kunde 
fremder  Lander  und  Volker,"  b.  ii.  s.  152,  ex- 
tracted from  the  "  Lettres  Edifiantes." 

(|3)  As  man  was  conversant  with  the  animals 
about  him,  and  was  soon  able  to  distinguish 
them  one  from  another,  he  gave  them  names, 
which  appear  to  have  been  the  sounds  by  which 
he  called  them  around  him,  and  sometimes  in 
imitation  of  the  sounds  which  they  themselves 
made.  In  this  way  it  is  easy  to  account  for  the 
transition  of  man  from  his  original  speechless- 
ness  to  the  first  use  of  language.  We  notice 
the  same  process  in  children.  Plato  observes, 
very  justly,  in  his  Politicus,  "that  in  the  Satur- 
nian  age  men  were  very  familiar  with  animals, 
and  even  conversed  with  them,  (as  appears  in 
Gen.  iii.,  and  as  is  seen  in  children ;)  and  that  in 
this  intercourse  they  learned  much  wisdom  ;  and 
by  giving  attention  to  their  nature  and  habitudes 
saw  much  which  they  could  turn  to  their  own 
advantage."  Hence  the  great  influence  which 
the  fables  of  ^E sop  had  in  ancient  times,  and  the 
deep  impression  which  they  still  make  upon 
children. 


188 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


(y)  But  although  every  animal  had  its  mate, 
man  did  not  find  among  them  all  a  companion 
for  himself.  His  innate  propensity  to  the  social 
and  conjugal  state  was  thus  more  strongly  ex- 
cited ;  ver.  18,  20,  ad  finem.  "  Man  only,"  it  is 
said,  "  had  not  as  yet  -n.^3  nip."  1$  signifies, 
properly,  an  assistant,  companion ;  as  Ezekiel, 
xii.  14.  ii^3  is  rendered  by  Luther,  die  um  ihn 
ware;  in  English  version,  meet  for  him  ,•  Sept. 
xa-t'  avtbv  and  oiuotoj  avtq. 

(d)  Creation  of  the  wife  of  Adam,  ver.  21 — 24. 

This  passage  has  greatly  perplexed  com- 
mentators, who  have  undertaken  to  reconcile  it 
with  the  notions  of  modern  times,  with  which 
it  does  not  at  all  agree.  Eichhorn  (p.  182,  183 
of  the  work  ahove  cited)  explains  it  in  this 
way — "  Adam  and  his  wife  were  created  at  the 
same  time,  but  at  first  lived  apart.  The  conju- 
gal impulse  of  Adam  was  excited ;  he  fell  into 
a  sleep,  and  dreamed  that  he  was  divided  into 
halves.  When  he  awoke,  Eve  stood  before 
him."  The  same  explanation  in  substance  is 
given  by  Zacharia,  in  his  Bib.  Theol.  th.  ii.  s. 
120.  But  what  unprejudiced  reader  can  see  any 
foundation  for  all  this  in  the  Mosaic  account"? 
Moses  evidently  teaches  that  Eve  was  created 
after  Adam,  and  taken  by  God  from  Adam  ;  and 
Paul  says,  "Adam  was  first  formed,  and  then 
Eve,"  1  Tim.  ii.  13.  For  this  part  of  the  Mo- 
saic narrative,  as  well  as  for  the  former  parts, 
there  is  some  analogy,  which,  however,  must  be 
more  evident  to  the  orientalist  than  to  us,  since 
the  subserviency  of  the  woman  to  the  man  is 
more  acknowledged  in  the  East  than  in  the 
West.  The  orientalist  believes  the  woman  to 
be  indeed  of  his  own  nature,  but  still  secondary 
and  subject  to  him  ;  though  this  place  by  no 
means  teaches  her  subjection  as  a  slave,  as 
afterwards,  when  the  age  of  paradise  was  over, 
Gen.  iii.  16 — a  supposition  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  of  the  golden  age.  Now,  because  the 
woman  is  of  the  same  nature  as  man,  she  is  de- 
scribed as  taken  from  him.  Hence  the  deep 
love  he  feels  for  her,  and  the  intimate  union  be- 
tween man  and  wife.  Hence,  too,  (viz.,  from 
the  fact  that  she  was  taken  from  him,)  the  supe- 
riority of  the  man  over  the  woman.  That  this 
explanation  is  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  the  Bible 
is  clear  from  the  argument  which  Paul  deduces 
from  this  place — "  For  the  man  is  not  of  the  wo- 
man ;  but  the  woman  of  the  man.  Neither  was 
the  man  created  for  the  woman ;  but  the  woman 
for  the  man,"  1  Cor.  xi.  8,  9.  This  truth,  then, 
that  husband  and  wife  stand  in  the  closest  con- 
nexion with  each  other,  while  still  the  wife  is 
necessarily  dependent  upon  her  husband,  could 
not  be  made  more  intelligible  and  impressive 
than  by  the  account  here  given,  which  repre- 
sents the  woman  as  created  after  man,  taken 
from  him,  and  made  out  of  his  side.  j/?x  in  this 


place  does  not  signify  rib,  but  side,  half,  as  com- 
monly in  Hebrew  and  Arabic — e.  g.,  Exod. 
xxvi.  26,  27,  35,  seq.  Sept,  rthsvpd — "  The  place 
was  closed  up  with  Jlesh" — i.  e.,  the  body  was 
healed  and  made  whole.  As  pain  was  not  known 
in  paradise,  it  was  necessary  that  Adam  should 
be  put  into  a  deep  sleep  (ver.  21)  while  all  this 
took  place — in  such  a  way,  however,  as  to  al- 
low him  an  obscure  consciousness  of  what  was 
done,  (ver.  23.)  It  is  frequently  the  case,  when 
something  befals  us  in  sleep  which  makes  a 
deep  impression  on  the  senses,  that,  without 
waking  at  the  time,  we  have  a  sort  of  percep- 
tion, which  we  obscurely  recollect  when  after- 
wards awake,  ojjrn  ntfr,  this  time.  "  Now  I 
see  at  last  a  being  like  myself,  one  of  my  own 
species,"  referring  to  ver.  20,  ad  finem.  Adam 
now  gives  to  his  companion  a  name,  as  he  had 
formerly  done  to  the  beasts — viz.,  nps  (like  the 
vira  of  the  ancient  Latins,)  because  she  was 
formed  from  man,  (e"N.)  When  afterwards 
she  had  borne  a  child,  he  called  her  name  mn, 
because  she  then  became  the  mother  of  the  human 
race,  (vrhs  ox ;)  Gen.  iii.  20.  In  ver.  24,  it  is 
not  Adam  who  speaks;  for  he  knew  nothing  as 
yet  about  father  and  mother.  The  historian 
here  deduces  a  practical  inference  from  what 
had  been  said.  In  Matt.  xix.  5,  where  %  ypa^ 
is  to  be  supplied  before  flrts,  this  passage  is 
cited  :  "The  relation  between  husband  and  wife 
is  the  most  intimate  which  can  exist,  and,  ac- 
cording to  the  design  of  God,  indissoluble.  It 
is  more  irrefragable  than  the  relation  between 
parents  and  children;  whence  (so  Christ  con- 
cludes) to  separate  from  one's  wife  is  a  crime 
of  worse  desert  than  to  renounce  father  and  mo- 
ther." The  particular  truths  and  inferences  to 
be  drawn  from  the  whole  Mosaic  narrative  are 
well  exhibited  by  Morus,  p.  96 — 98,  s.  4 — 8. 
Cf.  Matt.  xix. ;  1  Cor.  xi.  When  it  is  said  they 
shall  be  one  flesh,  it  means,  they  shall  be  regarded 
as  one  body,  one  person. 

Note. — The  first  abode  of  men  is  commonly 
Cd]\ed  paradise,  jtapddeicsog,  (cf.  Morus,  p.  96,  s. 
4,  n.  1,)  because  the  LXX.  thus  translate  the 
Hebrew  p,  which  is  used  in  ver.  8  of  this  narra- 
tive, and  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  and  are  fol- 
lowed in  this  by  the  Latin  versions.  The  word 
is  of  Persian  origin,  (in  the  Hebrew  form 
onis,)  and  signifies,  in  Eccl.  ii.  5,  and  in  other 
texts  where  it  occurs,  not  any  small  garden,  but 
a  large  portion  of  land,  a  park,  furnished  with 
trees,  and  wild  beasts,  and  water,  for  the  pur- 
poses of  hunting  and  fishing;  as  Xenophon  de- 
scribes it,  QEcon.  iv.  13.  The  name  of  paradise 
was  afterwards  given  to  the  abode  of  the  bless- 
ed ;  but  the  original  abode  of  man  was  called 
by  this  name,  by  way  of  eminence,  after  the 
example  of  the  LXX.,  by  Sirach,  Josephus, 
Philo,  and  other  Grecian  Jews, 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


189 


The  description  of  the  garden  is  given,  Gen. 
ii.  8 — 15.  Eden  was  not  the  name  of  paradise 
itself,  but  paradise  was  a  spot  in  the  extensive 
territory  of  Eden.  Vide  ver.  8,  coll.  ver.  10. 
If  the  situation  of  the  territory  of  Eden  is  to  be 
determined  by  the  names  of  the  four  rivers  men- 
tioned in  the  Mosaic  account,  and  if  by  these  ri- 
vers we  are  to  understand  those  to  which  the  same 
names  were  anciently  given,  and  some  of  which 
retain  them  to  the  present  day,  we  may  fix  upon 
the  region  where  Armenia,  Ghilan,  Dailem,  and 
Chorasan  now  lie.  There  are  no  means,  how- 
ever, by  which  we  can  determine  the  particular 
spot  in  this  region  where  the  garden  of  delights 
was  situated.  Eden  then  comprehended  all  the 
countries  which  extend  from  Euphrates  (mp) 
and  Tigris  (^n)  to  Aras  or  Araxes,  (ji'i^s, 
which  rises  in  Armenia  and  flows  into  the  Cas- 
pian Sea,)  and  Oxus  (jfn^),  on  the  east  of  the 
Caspian. 

The  fables  and  traditions  of  the  Asiatic  na- 
tions agree  very  generally  in  placing  the  first 
habitation  of  men,  and  the  cradle  of  the  human 
race,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Caucasus  and  the 
Caspian  sea,  and  the  valleys  which  extend  side- 
ways from  Caucasus,  though  they  differ  very 
much  in  assigning  more  definitely  the  particular 
spot  where  man  first  dwelt.  Vide  Zimmerman, 
Geographische  Geschichte  des  Menschen,  band 
iii.  s.  250,  and  Meiners,  Geschichte  der  Mensch- 
heit,  s.  7.  Some  learned  men,  however,  re- 
lying upon  other  Asiatic  traditions,  not  in  the 
least  supported  by  the  Bible,  suppose  that  the 
earth  was  first  peopled  from  Southern  Asia ;  and 
so  they  fix  upon  other  rivers  more  favourable  to 
their  hypotheses  than  those  before  mentioned, 
to  water  their  territory  of  Eden,  although  they 
nearly  all  allow  the  river  Euphrates  to  be  one 
intended.  Buttman  sided  with  these  in  his 
*'Aeltesten  Erdkunde  des  Morgenliinders ;" 
Berlin,  1803, 8vo.  In  this  work  he  represents,  as 
is  common  at  the  present  time,  the  whole  nar- 
rative of  Moses  as  fabulous.  He  endeavours  to 
render  it  probable  that  the  whole  territory  ex- 
tending from  the  Persian  Gulf  eastwards  to  the 
Peninsula  of  Malacca,  was  the  region  intended 
by  Eden ;  that  the  Ganges  was  one  of  the  four 
rivers,  and  that  these  original  habitations  were 
afterwards  placed  by  the  Hebrews  more  in  their 
own  vicinity.  Among  the  older  works  on  this 
subject,  cf.  Reland,  De  situ  paradisi,  in  his 
"Diss.  Miscell."  t.  i.  Bochart,  Geog.  Sacra, 
•and  Michaelis,  Spiceleg.  t.  ii.  In  the  seven- 
teenth century,  Olaus  Rudbeck,  a  Swede,  wrote 
a  book  called  "  Atlantica,"  in  which  he  placed 
paradise  in  Sweden.  In  the  nineteenth  century, 
Dr.  Hasse,  in  his  "  Entdeckung  im  Felde  der 
altesten  Erd-und  Menschengeschichte,"  endea- 
voured to  prove  that  Eden  was  the  north  of  Eu- 
rope, and  that  paradise  was  Prussia. 


SECTION  LIII. 

OF  THE  IMAGE  OF  GOD  IN  WHICH  MAN  WAS 
CREATED. 

I.  History  of  opinions  respecting  the  Image  of 
God. 

No  one  doubts  that  the  image  of  God  denotes 
in  general  a  likeness  of  God,  (s.  52.)  But  the 
opinions  of  theologians  have  always  been  differ- 
ent respecting  the  particular  points  of  resem- 
blance which  Moses  intended  to  express  by  this 
phrase.  And  this  is  not  strange,  since  Moses 
does  not  explain  what  he  means  by  it,  and  it  is 
used  in  very  different  significations  in  the  Bible ; 
which  is  a  fact  that  has  not  been  sufficiently 
noticed.  The  common  opinion  is,  that  this 
phrase  denotes  certain  excellences  which  man 
originally  possessed,  but  which  he  lost,  in  part 
at  least,  by  the  fall.  The  principal  texts  which 
are  cited  in  behalf  of  this  opinion  are,  Gen.  i. 
26,  coll.  ii.  15,  seq. ;  and  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, Col.  iii.  10,  coll.  Ephes.  iv.  24,  where  a 
renewal  after  the  image  of  God  is  mentioned  ; 
which  is  understood  to  mean  a  restoration  of  this 
image,  implyingthat  man  must  have  lost  it;  also 
2  Cor.  xi.  3.  Against  this  common  opinion  it 
may  he  objected,  that  the  image  of  God  is  de- 
scribed in  many  passages  as  existing  after  the 
fall,  and  as  still  discoverable  in  men;  as  Gen. 
ix.  6,  "  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man 
shall  his  blood  be  shed,  for  in  the  image  of  God 
made  he  man;"  also  James,  iii.  9,  "With  the 
tongue  we  curse  men,  who  are  made  after  the  si- 
militude of  God;"  also  1  Cor.  xi.  6,  7,  dvjjp — 
slxMv — ®eov  V7tdp%u>v.  Here  also  belongs  the 
passage  often  cited  in  behalf  of  the  opposite  opi- 
nion, Gen.  v.  1 — 3,  where  it  is  said,  that  God 
created  man  in  his  own  image;  and  that  Adam 
begot  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  and  after  his 
image;  from  which  it  must  appear,  that  Seth, 
being  made  in  the  likeness  of  Adam,  must  have 
had  the  same  image  of  God,  whatever  it  was, 
which  Adam  possessed.  This  phrase,  then, 
evidently,  is  not  always  used  in  the  same  sense 
in  the  Bible.  And  the  fault  of  interpreters  and 
theologians  has  been,  that  they  have  overlooked 
the  different  meanings  in  which  this  phrase  is 
used,  and  have  selected  one  only,  which  they 
have  endeavoured  to  elicit  from  all  the  texts  in 
which  the  phrase  occurs. 

As  to  the  question,  in  what  consists  that  ex- 
cellence of  man,  denoted  by  the  phrase,  the 
image  of  God,  we  find, 

1.  Even  the  oldest  Christian  writers,  the  ec- 
clesiastical fathers,  were  very  much  divided. 
This  is  acknowledged  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  in 
an  Essay  devoted  to  this  subject.  Theodoret 
confesses,  that  he  is  not  able  to  determine  ex- 
actly in  what  this  image  consisted,  Qucest.  xx. 


190 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


in  Genesin.  Epiphanius  thinks  that  the  thing 
cannot  be  determined,  Hares.  30.  Tertullian 
placed  it  in  the  innate  powers  and  faculties  of  the 
human  soul,  especially  in  the  freedom  of  choice 
between  good  and  evil,  Adv.  Marc.  ii.  5,  6. 
Philo  placed  it  in  the  »-ov$,  the  rational  soul,  and 
associated  with  this  phrase  his  Platonic  notions 
respecting  the  original  ideas  in  the  divine  mind 
(7ioyo$),  of  which  the  visible  man  is  a  copy,  De 
Opif.  Mundi.  The  human  race,  according  to 
him,  is  indeed  degenerate,  but  yet  has  traces  of 
its  relationship  with  the  Father  of  all  ;  for  *aj 
d>£pw7to$  xata  [lev  "t  r^v  otdvotav  (J 


77  arCavya<3/j,a  ysyoi>ioj.  Origen, 
iii.  6,)  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  Leo  the  Great, 
were  of  the  same  general  opinion  on  this  sub- 
ject as  Tertullian.  According  to  these  ecclesi- 
astical fathers,  this  image  of  God  consists  prin- 
cipally in  the  rectitude  and  freedom  of  the  will, 
and  in  the  due  subordination  of  the  inferior 
powers  of  the  soul  to  the  superior.  The  im- 
mortality of  the  body  is  also  included  by  Leo 
and  many  others.  Epiphanius  blames  Origen 
for  teaching,  that  Adam  lost  the  image  of  God, 
which,  he  says,  the  Bible  does  not  affirm.  He 
knows  and  believes,  "quod  in  cunctis  hominibus 
imago  Dei  permaneat,"  Ep.  ad  Joannem,  in 
Opp.  Hieronymi,  t.  i.  Most  of  the  Grecian  and 
Latin  fathers  distinguish  between  imago  and 
sirnilitudo  Dei.  By  the  image  of  God,  they 
say,  is  meant  the  original  constitution  (rfnlage) 
—  the  innate  powers  and  faculties  (potentia  na- 
turalis,  Scholast.)  of  the  human  soul.  By  the 
similitude  of  God,  is  meant,  that  actual  resem- 
blance to  him  which  is  acquired  by  the  exercise 
of  these  powers.  I  shall  not  dwell  upon  the 
subtleties  of  the  schoolmen,  which  are  still  pre- 
valent to  some  degree  in  the  Romish  church. 
Vide  Petavius.  [For  an  account  of  these,  vide 
also  Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  76.] 

2.  Nor  are  modern  theologians  at  all  more 
unanimous.  The  most  important  opinions  enter- 
tained on  this  subject  in  modern  times  admit  of 
the  following  classification  —  viz., 

.(a)  Some  find  this  image  in  the  rational  soul; 
like  Philo,  who,  as  before  remarked,  supposed 
it  to  consist,  not  in  bodily  advantages,  but  in 
the  i>o,u$,  the  higher  reason  alone,  De  Opif. 
Mundi,  p.  15,  45;  and  like  many  of  the  fathers. 
To  be  sure,  this  higher  rational  and  moral  nature 
<rf  man  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  his  other  ex- 
cellences, and  indeed  is  essential  to  their  very 
existence.  But,  according  to  the  representation 
of  the  Bible,  this  rational  soul  is  not  so  much 
itself  this  image  of  God,  as  the  foundation  or 
source  of  those  excellences  in  which  it  does 
more  properly  consist. 

(6)  Others  find  it  in  the  dominion  of  man  over 
all  the  creatures  of  the  earth;  because  this  do- 
minion is  mentioned  in  immediate  connexion 


with  the  image  of  God  in  Gen.  i.  26.  So  think 
Socinus  and  his  followers,  and  also  many  Armi- 
nians.  According  to  both  of  these  theories,  the 
image  of  God  must  be  allowed  still  to  exist  in 
man.  This  will  be  farther  considered  hereafter. 

(c)  Others  find  it  in  the  moral  perfections  of 
our  nature  which  we  have  lost  by  the  fall.  These 
writers  refer  to  the  texts  in  the  epistles  to  the  Co- 
lossians  and  Ephesians,  and  in  accordance  with 
these  explain  the  passages  in  Genesis  relating 
to  this  subject.  This  is  the  most  common  the- 
ory. In  the  language  of  the  Apol.  Conf.  Augs., 
the  image  of  God  consists  in  certior  notitia  Dei 
el  probitas.  Theologians  define  it,  justitia  ori- 
ginalis  sive  sanctitas,  original  uprightness  or 
holiness. 

(rf)  Those  who  find  difficulties  with  all  these 
opinions,  endeavour  to  relieve  the  subject  by  di- 
viding the  image  of  God  into  a  physical  and  a 
moral  image ;  or  into  an  essential  and  an  inci- 
dental image.  The  latter,  they  suppose,  is  now 
lost,  or  exists  in  a  less  degree ;  the  former  is  still 
possessed  by  man. 

II.  Biblical  uses  of  the  phrase, "  The  Image  of  God." 

1.  We  cannot  expect  to  find  any  strict  or  de- 
finite notion  attached  to  this  phrase  in  the  an- 
cient Mosaic  account.  The  general  idea  of  di- 
vinity, greatness,  precedence,  is  all  that  Moses 
intends  to  express  when  he  uses  it;  insignis 
dignitas  ac  praestantia  hominis.  Morus,  p.  103, 
s.  18.  Any  one  who  possesses  excellence  and 
dignity  superior  to  other  men,  is  said,  in  this 
widest  sense,  to  bear  the  image  of  God,  as  1  Cor. 
xi.  7 ;  Ps.  Ixxxii.  6.  Moses,  however,  places 
it  principally  and  prominently  in  that  part  of 
this  superiority  which  is  most  obvious  to  the 
senses — viz.,  the  superiority  of  man  over  irra- 
tional creatures,  and  his  dominion  over  the 
earth.  By  this  limitation,  however,  the  other 
excellences  of  our  nature  are  not  excluded  ;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  those  powers  and  faculties 
from  which  this  more  obvious  superiority  re- 
sults must  be  included  in  the  idea  of  Moses. 
But  while  Moses,  in  the  use  of  this  phrase,  had 
in  his  eye  that  superior  excellence  of  man  by 
which  he  is  lord  of  the  earth,  he  does  not  teach 
anywhere  that  man  lost  this  entirely  by  the  fall ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  implies  that  he  afterwards 
possessed  it.  Vide  No.  I.  Princes  and  judges 
are  called  by  Moses  gods,  and  sons  of  God,  on 
account  of  the  superiority  and  dominion  which 
they  possess.  Vide  s.  17.  For  the  same  rea- 
son man  is  king  and  god  of  this  lower  crea- 
tion, which  honours  him  as  the  image  of  God. 
David  probably  used  the  phrase  in  this  wider 
sense  in  Ps.  viii.  6 — 9,  where  he  explains  and 
paraphrases  Gen.  i.  26,  seq.  Cf.  1  Cor.  xi.  6, 
7;  James,  iii.  9.  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and 
even  Augustine,  explained  the  words  of  Moses 
in  this  way. 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


191 


2.  The  later  Jews  appear  to  have  used  this 
phrase  in  different  senses,  as  we  learn  from  the 
Book  of  Wisdom  and  Sirach.   They  included  in 
its  meaning, 

(a)  The  immortality  of  the  body,  a<j>£apcaa. 
"O-ti  o  ®f6j  txtiae  fov  at&pwrtoi/  trt'  d<J>£ap<5ia,  xal 
sixova  tr^  tSuxj  tSioT^T'ojsrtoi^tff  i/  avfov.  <J?£ovaj 
6f  8ia,3o7un>  ^avatoj  eiarfi$tv  f  15  tov  xdctytov  rt«pa- 
£oi;<?t  6f  a/vT'or  o£  f^j  EXCI>POI;  jusptSoj  ovt'fj,  Book 
of  Wisdom,  ii.  23,  24.  In  this  respect,  there- 
fore, according  to  this  writer,  we  have  lost  the 
image  of  God.  Vide  ver.  24,  where  he  consi- 
ders death  as  the  consequence  of  sin,  and  attri- 
butes it  to  the  devil.  This  immortality  was  re- 
garded by  the  whole  ancient  world  as  something 
divine  and  godlike,  and  is  made  by  Homer  the 
principal  mark  and  characteristic  of  his  deities. 
Gods  and  a^dvaTot  are  always  synonymous  in 
his  writings. 

(i)  Dominion  over  the  earth,  Book  of  Wis- 
dom, ix.  2,  3 ;  Sirach,  xvii.  3,  4.  The  domi- 
nion of  man  over  the  inferior  creation  is  regard- 
ed, even  by  Philo,  as  a  remnant  of  his  original 
perfection  and  power,  De  Opif.  Mundi,  p.  100, 
ed.  Pf.  Sirach,  in  the  passage  cited,  seems  to 
include  in  this  image,  together  with  dominion 
over  the  earth,  reason,  speech,  and  the  other 
perfections  mentioned  in  ver.  5,  seq.  In  this  re- 
spect we  still  retain  the  image  of  God. 

(c)  The  moral  state,  Book  of  Wisdom,  ix.  3, 
where  mention  is  made  of  the  o<j«n"/7J  xai  Stxouo- 
avvy  xo.1  tv^vtrjs  tyxw  in  which  the  first  men 
lived  upon  the  earth  and  ruled  over  it.  These 
moral  excellences  we  do  not  any  longer  possess ; 
certainly  not  in  the  same  degree  as  formerly. 

3.  The  same  significations  of  the  phrase, 
image  of  God,  which  were  noticed  No.  2,  were 
common  among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  were  accordingly  adopted  by  the  apostles. 
They  use  this  phrase, 

(a)  In  reference  to  the  general  exaltation, 
dignity,  and  dominion  of  man : — e.  g.,  1  Cor. 
xi.  7 ;  James,  iii.  9.  (6)  In  reference  to  the 
moral  perfections  of  man,  exactly  as  it  is  used 
by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom — e.  g., 
Col.  iii.  10,  coll.  Ephes.  iv.  23,  24.  Both  of 
these  epistles  were  written  at  the  same  time; 
they  are  entirely  similar  in  phraseology,  and 
perfectly  parallel  in  these  passages.  Christians, 
especially  converts  from  heathenism,  are  here 
exhorted  to  renounce  altogether  their  former  sin- 
ful propensities,  and  the  wicked  life  which  they 
had  previously  led,  (mo^aio?  av^pcoytoj;)  and  to 
put  on  the  new  man — i.  e.,  to  be  wholly  reno- 
vated, to  embrace  new  principles,  and  to  lead  a 
new  life  correspondent  to  their  principles.  Now 
this  new  man  is  said  to  be  av axaivovpevos,  renew- 
ed— i.  e.,  new  created,  or  remodelled  by  God, 
Ephes.  iv.  23 ;  and  hence  the  phrase,  the  re- 
newal or  restoration  of  the  divine  image.  Et$ 
should  be  construed  with  xtiaa>vto$ 


avtov,  to  the  knowledge  of  God — i.  e.,  this  dis- 
position is  produced  in  you  to  enable  you  to  at- 
tain to  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  will — 
a  living  and  saving  knowledge.  K-fi'^ftv,  to  cre- 
ate anew,  transform — i.  e.,  entirely  to  change 
and  improve ;  continuing  the  figure  derived  from 
the  new  man.  Kat'  fixova  ©fov — i.  e.,  accord- 
ing to  Ephes.  iv.  24,  xata®ebv,  after  the  pattern 
or  likeness  of  God — i.  e.,  that  you  should  be- 
come again  like  unto  God.  Paul  here  makes 
this  likeness  of  God  to  consist  in  a  moral  re- 
semblance— that  holiness  and  uprightness,  to 
the  attainment  of  which  Christ  teaches  us  the 
means,  and  gives  us  the  power.  This  is  clear 
from  what  precedes,  and  also  from  Ephes.  iv. 
24,  where  Paul  says  that  this  reformed  charac- 
ter, bearing  the  divine  likeness,  consists  iv 
Sixaioavvy  (piety),  xcni  oGiotfj-ti,  >tr(s  dto^sietj — 
(i.  e.,  dto^ivfl,)  honest,  sincere  integrity.  The 
same  words  are  employed  in  the  passage  cited 
from  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  John,  in  his  epis- 
tles, frequently  urges  the  duty  of  striving  to  be- 
come like  to  God,  (filii  Dei,)  although  he  does 
not  use  the  phrase,  image  of  God.  Plato  says, 
that  likeness  (ojuouootj)  to  God  is,  "  8ixaiov  xai 
oaiov  peta  (J>pov7j<5£«$  ytvia^ai."  Cicero  makes 
our  likeness  to  God  both  a  physical  and  moral 
resemblance.  God,  he  says,  animated  the 
human  body,  "  ut  essent  qui  terram  tuerentur, 
quique  cffilestium  ordinem  contemplantes  imita- 
rcntur  cum  vitae  modo  et  constantia." 

III.  Concluding  Remarks. 

We  draw  the  following  general  conclusion 
from  these  historical  and  exegetical  observations 
— viz.,  the  phrase,  the  image  of  God,  is  very 
comprehensive,  and  used  in  the  Bible  in  more 
than  one  sense ;  and  many  unnecessary  disputes- 
would  have  been  avoided,  if  it  had  not  been 
adopted  in  systematic  theology  as  the  title  of  a 
particular  article.  One  may  say,  without  at  all 
denying  a  primitive  state  of  innocence,  that  the 
image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created  did  not 
consist  in  this  state,  and  that  it  still  continues 
after  the  fall.  If  we  believe  the  scriptures,  we 
shall  believe  in  the  primitive  innocence  of  man ; 
but  there  is  no  necessity  for  us  to  call  it  the 
image  of  God.  It  would  be  far  better  to  aban- 
don the  phrase,  image  of  God,  in  speaking  sci- 
entifically on  the  original  perfections  of  man, 
and  to  adopt  in  its  place  the  more  comprehensive 
title,  the  state  of  innocence.  The  latter  phrase  is 
derived  from  2  Cor.  xi.  3,  where  Paul  says,  he 
fears  that,  as  Eve  was  beguiled  by  the  serpent, 
Christians  may  be  beguiled  (by  false  teachers) 
from  the  a.rt^otyj'fos  T1^  sis  XpuWov — i«  e»?  sim- 
plicitas,  sincerity,  purity  ;  here,  pure  love  to 
Christ,  true  and  sincere  dependence  upon  him, 
like  what  innocent  children  feel  towards  their 
parents  and  benefactors. 

Again;  we  compare  men  with  God  in  respect 


192 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY 


to  all  the  excellences  which  we  observe  in  them, 
and  which  we  conceive  that  he  also  possesses, 
only  in  a  higher  and  more  perfect  degree.  We 
may  say  of  men,  therefore,  that,  in  respect  to 
all  these  excellences,  they  bear  the  image  of  God, 
or  are  like  him.  Now  we  still  possess,  as  we 
are  taught  in  the  scriptures,  many  of  these  no- 
bler powers  with  which  our  nature  was  endued, 
though  in  a  far  less  degree  than  God ;  such  are 
reason,  dominion  over  the  earth,  &c.  Other  of 
these  excellences,  according  to  the  constant 
doctrine  of  the  Bible,  we  have  lost  by  the  fall, 
or  possess  at  present  in  a  far  less  degree  than 
our  first  parents  before  the  fall.  Among  the 
latter  are  (a)  that  degree  of  bodily  strength  and 
health  which  laid  the  foundation  for  the  immor- 
tality of  the  body;  and  (b)  more  especially 
moral  perfections.  Thus  we  see  that  the  Bible 
will  support  us  in  saying,  both  that  we  still 
possess  the  image  of  God,  and  that  we  possess 
it  no  longer,  according  as  we  use  this  phrase  in 
a  wider  or  narrower  sense.  So  far  as  the  pos- 
terity of  Adam  still  possesses  reason  and  power 
over  irrational  creatures,  they  still  possess  the 
image  of  God,  Deo  sunt  similes.  So  far  as  they 
have  ceased  to  be  righteous  and  holy  as  man 
was  in  his  state  of  innocence,  and  so  far  as  their 
bodies  are  now  become  mortal,  they  have  lost 
the  image  of  God.  But  so  far  as  they  regain 
this  original  moral  rectitude,  and  a  happy  im- 
mortality, they  again  become  like  God,  and  his 
image  is  renewed  in  their  souls.  This  whole 
subject  is  discussed  by  Morus,  p.  105,  s.  23,  in 
a  manner  worthy  of  imitation,  especially  in  the 
practical  turn  which  he  has  given  it. 

Note. — Theologians  have  invented  various 
divisions  and  technical  phrases,  in  order  to  de- 
termine more  accurately  the  nature  and  kind  of 
those  excellences  and  perfections  which  were 
bestowed  by  God  upon  man  at  the  creation. 
But  these  divisions  have  given  rise  to  many  er- 
roneous views  of  this  subject.  The  following 
distinctions  deserve  to  be  particularly  noticed  : — 

1.  These  original   endowments  of  man  are 
not  to  be  understood  as  excellences  which  he 
possessed  in  actual  exercise  (habitus,  Scholast. 
habitus  infusi  ,•)  but  only  as  capacities  and  fa- 
culties for  those  excellences  which,  by  practice 
and  exercise,  he  may  come  to  possess.     The 
human  soul  resembles  in  this  respect  an  unwrit- 
ten leaf,  (the  tabula  rasa  of  Aristotle,)  upon 
which  everything  can  be  written  for  which  it 
has  a  natural  fitness  and  susceptibility.     Vide 
Introduction,  s.  4. 

2.  They  are  naturales ;  united  with  human 
nature,  and  wrought  into  it  by  God ;  and  op- 
posed (a)  to  perfectiones  essentiales,  because  man 
can  be  conceived  to  exist  without  them,  and 
would  remain  man  though  destitute  of  them; 
and  (6"|  to  perfectiones  superadditi  per  gratiam. 


This  last  point  was  affirmed  in  opposition  to 
many  theologians  of  the  Romish  church,  who 
placed  these  excellences  in  a  high  degree  of  wis- 
dom, justice,  and  holiness,  imparted  by  God  to 
men  on  creation  in  a  supernatural  manner,  and 
in  addition  to  the  original  endowments  of  his 
nature.  They  regarded  the  similitudo  cum  Deo 
as  opposed  to  the  status  pit rorum  naturalium,  in 
which  man  was  without  the  knowledge  or  love 
of  God  ;  and  therefore  as  a  donum  supernaturale, 
which  could  be  lost  without  altering  the  essen- 
tial nature  of  man. 

3.  Perfectiones propagibiles.  It  was  the  inten- 
tion of  God  that  these  perfections  should  be 
transmitted  to  the  posterity  of  our  first  parents, 
so  long  as  the  conditions  prescribed  by  God 
should  be  fulfilled. 

SECTION  LIV. 

OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  STATE  OF  MAN  ;  HIS  MENTAL 
AND  MORAL  PERFECTIONS. 

THE  excellences  which  man  possessed  in  his 
original  condition  are  generally  divided  into  two 
classes ;  (a)  Infernal,  such  as  belong  to  the  es- 
sential constitution  of  human  nature,  as  esta- 
blished by  -God  himself,  including  all  his  ori- 
ginal perfections  both  of  soul  and  body ;  s.  54, 
55.  (6)  External,  such  advantages  as  man 
possessed  from  the  relation  to  the  rest  of  the 
creation  in  which  he  was  placed  by  God;  his 
dominion  over  the  other  creatures  of  the  earth, 
his  title  to  use  them  for  his  own  advantage, 
&c. — imago  Dei  sensu  latiori ;  s.  56.  We  shall 
first  treat  of  the  INTERNAL  excellences  of  man; 
in  this  section,  of  the  original  perfections  of  his 
soul;  in  the  following,  of  those  of  his  body.  The 
excellences  which  originally  belonged  to  the 
soul  of  man  will  now  be  considered  in  reference 
to  its  two  principal  powers — understanding  and 
will.  / 

I.  Original  Excellences  of  the  Human  Under- 
standing. 

Reason  and  the  intellectual  powers  are  the 
noblest  gifts  which  we  have  received  from  God, 
without  which  we  could  not  be  moral  beings. 
We  cannot  suppose,  then,  that  these  powers 
should  have  remained  idle  and  unemployed  dur- 
ing the  happy  state  of  innocence  in  which  our 
first  parents  lived.  Paul,  therefore,  with  entire 
truth,  makes  falyvurtis  one  of  the  things  in  which 
our  likeness  to  God  consisted;  Col.  iii.  10,  cf. 
s.  53;  since  holiness  and  blamelessness,  the 
other  things  mentioned  as  constituting  it,  could 
not  exist,  without  some  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil.  This  knowledge,  however,  was  not  itself 
directly  imparted  to  man  at  his  creation,  but 
only  the  power  of  obtaining  knowledge.  Vide 
s.  53,  ad  finem. 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


193 


In  what  the  knowledge  of  our  first  parents 
consisted  neither  Moses  nor  any  other  sacred 
writer  has  particularly  informed  us.  Their 
state  with  respect  to  knowledge  is  doubtless 
justly  described  as  a  state  of  infancy ;  in  the 
sense,  however,  in  which  we  speak  of  the  in- 
fancy of  nations;  for  Moses  does  not  represent 
Adam  as  in  all  respects  resembling  a  new-born 
child.  As  to  actual  knowledge,  he  was,  indeed, 
at  the  moment  when  God  created  him,  exactly 
in  the  condition  of  a  new-born  child,  and  quite 
as  destitute  of  innate  ideas.  But  in  another  re- 
spect he  was  very  unlike  a  new-born  child ;  in 
this,  namely,  that  he  was  able  to  exercise  his 
reason  immediately,  which  a  child  is  not.  God 
created  man,  according  to  the  Mosaic  account, 
not  only  endued  with  reason,  but  able  to  exercise 
it  on  his  first  entrance  into  the  world.  And  if 
he  had  immediately  the  full  use  of  his  intellec- 
tual powers,  he  must  very  soon  have  acquired 
from  the  objects  by  which  he  was  surrounded  a 
great  variety  of  ideas,  and  a  large  stock  of  know- 
ledge ;  and  he  would  advance  in  knowledge  the 
more  rapidly  and  easily,  as  his  mind  was  not  as 
yet  swayed  by  those  inordinate  bodily  appe- 
tites, nor  darkened  by  those  prejudices,  nor 
confirmed  in  those  bad  habits,  by  which  all 
others  who  have  attained  to  maturity  are  so 
effectually  hindered  in  the  acquisition  of  know- 
ledge. 

The  means  by  which  God  called  the  intel- 
lectual powers  of  man  into  exercise,  and  brought 
them  to  a  full  development,  were,  according  to 
Moses,  of  two  kinds. 

(a)  Indirect, — the  external  objects  by  which 
man  was  surrounded.  Animate  creatures,  being 
more  nearly  related  to  him  than  the  inanimate 
creation,  were  the  first  objects  which  attracted 
his  attention  and  excited  his  curiosity.  That 
this  was  so  we  may  conclude,  both  from  what 
we  observe  every  day  among  children,  and  from 
the  express  declaration  of  Moses.  The  living 
creatures  with  which  man  was  conversant  first 
employed  his  thoughts ;  and  in  giving  them 
names,  he  first  exercised  the  faculty  of  speech. 
Cf.  s.  52,  II.  It  was  not  until  afterwards,  and 
only  in  an  inferior  degree,  that  the  inanimate 
creation  also  administered  to  his  instruction  by 
the  various  objects  which  it  presented  to  his  at- 
tention. 

(6)  Direct, — the  revelations  made  immediately 
to  man.  The  Mosaic  history  throughout  repre- 
sents God  as  familiarly  and  directly  conversant 
with  our  first  parents ;  and  as  speaking  with 
them ;  Gen.  ii.  16,  17;  i.  29,  30.  And  the  his- 
tory of  the  fall  (chap,  iii.)  presupposes  in  our 
first  parents  an  acquaintance  with  some  direct 
divine  instruction,  and  with  positive  divine  pre- 
cepts; and  this  corresponds  entirely  with  the 
notions  which  even  heathen  nations  have  always 
25 


had  of  the  original  condition  of  man.  In  the 
early  and  infant  age  of  the  world,  the  Deity, 
they  supposed,  walked  familiarly  among  men, 
and  revealed  himself  to  them  directly,  by  words, 
dreams,  visions,  and  in  other  ways. 

The  knowledge  of  our  first  parents,  so  far  as 
it  was  derived  from  natural  sources,  must  have 
been  confined  to  the  objects  by  which  they  were 
immediately  surrounded  ;  and  even  with  regard 
to  these,  they  knew  only  as  much  as  was  neces- 
sary for  them  in  the  circumstances  in  which  they 
were  placed.  In  comparison  with  the  know- 
ledge which  we  possess  at  present,  it  must  have 
been  very  small,  as  their  wants  were  compara- 
tively very  few.  The  Mosaic  history  does  not 
afford  the  remotest  support  to  the  fabulous  sto- 
ries which  we  find  in  the  rabbins,  ecclesiastical 
fathers,  and  other  writers,  who  have  followed  the 
later  Jewish  teachers,  respecting  the  extensive 
physiological,  scientific,  and  literary  knowledge 
of  Adam.  These  Jewish  fables  are  connected 
with  the  notion  that  the  language  which  Adam 
spoke  was  Hebrew,  which  is  supposed  by  the 
Jews  to  be  a  holy  language,  inspired  by  God — a 
pretension  which  has  been  ably  refuted  by 
Schultens.  The  Jews  think  they  can  discover 
proof  of  the  thorough  knowledge  of  nature  which 
Adam  possessed,  in  the  Hebrew  names  which 
they  suppose  him  to  have  given  to  the  various 
animals,  and  from  the  etymologies  of  these 
names. 

We  should  not  expect  to  find  thorough  know- 
ledge or  extensive  learning  in  our  first  parents, 
for  the  following  reasons : — viz.,  (a)  With  their 
few  wants  they  could  derive  no  advantage  from 
such  knowledge,  and  could  make  no  use  of  it. 
(&)  As  to  religion,  the  knowledge  which  they 
needed  both  of  its  theoretical  and  practical  truths 
could  be  comprised  in  a  few  simple  and  intelli- 
gible points.  Of  any  higher  or  more  extended 
knowledge  of  this  subject  they  were  at  first 
wholly  incapable,  (c)  It  will  not  be  denied  that 
the  language  of  our  first  parents  must  have  been 
simple  and  scanty.  Vide  s.  55.  But  it  is  well 
known  from  experience,  that  without  words,  and 
indeed  without  a  great  copiousness  and  richness 
of  language,  neither  distinct  and  definite  ideas, 
nor,  in  general,  accurate  knowledge,  can  exist, 
(rf)  When  men  first  begin  to  collect  in  society, 
even  supposing  them  endued  with  the  most  no- 
ble faculties  and  intellectual  powers,  they  cannot 
be  instructed  by  philosophy,  like  learned  and 
cultivated  people.  They  must  first  be  instructed 
by  what  is  sensible ;  and  have  everything  ren- 
dered as  obvious  to  the  senses  as  possible;  ex- 
actly as  it  is  represented,  Gen.  ii.  19,  20.  If  the 
representation  there  made  were  different,  and 
such  as  many  modern  scholars  would  have  us 
believe,  it  would  be  highly  improbable,  and  the 
whole  narrative  would  become  suspicious.  This 
R 


194 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


very  simplicity  gives  it  the  stamp  of  internal 
truth,  (e)  Our  first  parents  are  represented  in 
chap.  iii.  as  in  fact  credulous  and  easily  be- 
guiled. And  how  can  this  be  reconciled  with 
the  supposition  that  they  possessed  that  deep 
and  extensive  knowledge  and  those  great  per- 
fections sometimes  ascribed  to  them?  The 
knowledge  of  Adam,  then,  cannot  be  compared 
with  that  of  any  advanced  and  mature  race  of 
men.  The  same  standard  of  judging  cannot  be 
employed  in  the  two  cases.  It  may  be  readily 
conceded,  however,  that  the  powers  and  faculties 
of  our  first  parents,  as  long  as  the  <jap|  and 
ytvsv/j-a,  sense  and  reason,  remained  in  proper  ba- 
lance, were  greater  than  those  of  their  posterity, 
in  whom  the  case  is  otherwise.  Vide  Dr.  Junge, 
"  Volekommenheiten  der  ersten  Menschen," 
Stuck  1,  of  his  philosophical  and  theological 
Essays;  Nurnberg,  1779,  8vo. 

II.  Original  Excellences  of  the  Human  Will. 

They  consist  chiefly  in  the  order  and  regu- 
larity of  our  bodily  desires.  Our  first  parents 
in  their  state  of  innocence  were  blameless  and 
sinless.  They  had  sincere  love  for  God  and  re- 
gard for  his  commandments,  and  did  everything 
which  was  agreeable  to  him  with  the  greatest 
readiness,  out  of  pure  love,  as  virtuous  children 
do  the  will  of  an  earthly  parent.  In  short,  if 
their  piety  was  childlike  in  respect  to  the  know- 
ledge upon  which  it  was  founded,  it  was  also  so 
in  respect  to  its  purity  and  simplicity.  And  this 
disposition  is  that  which  will  be  revived  in  those 
in  whom  the  image  of  God  is  renewed.  Hence 
Christ  recommends  us  so  earnestly  to  become 
like  children.  Our  first  parents  obeyed  from 
grateful  love ;  and  it  is  the  object  of  Christianity, 
in  designing  to  renew  the  image  of  God,  to  bring 
us  to  render  obedience  to  God  and  Christ  from 
motives  of  grateful  love.  But  this  rectitude  of 
our  first  parents  consisted  only  in  the  subjection 
of  their  bodily  appetites  to  the  law  of  reason. 
Both  scripture  and  experience  teach  us  that  our 
depravity  and  moral  degeneracy  arise  principally 
from  the  dominion  of  sense  (sapt)  over  reason 
(Ttvs^ua.)  Such  was  not  the  case  with  man  in 
his  state  of  innocence  ;  he  then  suffered  his  ap- 
petites to  be  controlled  by  rational  considera- 
tions ;  he  fixed  his  choice  only  upon  what  was 
good,  and  his  desires  being  virtuous,  his  actions 
were  the  same.  Hence  this  original  rectitude 
of  man  is  called  sinlessness  (dva/tapT^ca'a.)  The 
representation  now  given  of  the  original  recti- 
tude of  man  depends  principally  upon  the  pas- 
sages, Col.  iii.  and  Ephes.  iv.  Vide  s.  53.  In 
these  passages,  righteousness  (uprightness)  and 
holiness  (moral  perfection)  are  ascribed  by  Paul 
to  the  will  of  man  as  first  created,  and  as  re- 
newed. This  rectitude  of  the  will  is  called  by 
theologians  imaginem  Dei  stride  sic  dictum,  also 


justitiam  originalem,  the  last  of  which  is  used 
in  the  Apol.  Augsb.  Confession.  Vide  Morus, 
p.  105,  Not.  ad.  s.  23.  Of  the  same  import  is 
the  phrase  B v^v-e^  4/r^j,  which  occurs,  Book  of 
Wisdom,  ix.  3  (s.  53) ;  and  also  ouotys  and 
affko-tqs,  2  Cor.  xi.  3.  Ev^vj  corresponds  with 
the  Hebrew  -«?•«,  honest,  upright,  virtuous ;  and 
is  used  with  particular  reference  to  the  text, 
Eccles.  vii.  29,  "God  made  man  upright;  but 
he  sought  out  many  inventions  (wrong  ways)." 
The  meaning  is :  man  had  a  natural  capacity  for 
virtue,  but  he  abandoned  nature,  and  declined  to 
evil,  notwithstanding  his  noble  capacities. 

The  opinions  which  many  form  of  the  per- 
fections of  the  will  of  our  first  parents,  and  of  the 
virtues  of  their  character,  are  frequently  very 
extravagant.  This  is  a  fault  which  should  be 
guarded  against.  Man  was  created  with  the 
amplest  CAPACITY  for  moral  excellency ;  but  it 
cannot  be  said  that  he  had  attained  to  the  actual 
possession  of  this  excellence  in  a  very  high 
degree.  High  and  confirmed  virtue  can  only  be 
attained  by  a  long  course  of  moral  action ;  and 
at  that  early  period  opportunities  for  this  action 
must  have  been  very  rare.  God,  however,  did 
not  require  more  from  man  than  he  had  given 
to  him.  But  the  understanding  of  man  in  his 
primitive  state,  though  indeed  sufficient  for  the 
situation  in  which  he  was  placed,  was  still  very 
small,  and  his  actual  knowledge  very  limited  ; 
but  the  more  feeble  and  imperfect  these  are,  the 
more  imperfect,  necessarily,  must  be  that  virtue 
which  depends  upon  them.  There  is  a  great 
difference  between  the  innocence  of  childhood, 
and  the  virtue  which  is  grounded  upon  the  more 
perfect  and  mature  knowledge  and  experience 
of  a  riper  and  more  advanced  age.  If  our  first 
parents  had  possessed  so  preponderating  a  bias 
to  good  as  many  have  supposed,  it  is  hard  to 
see  how  they  could  have  been  so  easily  seduced. 
We  behold  them  yielding  to  temptations  which 
would  have  in  vain  assailed  many  of  those 
among  their  descendants,  in  whom,  according 
to  the  language  of  scripture,  the  image  of  God 
is  renewed. 

They,  however,  were  not  destitute  of  a  know- 
ledge of  their  duty  sufficient  for  their  situation; 
for  so  much  God  had  provided,  Genesis,  iii.  2, 
3.  Accordingly,  their  neglect  of  duty  and  their 
transgression  of  the  divine  command  could  be 
imputed  to  them.  We  should  avoid,  therefore, 
the  other  mistake  of  representing  them  as  en- 
tirely ignorant.  Vide  Morus,  s.  8,  22.  If  they 
had  been  faithful  in  the  use  of  the  knowledge 
which  they  possessed,  they  would  have  attained 
to  a  greater  measure  of  it,  and  to  a  more  fixed 
habit  of  goodness,  as  is  the  case  among  those 
in  whom  the  image  of  God  is  renewed.  Cf. 
Matt.  xiii.  12,  and  the  texts  cited  from  the  epis- 
tles to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians. 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


195 


SECTION  LV. 

OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  STATE  OF  MAN  J    HIS  BODILY 
EXCELLENCES,  AND  SPEECH. 

I.  Original  Excellences  of  the  Human  Body. 

1.  THE  superiority  of  our  first  parents  over 
their  posterity  in  this  respect  cannot  be  accu- 
rately and  particularly  determined  from  the 
Mosaic  account.  So  much,  however,  is  clear 
from  this  account,  that  the  body  of  man  was  then 
perfectly  healthy,  strong1,  and  vigorous,  and  that 
it  would  have  enjoyed  a  never-failing  youth  if 
man  had  continued  in  that  happy  condition  in 
which  he  was  first  placed.  And  this  account 
agrees  perfectly  with  the  representations  which 
we  find  among  other  nations  of  the  animal  cheer- 
fulness, the  bodily  health  and  strength  of  man 
in  the  golden  age,  and  even  down  into  the  hero- 
ical  age.  Homer  frequently  speaks  of  the  strong 
bodily  powers  of  the  men  of  an  earlier  period, 
in  comparison  with  the  feebleness  of  those  who 
lived  in  his  own  age.  The  blooming  health  and 
bodily  vigour  of  our  first  parents  contributed  to 
the  health  and  strength  of  the  soul ;  its  powers 
were  not  disordered  or  weakened  by  sickness; 
the  passions  and  appetites,  which  so  often  de- 
stroy both  body  and  soul,  were  as  yet  moderate 
and  regular.  On  this  subject,  as  well  as  with 
regard  to  the  original  mental  and  moral  excel- 
lences of  man,  the  fancy  of  the  later  Jews  was 
very  active;  and  they  invented  innumerable 
fables,  with  which  their  writings  are  filled, 
respecting  the  beauty,  the  gigantic  size  and 
strength,  of  the  first  man. 

The  immortality  of  the  body  is  expressly  men- 
tioned in  the  Mosaic  account,  as  one  of  the  pe- 
culiar distinguishing  advantages  which  our  first 
parents  enjoyed,  Gen.  ii.  17,  but  which  we  have 
lost  by  the  fall,  Gen.  iii.  3,  19.  The  same  is 
also  everywhere  taught  by  the  later  Jewish 
writers,  who  always  regarded  the  immortality 
of  the  body  as  a  part  of  the  image  of  God.  Vide 
Book  of  Wisdom,  ii.  23,  seq.,  (s.  53,  II.  2.) 
So  also  the  first  Christian  teachers — e.  g.,  Ro- 
mans, v.  12 ;  vi.  23  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22 ;  where 
the  same  views  are  given  as  in  the  texts  cited 
from  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  This  doctrine  of 
the  immortality  of  the  body  does  not  imply  that 
man  in  his  nature  was  so  unalterable  that  he 
absolutely  could  not  die.  An  impossibilitas  mo- 
riendi,  or  immortalitas  absoluta,  is  not  pretended  ; 
but  only  the  absentia  necessitatis  naturalis  mori- 
endi,  or  immortalitas  hypothetica,  the  condition 
proposed  being  obedience  to  the  command  of 
God,  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  tree  of  life  being 
permitted  to  them  only  so  long  as  they  should 
fulfil  this  condition.  Morus,  p.  98,  s.  9,  note. 
Nor  is  this  immortality  represented  even  by 
Moses  as  a  necessary  consequence  resulting 
from  the  incorruptible  nature  of  the  human  body, 


but  as  a  favour  promised  to  man  by  God,  and 
depending  upon  the  constantly-repeated  use  of 
the  tree  of  life,  Gen.  ii.  9,  coll.  iii.  22,  24.  Cf. 
s.  52,  II.  Something  similar  to  this  is  found  in 
the  Grecian  mythology,  which  represents  the 
gods  as  partaking  of  nectar  and  ambrosia,  in  order 
to  preserve  and  invigorate  their  bodies;  while 
mortal  men  were  not  allowed  to  participate  of 
this  heavenly  food,  even  when  they  ate  with  the 
gods.  Horn.  Od.  v.  197,  199. 

The  question  is  frequently  asked,  whether  man 
would  have  always  remained  upon  the  earth  if  he 
had  not  fallen?  The  Mosaic  history  furnishes 
no  reply  to  this  question ;  but  the  answer  com- 
monly given  by  theologians  is,  that  man  would 
not  always  have  remained  here  below,  but  that, 
by  some  unknown  transformation, without  death, 
or  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body,  he 
would  have  been  raised  to  a  higher  happiness 
in  heaven.  To  this  opinion  Morus  assents.  It 
is  grounded  principally  upon  the  New-Testa- 
ment doctrine,  that  those  men  who  should  still 
be  alive  at  the  day  of  judgment  would  not  die, 
but  be  changed — i.  e.,  their  grosser  bodies  would 
pass,  without  the  painful  sensation  of  death,  into 
those  more  refined  and  perfect  bodies  which  all 
will  possess  in  the  abodes  of  the  blessed,  1  Cor. 
xv.  51,  seq.  This  representation  is  supposed 
to  furnish  some  evidence  with  regard  to  the  ori- 
ginal destination  of  the  human  body ;  and  this 
is  rendered  more  probable  by  what  Paul  says, 
ver.  47,  "ai/^pwTtoj  ex  yvjs  %o'Cxo$  (SOT'I)."  But 
we  cannot  attain  to  certainty  upon  this  sub- 
ject, because  the  holy  scriptures  leave  it  un- 
decided. 

2.  It  was  not  intended,  however,  by  the  Crea- 
tor, that  our  first  parents,  while  living  in  their 
state  of  innocence,  should  leave  their  bodily 
powers  unemployed  and  unexercised.  Morus, 
s.  4.  The  life  which  they  were  to  lead  was 
not  one  of  indolent  ease  and  animal  enjoyment, 
although  such  is  the  notion  almost  universally 
entertained  respecting  the  life  in  the  golden  age. 
Our  first  parents,  on  the  contrary,  were  required 
to  labour,  and  in  that  way  still  further  to  de- 
velop and  perfect  their  bodily  and  intellectual 
powers.  Vide  s.  51.  II.  The  very  idea,  how- 
ever, of  this  happy  age,  excludes  the  notion  of 
pain  and  hardship,  the  frequent  attendants  of 
labour.  Vide  Genesis,  ii.  5 ;  iii.  17 — 19.  Agri- 
culture is  mentioned,  in  the  passages  before 
cited,  as  the  first  employment  appointed  for  man. 
The  taming,  or  rather  domestication  and  em- 
ployment of  animals  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  i.  28. 
By  describing  agriculture  as  the  first  employ- 
ment of  man,  Moses  obviates  the  false  opinion 
that  our  first  parents  were  originally  in  a  savage 
state.  A  degree  of  cultivation  which  savages 
do  not  possess  is  implied  in  agricultural  employ- 
ments ;  and  they  lead  faster  than  any  other  to 
progressive  improvement. 


196 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


II.   Original  Language  of  Man. 

Speech  is  the  great  characteristic  excellence 
of  man,  without  which  he  would  hardly  be  able 
to  employ  his  rational  powers,  or  to  exist  in  so- 
cial connexion  with  his  fellow-men.  Of  this 
distinguishing  faculty  of  man  Moses  makes  ex- 
press mention,  Gen.  ii.  19  ;  cf.  s.  52,  II.  There 
have  always  been  very  various  opinions  respect- 
ing the  origin  of  human  language.  For  the 
opinions  of  the  ancient  Greeks,  vide  Puffendorf, 
Jus  naturae  et  gentium,  1.  iv.  c.  1,  s.  3,  and  Miil- 
ler,  Positiones,  historico-philosoph.  de  origine 
sermonis ;  Argentorati,  1777.  This  subject  has 
been  often  discussed  in  modern  times,  and  has 
caused  much  controversy  both  among  philoso- 
phers and  theologians ;  and  as  it  is  usually  made 
a  topic  of  discussion  in  modern  systematic  the- 
ology, and  can  be  more  naturally  introduced  into 
this  department  than  any  other,  we  shall  treat 
of  it  briefly  in  this  place.  Writers  on  this  sub- 
ject are  divided  into  two  principal  classes — viz., 

1.  Some  have  maintained  that  an  articulate 
language,  consisting  of  arbitrary  sounds,  was 
imparted  to  man  at  his  creation,  and  that  he  was 
able  immediately  to  speak  it ;  and  moreover,  that 
this  original  language  was  very  copious  and  in 
the  highest  degree  perfect.  Man,  they  assert, 
not  only  did  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  invent  the 
language  which  he  spake,  but  never  could  have 
done  it;  and  so  they  suppose  that  speech  was 
originally  as  special  and  miraculous  an  endow- 
ment as  the  gift  of  tongues  to  the  apostles.  The 
principal  advocate  of  this  opinion  in  modern 
times  is  Joh.  Pet.  Sussmilch,  who  has  attempt- 
ed, with  no  common  sagacity,  to  prove  that  the 
origin  of  language  is  not  to  be  traced  to  man, 
but  directly  to  God.  Vide  his  Essay  on  this 
subject,  published  at  Berlin,  1766,  8vo.  But, 

(a)  The  nature  of  language  itself,  and  the 
most  ancient  history  of  it,  furnish  conclusive 
evidence  that  man  not  only  can  invent,  but  has 
actually  invented,  articulated  language,  consist- 
ing of  arbitrary  sounds.  All  languages  in  their 
incipient  state  are  indescribably  simple,  consist- 
ing of  very  few  and  short  words  and  phrases, 
which  are  so  insufficient  for  the  communication 
of  thought,  that  looks  and  gestures  are  called  in 
to  their  aid.  Such  we  observe  to  be  the  case 
still  with  children,  who  have  more  thoughts 
and  feelings  than  words  in  which  to  express 
them.  The  same  is  true  of  savages,  and  gene- 
rally of  all  who  have  but  few  words.  Now,  if 
God  had  communicated  language  in  some  such 
miraculous  manner  as  is  supposed  to  our  first 
parents,  it  is  hard  to  see  why  he  should  have 
suffered  this  language  to  be  afterwards  lost,  and 
how  it  should  have  come  to  pass  that  all  the 
nations  springing  from  Adam  should  have  begun 
back  with  the  very  elements  of  speech,  and  pro- 
ceeding from  these,  have  formed  so  many  and 


such  different  languages.  According  to  this 
supposition,  then,  a  great  miracle  would  have 
been  wrought  in  behalf  of  our  first  parents,  from 
which  none  of  their  posterity  had  reaped  the 
least  advantage.  This  is  not  according  to  the 
manner  of  God  in  his  other  works. 

(&)  The  supposition  that  the  original  lan- 
guage of  man  was  copious  and  finished,  over- 
looks the  fact  that  language  cannot  be  such 
where  objects  and  ideas  are  still  scanty  and  im- 
perfect. Ideas  arise  from  the  perception  of  ob- 
jects; and  the  number,  clearness,  and  distinct- 
ness of  our  ideas  is  in  proportion  to  the  number 
of  objects  which  we  behold,  either  simply  or  in 
connexion  with  others.  But  language  contains 
the  signs  and  symbols  by  which  we  express 
our  ideas  of  things,  and  communicate  them  to 
others.  How,  then,  could  there  be  a  perfect 
language  in  that  simplicity  of  human  life  in 
which  there  were  but  few  objects  to  be  seen  or 
compared  1  The  advocates  of  this  supposition 
are  driven  to  the  absurdity  of  saying  that  man 
could  have  spoken  of  things  which  he  had  never 
seen  or  thought  of.  It  was  remarked  by  Samuel 
Werenfels,  very  truly,  that  if  one  should  look 
through  the  most  comprehensive  and  complete 
dictionary,  he  would  find  but  few  words  which 
could  have  belonged  to  the  language  of  Adam. 

(c)  Again ;  of  what  use  could  a  rich  and  cul- 
tivated language  have  been  to  our  first  parents  f 
And  if  of  none,  how  can  the  supposition  that 
such  a  language  was  miraculously  given  them 
be  reconciled  with  divine  wisdom,  which  does 
not  work  miracles  except  for  some  important 
object?     Now  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  to 
them,  in  their  peaceful  and  simple  life,  when 
they  had  but  few  wants,  and  those  easily  satis- 
fied, such  a  language  would  have  been  of  no 
utility.     They  had  as  yet  no  ideas  of  innume- 
rable things  which  became  afterwards  known 
as  improvement  advanced  ;  and  for  such  things, 
of  course,  they  had  no  words  in  their  language. 
The  language  of  our  first  parents,  in  its  incipient 
state,  could  not  naturally  have  been  more  copi- 
ous or  perfect  than  the  language  of  nations  ge- 
nerally while  they  are  still  in  their  infancy  and 
possess  but  few  ideas,  and  of  course  have,  and 
need  to  have,  but  few  words  to  express  them. 

(d)  We  justly  conclude,  from  what  we  see  of 
the  wisdom  of  God  in  all  his  other  works,  that 
he  did  not  endow  man,  on  his  creation,  with  any 
advantage  which  he  himself  could  attain  in  the 
diligent  use  of  the  powers  and  faculties  of  his 
nature.     So  we  conclude  that  man  has  no  innate 
ideas,  because  he  can  easily  obtain  the  ideas  he 
possesses  by  the  use  of  his  intellectual  powers. 
And  with  still  more  reason  may  we  conclude, 
on  the  same  ground,  that  man  has  no  imagines 
innatas,  sive  signa  innata  idearum   de  rebus. 
The  Bible  makes  no  mention  of  any  such ;  on 
the  contrary,  it  teaches  that  one  way  in  which 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


197 


our  first  parents  learned  language  was  from 
their  intercourse  with  irrational  creatures,  in 
giving  names  to  which  they  first  exercised  the 
faculty  of  speech. 

2.  The  second  class  affirm  that  God  did  ntt 
bestow  language  itself  upon  man  at  his  creation, 
but  gave  him  powers  and  faculties  which  would 
enable  him  to  form  a  language  for  himself,  and 
gradually  to  refine  and  enrich  it  as  his  circum- 
stances might  require.  Those  who  hold  this 
opinion  may  have  as  sincere  admiration  for  the 
wisdom  of  God  and  gratitude  for  his  goodness 
as  the  advocates  of  the  other  theory.  Among 
the  ancients,  Epicurus,  (vide  Lucretius,)  and 
among  the  fathers,  Tertullian  and  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  assented  to  this  opinion;  and  it  was 
considered  even  by  Quenstadt  as  entirely  unob- 
jectionable. 

These  writers,  however,  differ  among  them- 
selves respecting  the  manner  in  which  man  pro- 
ceeded in  the  development  and  improvement  of 
his  faculties  of  speech.  The  strangest  conjecture 
on  this  point  is  that  of  Maupertius,  that  language 
was  formed  by  a  session  of  learned  societies, 
assembled  for  the  purpose !  The  theory  which 
derives  the  most  support  from  history  is,  that 
the  roots,  the  primitive  radical  words  of  articu- 
late and  conventional  language,  were  originally 
made  in  imitation  of  the  sounds  which  we  hear 
from  the  different  objects  in  the  natural  world, 
and  that  these  original  sounds,  in  imitation  of 
which  language  is  first  formed,  become  less  and 
less  discernible  in  these  languages  in  proportion 
as  they  are  improved  and  enlarged,  and  the  ra- 
dical words  are  subjected  to  various  alterations 
and  inflexions.  Vide  Herder,  Ueber  den  Ur- 
sprung  der  Sprache,  (a  prize  Essay;)  Berlin, 
1772 ;  2nd  ed.  1778 ;  3rd,  1789.  Cf.  the  works 
of  Tetens  and  Tiedemann  on  this  subject;  also 
Jerusalem,  Betrachtungen,  th.  ii.  s.  134,  f. 

These  views  respecting  the  origin  of  language 
are  entirely  consistent  with  the  very  natural  re- 
presentation which  Moses  gives,  Gen.  ii.  19, 
20,  of  the  naming  of  the  animals.  Vide  s.  52, 
II.  These  were  the  first  objects  to  which  man 
directed  his  attention,  and  to  these  he  gave 
names,  sometimes  derived  from  his  calls  to  them, 
and  sometimes  from  voices  and  sounds  which 
they  themselves  made.  In  this  way,  then,  man 
was  first  led  to  exercise  his  powers  of  speech ; 
and  it  was  perfectly  natural  for  him  to  begin  to 
speak  by  giving  names  to  animals,  as  they  are 
more  interesting  to  him,  and  more  nearly  related 
to  him,  than  the  inanimate  creation. 

Now,  when  our  first  parents  were  to  be  in- 
structed in  moral  objects,  which  could  not  be 
recognised  by  their  senses,  it  must  necessarily 
be  done  by  images  drawn  from  nature,  and  es- 
pecially from  animals,  and  so  their  names  and 
the  names  of  their  actions  were  figuratively  ap- 
plied, in  the  poverty  of  the  then  existing  lan- 


guage, to  designate  moral  objects.  In  conform- 
ty  with  these  views,  we  must  interpret  what 
God  says,  Genesis,  iii.,  iv.,  which  would  have 
been  unintelligible  to  our  first  parents  if  it  had 
been  expressed  in  such  language  and  phraseo- 
logy as  is  now  common  among  us;  but  which, 
being  expressed  in  a  figurative  manner,  was 
level  to  their  comprehension.  This  is  the  way 
in  which  missionaries  are  now  compelled  to  pro- 
ceed, when  they  have  to  do  with  men  who  have 
no  ideas  on  religious  and  spiritual  subjects,  and 
of  course  no  words  answering  to  them  in  their 
language.  Instruction  intended  for  children, 
also,  must  be  conveyed  in  the  same  figurative 
language  and  style ;  and  they  are  always  found 
to  be  most  interested  in  allegories  and  fables, 
like  those  of  JEsop.  Those  who  object  to  this 
mode  of  instruction  only  prove,  then,  their  own 
ignorance.  Instruction  imparted  to  uncultivated 
men  must  of  necessity  be  given  in  a  figurative 
manner,  because  they  not  only  speak,  but  even 
think,  in  figures.  From  abstract  expressions 
they  derive  but  faint  conceptions.  The  case  is 
entirely  different  among  cultivated  men. 

SECTION  LVI. 

OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  STATE  OF  MAN  ',  HIS  EXTERNAL 
ADVANTAGES ;  AND  THE  NOTION  OF  A  GOLDEN 
AGE. 

I.  Original  External  Advantages  of  Man. 

THIS  is  the  second  class  of  the  distinguishing 
advantages  of  onr  first  parents,  as  divided  in  the 
beginning  of  s.  54.  They  have  their  ground  in 
the  external  relation  of  man  to  the  other  crea- 
tures of  the  earth  ;  but  they  presuppose  in  him 
the  possession  of  those  internal  excellences  de- 
scribed s.  54,  55.  These  advantages  are  com- 
prehended under  the  general  description,  the 
dominion  of  man  over  the  earth,  or  over  the  crea- 
tures of  the  earth,  Morus,  p.  104,  s.  21 ;  and 
this  is  taken  from  Gen.  i.  26,  seq.  coll.  Gen. 
ix.  2.  This  dominion  implies  nothing  more 
than  that  man  possesses  (0)  the  right  and  title 
to  make  all  the  creatures  of  the  earth  contribute 
to  his  own  advantage,  to  the  supply  of  his 
wants,  and  to  the  convenience  of  his  life  ;  and 
(6)  that  he  possesses  both  the  power  and  skill 
to  compel  them  to  that  subservience  to  which 
their  nature  is  adapted.  Cf.  s.  52,  II.  It  is 
said  by  Plato,  in  a  passage  in  Tirnaeus  respect- 
ing the  creation  of  men,  as  translated  by  Cicero, 
"  Tales  creantur,  ut  Deorum  immortalium  quasi 
gentiles  esse  debeant,  divini  generis  appellentur, 
(cf.  Acts,  xvii.  28,  from  Aratus,  tov  yap  xai 
ysvos  £<tyt£v,)  teneantque  omnium  animantium 
principatum."  God  has  placed  man,  as  lord, 
at  the  head  of  the  animate  creation ;  made  him 
his  image  upon  the  earth — a  subordinate  god — 
a  representative  of  the  Deity.  And  the  irra- 
Bfi 


198 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


tional  creatures,  whose  knowledge  cannot  ex- 
tend beyond  what  they  can  recognise  by  their 
senses,  can  conceive  of  nothing  superior  to  man. 
Of  God  and  of  spiritual  things  they  know  no- 
thing, and  so  can  have  no  duties  to  perform  to 
him.  Their  business  is,  to  submit  to  man,  as 
their  lord  and  ruler;  and  God  has  given  to  man 
the  means  to  compel  them  to  this  obedience,  for 
which  they  were  made.  With  many  animals, 
even  since  the  fall,  this  subjection  to  man  seems 
to  be  natural  and  easy ;  they  are  inclined  to  his 
service  of  their  own  accord,  or  are  readily  pre- 
vailed upon  by  favours  or  chastisements  to  en- 
gage in  it. 

This  dominion  which  was  conferred  upon 
man  over  the  animate  and  the  inanimate  crea- 
tion he  still  retains,  at  least  in  a  good  measure. 
It  is  represented  as  still  the  prerogative  of  man 
in  Psalm  viii.  6 — 9,  the  whole  of  which  passage 
is  a  paraphrase  of  Genesis,  i.  26,  seq.  (On  the 
question,  whether  this  dominion  is  only  a  part, 
or  the  whole  of  what  is  intended,  when  it  is 
said  that  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God, 
cf.  s.  53,  I.  II.)  Theologians,  however,  fre- 
quently assert,  that  since  the  fall  man  does  not 
possess  this  dominion  over  the  inferior  creation 
in  its  full  extent  ,•  and  it  does  not  follow  from 
the  words  of  Moses,  considered  by  themselves, 
that  he  ever  did.  Moses,  however,  and  other 
sacred  writers,  clearly  teach,  that  such  wild,  in- 
tractable, and  cruel  beasts,  as  are  now  found 
upon  the  earth,  were  unknown  to  man  in  his 
original  condition,  where  they  were  all  tame 
and  subject  to  his  will.  This  is  clear,  too,  from 
the  figurative  description  which  the  prophets 
give  of  the  return  of  that  happy  age — e.  g.,  Isa. 
xi.  6  ;  Ixv.  25.  The  same  opinions  respecting 
that  happy  age  of  innocence  in  the  youth  of 
the  world  are  found  among  the  Greeks,  Romans, 
(cf.  Virg.  Eel.  iv.,)  and  almost  all  nations. 

From  the  relation  which  man  holds  to  irra- 
tional creatures,  as  their  master  and  ruler,  he 
owes  them  several  important  duties;  the  consi- 
deration of  which  belongs,  however,  rather  to 
the  department  of  morals  than  of  theology. 

II.  The  Notion  of  a  Golden  Age. 

1.  The  notion  of  a  golden  age  of  the  world  is 
almost  universal ;  and,  although  somewhat  mo- 
dified by  the  peculiar  opinions  and  customs  of 
each  people,  it  is  yet  found  diffused  through  all 
ages  and  nations,  as  far  as  history  extends,  and 
is  everywhere  substantially  the  same.  All  na- 
tions believe  that  the  original  state  of  the  earth 
and  of  the  human  race  was  far  more  happy  and 
cheerful,  and  in  every  respect  better,  than  the 
present ;  and  that  either  at  once  or  more  gradu- 
ally the  world  degenerated.  The  notions  which 
the  Grecians,  and  the  nations  which  adopted 
their  mythology,  the  Romans  and  others,  enter- 
tained respecting  the  different  ages, — the  golden, 


silver,  &c., — are  generally  known.  Cf.  Hesiod, 
"Epy.  xai  fa.  verses  109—201.  Ovid,  Met.  I. 
89—162.  Virgil,  Eel.  iv.,  and  the  selections 
from  Plato  and  Diodorus  in  Euseb.  Praep.  Evan, 
i.  7  ;  xii.  13.  [Cf.  Lucretius,  De  rerum  nat.  ii. 
332,  seq.  Tibullus,  i.  3,  35,  seq.  Seneca, 
Hipp.  v.  524.]  The  same  opinions  substan- 
tially are  found  among  rude  and  savage  na- 
tions— the  inhabitants  of  Kamschatka,  Tartary, 
the  Indians  in  North  and  South  America,  the 
South-Sea  Islands,  &c. 

2.  What  is  the  source  of  these  ideas,  which 
are  so  universally  diffused  1 

(a)  It  was  formerly  supposed  very  generally 
that  all  these  mythological  fables  were  only  tra- 
ditionary relics  and  fragments  of  a  direct  divine 
revelation.  The  Mosaic  history  was  regarded 
as  the  only  source  from  which  these  various 
and  wide-spread  ideas  were  derived;  and  to 
shew  how  they  were  handed  down  from  one 
age  to  another,  and  transmitted  from  the  He- 
brews to  the  Greeks,  Romans,  and  others,  has 
been  very  often  attempted.  But  the  arguments 
employed  in  support  of  this  opinion  have  been 
generally  far-fetched,  and  unsupported  by  his- 
tory; as,  indeed,  all  arguments  must  be  which 
are  adduced  in  support  of  the  opinion,  that  the 
scriptures  are  the  only  source  from  which  the 
ideas  of  the  Greeks,  Romans,  and  others,  re- 
specting the  original  state  of  man,  are  derived, 
and  that  these  ideas  have  been  only  corrupted 
in  being  transmitted  by  the  intermixture  of  fa- 
ble. This  opinion  was  advocated  by  Huetius, 
in  his  "  Demonstratio  Evangelica,  where  he  en- 
deavoured to  shew  that  the  scripture  history 
was  at  the  foundation  of  the  whole  Grecian 
mythology.  But  his  theory  is  inconsistent 
with  facts,  as  is  very  generally  acknowledged 
at  the  present  day.  Much,  indeed,  of  the  scrip- 
tural account  respecting  the  original  condition 
of  man  may  have  been  preserved  and  diffused 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  But  it  cannot 
be  historically  proved  that  our  sacred  history  is 
the  only  ground  of  these  ideas  of  a  golden  pe- 
riod, in  which  all  nations  agree.  These  uni- 
versal ideas  on  this  subject  may  have  arisen 
partly  from  other  sources.  Men  are  everywhere 
alike  in  all  the  essential  parts  of  human  nature. 
And  hence  there  prevails  among  them  a  certain 
universal  analogy  in  respect  to  language,  man- 
ners, modes  of  thought  and  opinion;  and  from 
this  analogy  their  agreement  on  many  points 
may  be  explained,  without  supposing  them  to 
have  learned  or  borrowed  from  one  another. 
Vide  Introduction,  s.  9,  No.  6. 

(6)  One  cause  of  this  notion  of  a  golden  age 
so  widely  diffused  among  heathen  nations  is  the 
disposition,  which  may  be  seen  in  all  men,  1o 
think  THE  PAST  better  and  more  happy  than  THE 
PRESENT.  This  disposition  has  its  origin  in  a 
certain  urgent /ee/mg  of  our  natures,  of  which 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


109 


we  shall  in  a  moment  say  more.  We  shall 
here  speak  only  of  the  disposition  itself,  as  it  is 
seen  among  men.  And  in  accordance  with  it, 
the  higher  one  ascends  into  antiquity  the  more 
happy  and  charming  does  the  world  become  to 
his  view ;  the  nearer  he  approaches  the  times  in 
which  he  lives,  the  more  imperfect  and  dismal 
does  everything  appear.  It  was  the  same  with 
men  in  respect  to  their  views  of  the  past  a  thou- 
sand years  ago.  And  had  the  world  actually 
degenerated,  physically  and  morally,  a  thousand 
years  ago  as  much  as  the  old  men,  laudatores 
temporis  acti,  doubtless  then  thought  and  said, 
and  had  each  successive  generation  of  men  since 
proved,  according  to  the  expression  of  Horace, 
progenies  vitiosior,  then  the  world  by  this  time 
would  have  become  a  mere  waste,  and  the  whole 
human  race  would  have  long  since  perished ! 
This  prevalent  belief  that  the  world  from  the 
first  had  been  constantly  deteriorating  was 
now  clothed  in  an  historical  form,  and  taught 
as  actual  truth;  and  the  fables  thus  invented 
respecting  the  early  state  of  man,  though  they 
differ  in  some  particulars,  are  yet  everywhere 
essentially  the  same. 

The  manner  in  which  the  ideas  of  a  golden 
age  may  have  originated,  and  have  been  gradu- 
ally developed  into  those  mythological  descrip- 
tions which  are  found  in  all  nations,  may  be 
shewn  by  the  following  remarks,  founded  upon 
experience  : — When  we  have  arrived  at  mature 
years,  and  especially  when  we  are  in  the  decline 
of  life,  the  period  of  our  youth  appears  to  us  far 
better  than  the  present.  We  were  th£n  more  free 
from  anxiety  than  ever  after;  our  susceptibi- 
lity of  pleasurable  emotions  had  not  then  been 
blunted ;  our  heart  was  open  to  the  enjoyments 
of  life.  And  when  we  look  around,  and  every- 
thing seems  to  us  to  have  degenerated  since  we 
were  young,  it  is  not  unnatural  to  conclude  that 
the  same  has  been  true  in  every  age ;  that  at  a 
very  early  period,  in  the  infancy  of  the  world,  it 
was  full  of  peace  and  happiness,  and  from  that 
time  to  the  present  has  been  gradually  growing 
worse  and  worse.  And  we  are  strengthened  in 
this  conclusion  by  hearing  our  parents  and 
grandparents  speak  in  the  same  way  respect- 
ing the  times  which  they  have  lived  through. 
Thus  at  length  we  come  to  the  conviction  that 
old  times  were  better  than  the  present,  and  that 
the  farther  back  we  go,  the  more  delightful, 
happy,  and  perfect  we  shall  find  the  state  of  the 
world.  We  then  proceed  to  fill  up  this  general 
outline  which  we  have  formed  of  a  happy  age. 
And  this  we  do  by  carefully  removing  from  that 
golden  period  all  the  ills  and  imperfections  of"" 
of  our  present  state,  the  physical  sufferings 
which  we  now  endure,  and  also  the  evils  arising 
from  our  social  connexion,  and  from  the  progress 
of  refinement.  Then  we  suppose  there  was  no 
need  of  clothing,  there  was  no  rough  and  uncom- 


fortable weather,  there  w^re  no  harmful  beasts, 
and  men  were  not  as  yet  unjust  and  cruel. 
Such  is  the  picture  of  the  primitive  state  of  the 
earth  and  of  the  human  race,  in  which  the  an- 
cient fables  of  almost  all  nations  agree.  It  de- 
serves, however,  to  be  remarked,  that  Moses 
dissents  from  nearly  all  the  heathen  mytholo- 
gists  who  have  described  the  original  state  of 
man  as  one  of  indolence  and  perfect  rest,  and, 
on  the  contrary,  makes  it  a  state  of  activity  and 
labour. 

These  mythological  descriptions  have,  no 
doubt,  an  historical  basis,  but  whatever  of  truth 
there  is  in  them  has  been  enhanced  and  beauti- 
fied by  the  imagination  in  its  attempt  to  bring 
up  the  golden  age  to  its  own  ideal  of  perfection. 
For,  in  reality,  that  happy  state  of  man  of 
which  so  many  dream,  and  which  is  depicted  in 
heathen  mythologies,  is  nothing  more  than  the 
state  of  barbarism  with  its  best  side  turned  to 
the  beholder,  beautified  by  the  imagination,  and 
placed  in  that  same  magic  and  enchanting  light 
with  which  we  have  seen  the  entire  absence  of 
cultivation  covered  over  by  the  genius  of  Rous- 
seau. Vide  his  "  Discours  sur  1'origine  et  les 
fondements  de  1'inegalite  parmi  les  hommes." 
If  the  worst  side  of  this  state  should  be  exhibit- 
ed, instead  of  pleasing  it  would  shock  and  dis- 
gust all  who  have  ever  enjoyed  the  blessings 
of  civilization  and  refinement." 

In  this  way  we  can  account  for  the  origin  of 
these  universal  ideas  respecting  the  original 
state  of  man,  without  supposing  that  they  were 
altogether  derived  from  the  Mosaic  record. 

(c)  These  remarks  respecting  the  manner  in 
which  the  opinions  and  ideas  of  men  respecting 
a  golden  age  first  originated  and  are  gradually 
developed  are  so  obvious,  and  have  so  much  in- 
ternal truth,  that  they  occur  of  themselves  to 
every  observer  of  the  world  and  of  mankind. 
But  for  this  very  reason,  that  the  universal  ideas 
respecting  the  primitive  state  of  man  can  be  so 
easily  accounted  for,  without  supposing  an  his- 
torical foundation  for  them,  the  Mosaic  history 
of  this  original  state  has,  like  the  rest,  been  re- 
garded by  many  as  fabulous.  But  those  who 
have  taken  this  view  of  the  Mosaic  history  have 
overlooked  other  very  important  aspects  of  the 
subject,  and  have  but  a  very  partial  acquaint- 
ance with  it.  Should  they  look  at  this  subject 
on  all  sides  they  would  see  the  necessity  of  ad- 
mitting some  real  truth  as  the  basis  of  these 
wide-spread  conceptions,  and  that  the  claims 
of  the  Mosaic  account  to  our  credence  are 
greatly  superior  to  those  of  heathen  mythologies. 
This  will  be  evident  from  the  following  consi- 
derations : — 

(a)  The  general  disposition  of  all  nations  to 
regard  the  original  condition  of  mankind  as 
eminently  happy,  proves,  beyond  dispute,  that 
they  have  felt  a  certain  pressing  necessity  to 


200 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


believe  that  God,  who  is  supremely  wise  and 
good,  would  have  created  the  human  race  in  a 
better  condition  than  that  in  which  it  is  now 
found.  This  feeling  is  universal  among  men. 
Most  of  the  ancient  philosophers  acknowledged 
it,  nor  have  modern  philosophers  been  able  en- 
tirely to  suppress  it.  Vide  the  writings  of 
Kant.  But  to  mere  philosophers  there  has 
always  been  a  riddle  here,  which  they  have 
endeavoured,  but  have  never  been  able,  satis- 
factorily to  solve.  This  riddle,  so  inexplicable 
to  thenr,  has  been  perfectly  solved  by  the 
Bible,  in  the  account  which  it  gives  of  the  fall 
of  man  from  a  state  of  innocence  and  happiness. 

(]3)  That  something  must  have  taken  place 
to  corrupt  the  human  race  must  seem  at  least 
probable,  from  the  mere  necessity  of  believing 
that  it  was  once  better  than  now.  But  if  a 
book,  accredited  as  a  divine  revelation,  gives 
historical  information  respecting  both  the  ori- 
ginal happy  condition  and  the  commencement 
of  the  degeneracy  of  our  race,  we  are  no  longer 
left  in  uncertainty  with  regard  to  the  fact. 

(y)  The  Mosaic  history  of  the  state  of  inno- 
cence, although  it  agrees  in  some  respects  with 
the  fables  of  the  heathen  respecting  the  golden 
age,  in  other  respects  differs  widely  from  them. 
The  extravagant,  and  plainly  false  and  fabulous 
representations  which  are  found  in  the  writings 
of  Hesiod,  Ovid,  and  Plato,  who  describe  the 
happy  state  as  one  of  ease  and  indolence,  do  not 
occur  in  the  writings  of  Moses.  This  circum- 
stance alone  would  lead  us  to  conclude  that  his 
record  is  of  wholly  different  origin  from  theirs, 
and  that  it  is  not  a  mere  fiction,  but  founded  on 
historical  facts.  Moreover,  it  is  more  ancient 
than  any  other  account  which  we  have  of  the 
first  age  of  the  world. 

SECTION  LVII. 

OF  THE    PROPAGATION  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE. 

THE  Mosaic  history  informs  us,  with  a  sim- 
plicity which  is  characteristic  of  the  age  in 
which  it  was  written,  that  God  designed  that 
the  human  race  should  be  propagated,  and 
should  extend  itself  over  the  earth ;  and  that  he 
gave  to  man,  as  well  as  to  other  living  crea- 
tures, the  power  to  propagate  his  own  species. 
Gen.  i.  28,  coll.  v.  22.  But  as  man  consists  of 
two  essential  parts,  body  and  soul,  the  origin  of 
both  these  in  the  posterity  of  Adam  must  be 
considered. 

I.  Origin  of  the  Human  Body. 
The  Hebrews  generally  describe  the  human 
body  as  derived  directly  from  parents,  as  appears 
from  the  phrases,  to  come  from  the  loins  of  the 
father,  to  be  in  his  loins,  &c.  Gen.  xlvi.  26 ; 
Heb.  vii.  5,  10,  seq.  Sometimes,  however,  they 
speak  of  it,  as  taken  out  of  the  earth,  from  the 


earth,  or  dust ;  and  so  as  returning  to  the  earth, 
to  the  dust,  &c.  Vide  s.  52,  II.  2.  The  pas- 
sage, Ps.  cxxxix.  15,  16,  may  perhaps  be  most 
easily  explained  in  this  way.  The  human  body 
is  there  represented  as  being  in  a  dark  pit  before 
its  birth,  and  as  formed  in  the  depths  of  the  earth, 
from  lime  and  earth.  The  phrase  V*TX  n^»nnn,  is 
in  other  places  entirely  synonymous  with  ^isr. 
Both  Greeks  and  Hebrews  represented  the  state 
of  man  before  his  birth  as  similar  to  that  in 
which  he  will  be  after  his  death,  and  comprised 
both  conditions  under  the  words  Sisi?  and  a8^j. 
Moses  describes  man  as  coming  from  the  earth, 
and  as  returning  to  it.  And  so,  according  to  the 
notions  of  the  Hebrews,  man  is  in  the  earth,  as 
well  before  his  birth  as  after  his  death;  and 
comes  forth  into  the  material  world  from  that 
same  vast,  subterranean,  invisible  kingdom,  to 
which  he  again  returns.  Job,  i.  21  ;  x.  9  ; 
xxxiii.  6.  Eccl.  xii.  7.  Book  of  Wisdom,  xv.  8. 

II.  The  Origin  of  the  Human  Soul. 

Respecting  the  manner  of  the  propagation  of 
the  soul  among  the  posterity  of  Adam,  the  sacred 
writers  say  nothing.  The  text,  Eccl.  xii.  7, 
gives  us,  indeed,  clearly  to  understand  that  the 
soul  comes  from  God  in  a  different  manner  from 
the  body  (vide  s.  51, 1.)  ;  but  what  this  manner 
is,  it  does  not  inform  us.  The  texts,  Is.  xlii.  5, 
and  Job,  xii.  10,  which  are  frequently  cited  in 
this  connexion,  merely  teach,  that  God  gave  to 
man  breath  and  life,  and  so  do  not  relate  to  this 
subject.  Nor  can  anything  respecting  the  man- 
ner of  the  propagation  of  the  soul  he  determined 
from  the  appellation,  Father  of  spirits,  which  was 
commonly  given  to  God  among  the  Jews,  and 
which  occurs,  Heb.  xii.  9.  Vide  Wetstein,  in 
loc.  This  appellation  implies  nothing  more  than 
that,  as  man  is  the  father  of  an  offspring  of  the 
same  nature  with  himself,  so  God,  who  is  a 
Spirit,  produces  spirits.  It  is  doubtless  founded 
upon  the  description  of  God,  Num.  xvi.  22,  as 
« the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh."  The  whole 
inquiry,  therefore,  with  regard  to  the  origin  of 
human  souls,  is  exclusively  philosophical ;  and 
scriptural  authority  can  be  adduced  neither  for 
nor  against  any  theory  which  we  may  choose  to 
adopt.  But  notwithstanding  the  philosophical 
nature  of  this  subject,  it  cannot  be  wholly  passed 
by  in  systematic  theology,  considering  the  in- 
fluence which  it  has  upon  the  statement  of  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin.  It  is  on  account  of  its 
connexion  with  this  single  doctrine  (for  it  is  not 
immediately  connected  with  any  other)  that  it 
has  been  so  much  agitated  by  theologians,  espe- 
cially since  the  time  of  Augustine.  They  have 
usually  adopted  that  theory  respecting  the  origin 
of  the  soul  which  was  most  favourable  to  the 
views  which  they  entertained  respecting  the  na- 
tive character  of  man.  And  hence  the  followers 
of  Augustine  and  of  Pelagius,  the  advocates  and 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


201 


opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity,  are 
uniformly  ranged  on  opposite  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion concerning  the  origin  of  the  soul. 

There  have  been  three  principal  hypotheses 
on  this  subject,  which  will  now  be  stated. 

1.  The  hypothesis  of  the  pre-existence  of  souls. 
Those  who  support  this  hypothesis,  called  Pra> 
existiani,  affirm  that  God,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  world,  created  the  souls  of  all  men,  which, 
however,  are  not  united  with  the  body  before 
man  is  begotten  or  born  into  the  world.     This 
was  the  opinion  of  Pythagoras,  Plato,  and  his 
followers,  and  of  the  cabalists  among  the  Jews. 
Among  these,  however,  there  is  a  difference  of 
opinion,  some  believing  that  the  soul  was  ori- 
ginally destined  for  the  body,  and  unites  with  it 
of  its  own  accord;  others,  with  Plato,  that  it 
pertained  originally  to  the  divine  nature,  and  is 
incarcerated  in  the  body  as  a  punishment  for  the 
sins  which  it  committed  in  its  heavenly  state. 
This  hypothesis  found  advocates  in  the  ancient 
Christian  church.    Some  Christians  adopted  the 
entire  system  of  the  Platonists,  and  held  that 
the  soul  was  a  part  of  the  divine  nature,  &c. 
Priscillianus  and  his  followers  either  held  these 
views,  or  were  accused  of  holding  them  by  Au- 
gustine, De  Haeres.  c.  70.     All  who  professed 
to  believe  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul  cannot 
be  proved  to  have  believed  that  it  was  a  part  of 
the  divine  nature.     This  is  true  of  Origen,  who 
agreed  with  the  Platonists  in  saying,  that  souls 
sinned  before  they  were  united  with  a  body,  in 
which  they  were  imprisoned  as  a  punishment 
for  their  sins.     Vide  Huetius,  in  his  "Origeni- 
anae,"  1.  ii.  c.  2,  quaest.  6.     The  pre-existence 
of  the  soul  was  early  taught  by  Justin  the  Mar- 
tyr, Dial,  cum  Tryphone  Jud.     This  has  been 
the  common  opinion  of  Christian  mystics  of  an- 
cient and  modern  times.     They  usually  adhere 
to  the  Platonic  theory,  and  regard  the  soul  as  a 
part  of  the  divine  nature,  from  which  it  proceeds, 
and  to  which  it  will  again  return.    This  doctrine 
of  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul  is,  however,  al- 
most entirely  abandoned,  because  it  is  supposed 
irreconcilable  with  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 
And,  if  the  mystics  be  excepted,  it  has  been  left 
almost  without  an  advocate  ever  since  the  time 
of  Augustine. 

2.  The  hypothesis  of  the  creation  of  the  soul. 
The  advocates  of  this  theory,  called  Creatiani, 
believe  that  the  soul  is  immediately  created  by 
God  whenever  the  body  is  begotten.     A  passage 
in  Aristotle,  De  Gener.  ii.  3,  was  supposed  to 
contain  this  doctrine,  at  least,  it  was  so  under- 
stood by  the  schoolmen;  and  in  truth,  Aristotle 
appears  not  to  be  far  removed  from  the  opinion 
ascribed  to  him.    Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  Theo- 
doret  among  the  fathers  in  the  Grecian  church, 
were  of  this  opinion;  and  Ambrose,  Hilarius, 
and  Hieronymus,  in  the  Latin  church.     The 
schoolmen  almost  universally  professed  this  doc- 

26 


trine,  and  generally  the  followers  of  Pelagius, 
with  whom  the  schoolmen  for  the  most  part 
agreed  in  their  views  with  regard  to  the  native 
character  of  man.  For  these  views  derived  a 
very  plausible  vindication  from  the  hypothesis 
that  the  soul  was  immediately  created  by  God 
when  it  was  connected  with  the  body.  The 
argument  was  this : — If  God  created  the  souls 
of  men,  he  must  have  made  them  either  pure 
and  holy,  or  impure  and  sinful.  The  latter  sup- 
position is  inconsistent  with  the  holiness  of  God, 
and  consequently,  the  doctrine  of  the  native  de- 
pravity of  the  heart  must  be  rejected.  To  affirm 
that  God  made  the  heart  depraved,  would  be  to 
avow  the  blasphemous  doctrine,  that  God  is  the 
author  of  sin.  The  theory  of  the  Creatiani  was 
at  first  favoured  by  Augustine  ;  but  he  rejected 
it  as  soon  as  he  saw  how  it  was  employed  by 
the  Pelagians.  It  has  continued,  however,  to 
the  present  time,  to  be  the  common  doctrine  of 
the  theologians  of  the  Romish  church,  who  in 
this  follow  after  the  schoolmen,  like  them, 
making  little  of  native  depravity,  and  much  of 
the  freedom  of  man  in  spiritual  things.  Among 
the  protestant  teachers,  Melancthon  was  inclined 
to  the  hypothesis  of  the  Creatiani;  although, 
after  the  time  of  Luther,  another  hypothesis, 
which  will  shortly  be  noticed,  was  received  with 
most  approbation  by  protestants.  Still  many 
distinguished  Lutheran  teachers  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  followed  Melancthon  in  his  views 
concerning  this  doctrine — e.  g.,  G.  Calixtus. 
In  the  reformed  church,  the  hypothesis  which 
we  are  now  considering  has  had  far  more  advo- 
cates than  any  other,  though  even  they  have  not 
agreed  in  the  manner  of  exhibiting  it.  Luther 
would  have  this  subject  left  without  being  de- 
termined, and  many  of  his  contemporaries  were 
of  the  same  opinion. 

3.  The  hypothesis  of  the  propagation  of  the 
soul.  According  to  this  theory,  the  souls  of 
children,  as  well  as  their  bodies,  are  propagated 
from  their  parents.  These  two  suppositions 
may  be  made: — Either  the  souls  of  children 
exist  in  their  parents  as  real  beings,  (entia,) — 
like  the  seed  in  plants,  and  so  have  been  propa- 
gated from  Adam  through  successive  genera- 
tions, which  is  the  opinion  of  Leibnitz,  in  his 
"Theodicee,"  p.  i.  s.  91, — or  they  exist  in  their 
parents  merely  potentially,  and  come  from  them 
per  propaginem,  or  traducem.  Hence  those 
who  hold  this  opinion  are  called  Traduciani. 
This  opinion  agrees  with  what  Epicurus  says  of 
human  seed,  that  it  is  "au>rtato$  *s  xai  $v%<ri<; 
drtourtatfiua."  This  hypothesis  formerly  pre- 
vailed in  the  ancient  western  church.  Accord- 
ing to  Hieronymus,  both  Tertullian  and  Apolli- 
naris  were  advocates  of  this  opinion,  and  even 
"maxima  pars  Occidentaliurn."  Vide  Epist. 
ad  Marcellin.  Tertullian  entered  very  minutely 
into  the  discussion  of  this  subject  in  his  work 


203 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


"  De  anima,"  c.  25,  seq.,  where  he  often  uses 
the  word  tradux  ;  but  he  is  very  obscure  in  what 
he  has  said.  This  is  the  hypothesis  to  which 
the  opponents  of  the  Pelagians  have  been  most 
generally  inclined,  (vide  No.  2,)  though  many 
who  were  rigorously  orthodox  would  have  no- 
thing definitely  settled  upon  this  subject.  Even 
Augustine,  who  in  some  passages  favoured  the 
Creatiani,  affirmed  in  his  book  "De  origine 
animae,"  nullum  (sententiam)  temere  affirmare 
oportebit.  Since  the  reformation  this  theory  has 
been  more  approved  than  any  other,  not  only  by 
philosophers  and  naturalists,  but  also  by  the 
Lutheran  church.  Luther  himself  appeared 
much  inclined  towards  it,  although  he  did  not 
declare  himself  distinctly  in  its  favour.  But  in 
the  «'  Formula  Concordiae"  it  was  distinctly 
taught  that  the  soul,  as  well  as  the  body,  was 
propagated  by  parents  in  ordinary  generation. 
The  reason  why  this  theory  is  so  much  prefer- 
red by  theologians  is,  that  it  affords  the  easiest 
solution  of  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity.  If 
in  the  souls  of  our  first  progenitors  the  souls  of 
all  their  posterity  existed  potentially,  and  the 
souls  of  the  former  were  polluted  and  sinful, 
those  of  the  latter  must  be  so  too.  This  hypo- 
thesis is  not, however, free  from  objections;  and 
it  is  very  difficult  to  reconcile  it  with  some  phi- 
losophical opinions  which  are  universally  re- 
ceived. We  cannot,  for  example,  easily  conceive 
how  generation  and  propagation  can  take  place 
without  extension;  but  we  cannot  predicate  ex- 
tension of  the  soul  without  making  it  a  material 
substance.  Tertullian  and  other  of  the  fathers 
affirm,  indeed,  that  the  soul  of  man,  and  that 
spirit  in  general,  is  not  perfectly  pure  and  sim- 
ple, but  of  a  refined  material  nature,  of  which, 
consequently,  extension  may  be  predicated. 
Vide  s.  19,  ad  finem,  and  s.  51,  I.  ad  finem. 
And  with  these  opinions  the  theory  of  the  pro- 
pagation of  the  soul  agrees  perfectly  well,  cer- 
tainly far  better,  than  with  the  opinions  which 
we  entertain  respecting  the  nature  of  spirit ;  al- 
though even  with  these  opinions  we  cannot  be 
sure  that  a  spiritual  generation  and  propagation 
is  impossible ;  for  we  do  not  understand  the 
true  nature  of  spirit,  and  cannot  therefore  deter- 
mine with  certainty  what  is  or  is  not  possible 
respecting  it.  There  are  some  psychological 
phenomena  which  seem  to  favour  the  theory 
now  under  consideration;  and  hence  it  has  al- 
ways been  the  favourite  theory  of  psychologists 
and  physicians.  The  natural  disposition  of 
children  not  unfrequently  resembles  that  of  their 
parents ;  and  the  mental  excellences  and  imper- 
fections of  parents  are  inherited  nearly  as  often 
by  their  children  as  any  bodily  attributes. 
Again;  the  powers  of  the  soul,  like  those  of  the 
body,  are  at  first  weak,  and  attain  their  full  de- 
velopment and  perfection  only  by  slow  degrees. 
Many  more  phenomena  of  the  same  sort  might 


be  mentioned.  But  after  all  that  may  be  said, 
we  must  remain  in  uncertainty  with  regard  to 
the  origin  of  the  human  soul.  Important  objec- 
tions can  be  urged  against  these  arguments,  and 
any  others  that  might  be  offered.  And  if  the 
metaphysical  theory  of  the  entire  simplicity  of 
the  human  soul  be  admitted,  the  whole  subject 
remains  involved  in  total  darkness. 


ARTICLE  VII. 

OF  THE  DOCTRINE  RESPECTING  ANGELS. 

SECTION  LVIII. 

OF  THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  CONCERN- 
ING ANGELS,  AND  SOME  INTRODUCTORY  HISTO- 
RICAL REMARKS. 

I.  The  Importance  of  this  Doctrine. 

1.  ITS  practical  importance.  By  one  class 
of  theologians  the  practical  importance  of  this 
doctrine  has  been  very  much  exaggerated  ;  while 
others,  who  are  mostly  modern  writers,  have 
denied  it  all  practical  utility,  and  have  gone  so 
far  as  to  insist  that  it  should  be  entirely  omitted 
in  common  religious  instruction.  To  these  views 
we  can  by  no  means  assent,  if  we  make  the 
Bible  the  source  of  our  knowledge  and  the 
foundation  of  our  belief  in  religious  truth.  Nor 
should  we  allow  ourselves  to  entertain  exagge- 
rated views  of  this  subject,  the  tendency  of 
which  must  be  injurious.  In  the  manner  in 
which  this  doctrine  is  now  generally  held  among 
Christians,  we  see  the  effect  of  the  levity  and 
irreverence  with  which  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible 
have  often  been  treated  in  late  years  by  theolo- 
gical writers.  The  contempt  with  which  the 
belief  in  angels  is  often  spoken  of  among  com- 
mon Christians  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  when 
we  consider  how  it  has  been  treated  by  the 
teachers  of  religion  in  our  schools,  universities, 
and  pulpits.  Those  who  are  preparing  to  be 
teachers  of  religion  should  take  warning  from 
the  evils  which  they  see  produced  by  the  light 
and  irreverent  manner  in  which  the  doctrines  of 
the  Bible  have  been  lately  exhibited.  Vide  Rein- 
hard's  excellent  sermon,  "  Wie  sich  Christen 
bey  so  mannichfachen  Meinungen  iiber  die 
Geisterwelt  zu  erhalten  haben,"  published  in 
the  collection  for  the  year  1795. 

Angels  belong  to  that  invisible  world  of  which 
we,  who  are  composed  of  body  and  spirit,  can 
form  only  very  obscure  and  imperfect  notions. 
Their  existence,  and  their  influence  on  the  ma- 
terial world  and  human  affairs,  are  not  within 
the  cognizance  of  our  senses,  and  can  be  known 
to  us  only  by  revelation.  They  are  not  men- 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


203 


tioned  by  Moses  in  his  cosmogony,  (though  he 
appears  from  many  passages  to  have  believed 
in  them ;)  because  he  confines  himself  in  that 
account  strictly  to  the  visible  world.  And  so 
he  mentions  only  the  breath  of  life  in  man,  al- 
though he  believed  beyond  dispute  that  he  pos- 
sessed also  a  reasonable  soul. 

2.  Its  theoretical  importance.     To  the  theolo- 
gian, the  interpreter,  and  the  student  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  human  mind,  this  doctrine  is  of  great 
interest  and  importance.     For  (a)  angels  are 
very  frequently  introduced  in  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Jews  and  Christians.     They  are  repre- 
sented as  standing  in  various  relations  to  men, 
and   as  actively  employed  in  our  affairs.     To 
deny,  therefore,  the  existence  and  agency  of 
good  and  bad  angels,  is  plainly  contrary  to  the 
holy  scriptures.  The  opinion  of  the  Sadducees, 
that  "  there  is  neither  angel  nor  spirit,"  (Acts, 
xxiii.  8,)  is  always  rejected  as  false  and  un- 
scriptural  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 
Notwithstanding,  then,  the  disagreeableness  of 
the  doctrine  concerning  angels  to  the  taste  of 
the  age,  it  must  be  exhibited  by  the  religious 
teacher,  whose  invariable  duty  it  is  to  conform 
his  instructions  to  the  word  of  God.    (5)  Many 
texts  of  the  Bible  which  relate  to  this  doctrine, 
by  being  misunderstood,  have  led  the  great  mul- 
titude into  opinions  respecting  the  power  and 
agency  of  angels,  which  are  inconsistent  with 
the  character  of  God,  and  of  an  immoral  ten- 
dency, by  enabling  men  to  shift  the  guilt  of  their 
actions  from  themselves  to  others.     And  these 
mistaken  and  hurtful  opinions  have  been  fos- 
tered by  the  incautious  and  indefinite  manner 
in  which  the  teachers  of  religion  have  some- 
times spoken. 

3.  Some  important  doctrines  are  exhibited  in 
the  Bible  as  standing  in  close  connexion  with 
the  doctrines  respecting  angels;  and  for  this 
reason,  if  for  no  other,  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  it,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  it  is  taught 
in  the  scriptures,  is  indispensable.     The  doc- 
trine respecting  sin,  and  the  origin  of  it ;  the 
temptation  of  our  first  parents;  the  providence 
of  God ;  the  state  of  men  hereafter,  when  they 
will  be  brought  into  still  closer  connexion  with 
spirits  ;  these  and  other  subjects  are  nearly  re- 
lated to  the  doctrine  under  consideration. 

4.  A  critical  investigation  of  this  subject,  in 
which  the  declarations  of  the  holy  scriptures 
should  be  made  the  chief  object  of  attention, 
would  tend  to  free  men  from  many  superstitions 
which  are  in  the  highest  degree  injurious.     In 
this  view,  this  doctrine  deserves  the  special  at- 
tention  of  the   teacher   of  religion.     For  the 
mistakes  which  have  prevailed  with  regard  to 
the  agency  of  angels,  and  especially  of  bad  an- 
gels, have  been  a  most  fruitful  source  of  super- 
stitions destructive  of  the  happiness,  virtue,  and 
piety  of  mankind.    To  correct  these  supersti- 


tious mistakes,  and  at  the  same  time  to  teach 
with  wisdom  and  judgment  what  we  are  taught 
in  the  Bible  with  regard  to  the  agency  of  angels, 
is  the  duty  of  the  Christian  minister. 

II.  Introductory  Historical  Remarks. 

The  idea  that  there  are  certain  spirits  inter- 
mediate between  God  and  the  human  soul,  and 
employed  as  the  instruments  of  Divine  Provi- 
dence, is  very  widely  diffused  among  men,  and 
has  often  attracted  the  attention  and  elicited  the 
inquiries  even  of  philosophers.  The  opinions 
of  the  Hebrews  upon  this  subject  are  the  prin- 
cipal object  of  our  present  attention ;  still,  as 
the  opinions  both  of  Jews  and  Christians  may 
be  illustrated  by  those  of  other  nations,  we  shall 
bestow  some  attention  upon  the  latter.  From 
the  writings  of  Moses  we  are  justified  in  con- 
cluding that  the  early  ancestors  of  the  Israel- 
ites— the  patriarchs,  received  by  revelation  some 
more  full  and  particular  knowledge  respecting 
angels,  which  they  transmitted  to  their  descend- 
ants. But  the  conceptions  which  they  formed 
on  this  subject — the  images  under  which  they 
represented  angels  to  their  own  minds,  as  well 
as  the  expressions  which  they  employed  to  de- 
signate their  ideas — were  influenced  by  the  cir- 
cumstance of  time  and  place  in  which  they  found 
themselves,  and  by  their  whole  external  condi- 
tion. To  such  circumstances  the  providence  of 
God  evermore  conforms.  God  treats  and  go- 
verns men  more  humano,  and  adapts  the  revela- 
tions which  he  makes  to  their  comprehension 
and  mode  of  thinking.  Hence  the  variety  in 
the  manner  in  which  the  divine  revelations  are 
made.  To  illustrate  the  terms  employed  in  the 
Bible  on  this  subject,  and  some  of  the  figurative 
representations  which  it  uses,  is  the  object  of 
the  following  remarks. 

Jehovah  was  worshipped  by  the  ancestors  of 
the  Israelites  as  a  household  god.  They  naturally 
conceived  of  him  at  that  early  age  as  resembling 
themselves.  Vide  s.  18.  Whenever  he  acted, 
he  conformed  to  the  manner  in  which  men  act. 
He  was  not  visibly  present,  but  he  knew  all 
things,  interested  himself  in  the  affairs  of  men, 
and  employed  himself  actively  among  them. 
In  pursuance  of  his  purposes  he  also  employed 
his  servants,  who  according  to  the  analogy  above 
stated,  were  conceived  of  as  household  servants, 
belonging  to  the  father  of  a  family,  and  engaged 
in  the  execution  of  his  commands.  They  fre- 
quently acted  in  his  name,  as  his  ambassadors, 
and  had  committed  to  them  the  oversight,  care, 
and  guardianship  of  men.  This  notion  of  them 
is  discerned  in  all  the  ancient  names  by  which 
they  were  called — viz.,  mni  "n^Sc,  (messenger, 
ambassador,)  11  irntrp,  •ui'X'i  ^fe;y,  Ps.  ciii.  20,  21 ; 
Ps.  civ.  4.  They  are  commonly  invisible,  as 
God  is;  although,  like  him,  when  occasion  re- 
quires, they  can  appear  to  men.  Hence  they 


204 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


were  regarded  as  spirits,  though  not  at  that 
early  period,  in  the  strict  and  purely  metaphy- 
sical sense  of  this  term.  Vide  s.  19,  II. 

Such  conceptions  as  these  respecting  spiritual 
agents  being  very  familiar  and  deeply  interest- 
ing to  those  at  that  age,  would  very  naturally 
occur  to  them  in  their  dreams.  Now  dreams 
were  regarded  by  the  whole  ancient  world  as  of 
divine  origin,  and  as  the  vehicles  of  the  divine 
communications  to  men.  By  seeing  angels  in 
their  dreams,  the  belief  of  men  in  their  existence 
was  therefore  still  more  strengthened.  So  in 
Homer,  (Iliad,  xxiii.  103,  seq.,)  Achilles  was 
first  convinced  of  the  real  existence  of  the  souls 
of  the  departed  in  the  under  world  by  the  appa- 
rition of  the  spirit  of  his  friend  Patroclus  in  a 
dream.  And  it  was  perhaps  in  compliance  with 
the  prevailing  belief  that  dreams  were  sent  by 
God  to  instruct  mankind,  that  he  actually  made 
use  of  them  as  one  vehicle  of  his  revelations  to 
Abraham,  Jacob,  and  the  other  patriarchs.  Vide 
Gen.  xxviii.  12,  &c. 

When  the  notion  of  angels  had  once  become 
definite,  and  the  belief  of  their  existence  con- 
firmed, their  agency  in  human  affairs  was  very 
naturally  and  easily  determined.  Everything 
which  took  place  in  such  a  way  that  the  relation 
between  cause  and  effect  was  not  seen — every- 
thing which  could  not  be  assigned  to  a  natural 
cause,  was  ascribed  to  the  immediate  agency  of 
God,  and  of  these  his  invisible  servants.  When 
God  afforded  assistance,  especially  in  an  un- 
usual, unexpected,  and  unhoped-for  manner,  he 
was  supposed  to  do  it  through  the  instrument- 
ality of  angels  ;  and  in  general,  when  anything 
took  place  under  the  divine  agency  or  permis- 
sion, the  mediate  causes  of  which  were  conceal- 
ed, angels  were  regarded  as  the  agents.  In 
short,  they  were  regarded  as  spirits  engaged  in 
the  service  of  God,  and  employed  as  the  instru- 
ments of  his  providence.  And  this  is  an  opinion 
which  the  sacred  writers  do  not  merely  record 
as  having  been  held  by  others,  and  which  they 
leave  to  depend  upon  its  own  merits,  but  which 
they  themselves  adopt  as  their  own,  and  sanction 
with  their  own  authority.  Vide  Gen.  xvi.  7 — 
12 ;  2  Kings,  xix.  35  (the  destruction  in  the 
Assyrian  camp) ;  Psalm  xxxiv.  7  ;  xci.  11,  12; 
Luke,  xvi.  22 ;  i.  13,  28 ;  Heb.  i.  14. 

But  various  objects  in  the  material  world,  and 
even  inanimate  things,  were  also  sometimes 
called  the  angels  of  God,  because  they  were  em- 
ployed by  him  in  the  execution  of  his  purposes. 
This  appellation  will  appear  more  natural,  if 
we  consider  that  inanimate  things,  in  which 
there  appeared  to  be  motion  and  a  kind  of  self- 
actuating  power,  were  regarded  by  the  ancient 
world  as  really  possessing  life  and  animation. 
Thus  perhaps  we  may  account  for  it  that  the 
appellation  angel  is  so  often  figuratively  applied 
to  things  of  the  material  world  by  the  Hebrews, 


especially  in  their  poetic  writings.  Vide  Ps. 
lxxviii.49;  civ.  4  (wind  and  lightning),  coll.  Ps. 
cxlviii.  8,  (cf.  Morus,  p.  89,  Not.  ad.  s.  6;)  1 
Chronicles,  xxi.  14 — 16;  Acts,  xii.  23. 

The  dwelling-place  or  principal  residence  of 
the  angels  was  always  represented  as  with  God 
in  heaven,  the  abode  of  the  blessed.  Hence  in 
the  scriptural  division  of  the  creatures  of  God 
into  those  in  heaven  and  those  on  earth,  angels 
are  always  enumerated  with  the  stars,  as  belong- 
ing to  the  former  class.  So  Ps.  cxlviii.  1 — 6, 
coll.  ver.  7—13. 

2.  When  the  Hebrews  became  acquainted 
with  more  powerful  rulers  than  the  heads  of 
their  families,  and  began  to  abandon  their  early 
patriarchal  mode  of  life,  they  looked  upon  God 
in  a  different  manner  from  what  they  had  done 
before,  and  thought  of  him  under  the  image  of 
a  mighty  oriental  monarch,  and  compared  his 
dwelling  and  his  providence  with  the  palace, 
court,  and  government  of  a  powerful  earthly 
ruler.     The  terms  which  they  now  used,  and 
the  figures  which  they  employed,  were  all  bor- 
rowed from  this  comparison.     It  is  natural  for 
men  to  compare  God  with  the  most  elevated 
and  powerful  beings  whom  they  see  on  the  earth, 
and  to  pay  to  him  those  external  services  of 
reverence  and  homage  which  are  paid  to  royal 
personages.     Hence  the  name  ^D,  and  other 
royal  predicates,  were  now  given  to  God.     He 
was  represented  as  the  universal  Lord  and  Judge, 
seated  upon  a  throne,  surrounded  by  hosts  of 
angels  and  servants,  ready  to  execute  his  com- 
mands, and  standing  before  him   in  different 
offices,    divisions,    and    ranks,    distinguished 
among  themselves,  like  other  beings,  in  dignity 
and  employment.     This  conception  of  the  an- 
gels as  standing  in  different  ranks  and  offices 
is  at  the  foundation  of  many  of  the  figurative 
representations  in  the  Bible;  which  representa- 
tions, however,  though  figurative,  are  intended 
to  teach  the  truth  that  there  are  differences  of 
rank  and  dignity  among  the  angels,  and  that 
some  have  nearer  access  to  God  than  others. 
Vide  1  Kings,  xxii.  19 ;  Isa.  vi.  2 ;  Dan.  vii.  10 ; 
Luke,  i.  19 ;  Matt,  xviii.  10.     The  same  altera- 
tion took  place  in  the  external  rites  of  divine 
service,  which  now  became  more  complex  and 
magnificent;   and  doubtless  much   of  the   in- 
creased splendour  of  the  Jewish  ritual  may  be 
traced  to  the  influence  of  this  comparison  of  God 
with  an  earthly  king.     In  the  matter  of  external 
service,  God  conformed,  as  far  as  he  could  do  so 
without  injury  to  the  truth,  to  their  conceptions 
and  feelings.     An  earthly  prince  bears  some 
resemblance  to  God,  and  the  servants  of  Divine 
Providence  to  the  servants  and  agents  of  a  prince. 
A  useful  work   on  this   subject  is   Paulsen's 
"Regierung  der  Morgenlander;"  Altona,  1755, 
4to. 

3.  The  servants  of  princes  are  accustomed  to 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


205 


give  account  to  their  superiors  of  the  state  of 
the  provinces  over  which  they  have  charge,  and 
of  the  good  or  ill  conduct  of  those  placed  under 
their  government,  and  are  then  employed  by 
their  superiors,  in  return,  to  dispense  rewards 
and  punishments.  Now  from  the  resemblance 
above  noticed  between  a  king  and  his  servants 
•and  God  and  his  angels,  whatever  was  said  in  re- 
spect to  the  former  was  very  naturally  transferred 
to  the  latter.  And  so  God  is  described  as  sending 
forth  his  messengers,  bearing  good  or  evil,  pro- 
sperity or  adversity,  reward  or  punishment,  to 
men,  according  to  their  deserts.  Vide  Ps. 
Ixxviii.  49.  Hence  we  may  explain  the  fact 
that  sickness  and  other  calamities  inflicted  by 
God  are  ascribed  in  the  scriptures  to  the  angels, 
through  whom,  as  his  ministers,  he  inflicts 
them.  Vide  Ps.  Ixxviii.  49 ;  xxxiv.  8 ;  2  Kings, 
vi.  16, 17.  The  angel  of  God  is  represented  as 
the  author  of  the  pestilence  in  David's  time;  2 
Sam.  xxiv.  16;  coll.  Exod.  xii.  13,  23. 

It  should  be  remarked  here  that  in  what  is 
now  extant  of  the  writings  of  the  Hebrews  be- 
fore the  Babylonian  captivity,  the  title  evil  an- 
gels does  not  properly  denote  beings  who  are 
morally  bad  in  their  own  nature;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  spirits  whose  nature  is  good,  and  who 
on  this  very  account  are  employed  by  God,  and 
who,  in  whatever  they  perform,  act  under  his 
will  and  direction.  The  reason  of  this  title  is 
to  be  found,  therefore,  not  in  themselves,  but  in 
the  nature  of  the  work  in  which  they  are  em- 
ployed ;  and  the  very  same  angel  is  called  evil 
or  good,  according  as  he  has  it  in  commisoion 
to  dispense  prosperity  or  adversity,  rewards 
or  punishments.  So  in  Homer,  when  the  deity 
inflicts  misfortune,  he  is  called  xaxb$  Sou'jtuov, 
Odys.  x.  64,  coll.  II.  xi.  61,  xx.  87.  Some 
have,  indeed,  attempted  to  shew  that  the  Satan 
mentioned  in  Job,  i.  and  ii.,  was  an  evil  spirit 
in  his  own  nature ;  but  this  is  uncertain.  He 
is  not  represented  as  being  himself  wicked  and 
opposed  to  the  designs  of  God,  but  rather  as  a 
complainant  or  accuser.  The  whole  representa- 
tion contained  in  these  chapters  seems  to  be 
taken  from  a  human  court  and  transferred  to 
heaven.  Vide  Michaelis,  in  loc. 

It  is  not  until  the  time  of  the  exile,  or  shortly 
after  it,  that  we  find  distinct  traces  of  the  doc- 
trine that  there  are  angels  who  were  once  good, 
but  who  revolted  from  God,  and  are  now  become 
wicked  themselves,  and  the  authors  of  evil  in 
the  world.  The  probability  is,  therefore,  that  this 
doctrine  was  first  developed  among  the  Jews 
during  their  residence  at  Chaldea  and  shortly 
afterwards.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  many 
other  doctrines  of  the  Bible  which  were  not  re- 
vealed at  first,  but  were  gradually  made  known 
by  means  of  the  prophets  at  later  periods.  We 
cannot,  however,  certainly  prove  that  this  doc- 
trine was  wholly  unknown  to  the  Jews  pre- 


viously to  the  captivity.  It  is  enough  for  us  to 
know  that  after  this  time  the  Jewish  prophets, 
as  acknowledged  messengers  and  ambassadors 
of  God,  themselves  authorized  it,  and  taught  it 
in  their  addresses  and  writings ;  and  that  it  is 
accordingly  now  to  be  received  by  us  as  a  doc- 
trine of  the  ancient  Jewish  revelation.  In  bring- 
ing the  doctrine  concerning  angels  to  a  fuller 
development,  the  following  circumstances  were 
made  use  of  by  Divine  Providence. 

The  Persians,  and  perhaps  also  the  Chal- 
deans, (though  this  is  more  doubtful,)  held  the 
doctrine  of  dualism,  which  afterwards  prevailed 
so  widely  in  the  East.  This  doctrine  is,  that 
there  are  two  coeternal  and  independent  beings, 
from  the  one  of  whom  all  good,  and  from  the 
other,  all  evil  proceeds.  Now  the  doctrine  of 
the  Hebrews  respecting  good  and  bad  angels, 
though  it  appears  at  first  sight  to  resemble  this, 
is  essentially  different,  and  cannot  therefore  have 
been  derived  from  it.  But  when  the  Hebrews 
were  brought  under  the  dominion  of  the  Persians 
it  became  necessary,  in  order  to  prevent  them 
from  falling  into  the  wide-spread  doctrine  of 
their  masters,  that  they  should  be  instructed 
more  minutely  than  they  had  previously  been, 
or  needed  to  be,  with  regard  to  good  and  bad 
angels.  And  so  the  later  prophets  brought  to 
light  the  agency  of  good  and  bad  angels  in 
many  events  of  the  early  Jewish  history,  with 
which  angels  had  never  been  known  to  have 
had  any  connexion.  The  fall  of  man — e.  g., 
had  not  been  ascribed  by  Moses  to  the  agency 
of  an  evil  spirit ;  but  this  event  was  afterward* 
ascribed  to  the  influence  of  Satan,  and  of  this 
Christ  himself  approves  in  John,  viii.  Again; 
the  numbering  of  the  people  by  David  is  de- 
scribed in  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1,  as  a  crime  to  which 
he  was  given  up  by  God,  in  anger  against  him  ; 
but  this  same  thing  is  afterwards  ascribed  in 
1  Chron.  xxi.  1,  to  the  direct  influence  of  Sa- 
tan. In  the  same  way  many  events  were  after- 
wards ascribed  to  good  angels,  whose  agency 
in  them  had  not  before  been  known.  Thus  the 
giving  of  the  law  was  not  ascribed  by  Moses  to 
the  ministry  of  angels;  and  this  fact  is  first  in- 
timated in  Psalm  Ixviii.  17,  and  afterwards 
more  clearly  taught  in  the  New  Testament. 

Some  periods  of  Jewish  history  were  more 
remarkable  than  others  for  the  appearance  and 
agency  of  angels.  The  patriarchal  age  is  de- 
scribed in  the  books  written  before  the  captivity 
as  most  distinguished  for  the  visible  appearance 
of  angels  among  men,  both  with  and  without 
dreams  and  visions.  During  the  age  of  Moses 
and  Joshua,  although  angels  are  mentioned, 
they  do  not  seem  to  have  appeared.  The  com- 
munications of  God  to  men  were  at  that  time 
made  mostly  through  the  oracles  of  the  pro- 
phets. Angels  again  appear  during  the  period 
of  the  Judges.  But  after  the  time  of  Samuel 
S 


20G 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


they  do  not  again  appear  in  the  history  of  the 
Jews  before  the  Babylonian  exile;  at  which 
time,  and  shortly  afterwards,  they  are  once 
more  introduced.  Shortly  before  the  birth  of 
John  the  Baptist,  angels  were  again  very  fre- 
quently seen,  and  many  communications  were 
made  through  their  instrumentality.  But  the 
age  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  is  distinguished 
above  all  others  for  the  frequent  appearance  and 
interposition  of  angels,  and  especially  for  the 
agency  of  evil  spirits  upon  the  minds  and  bodies 
of  men.  In  view  of  the  whole  we  may  say, 
with  regard  to  the  appearance  of  angels,  what 
Paul  said,  Heb.  i.  1,  with  regard  to  revelations 
in  general,  that  they  were  TtoA/iyifpwj  xai 


4.  Other  nations,  ancient  and  modern,  have 
entertained  opinions  respecting  some  interme- 
diate spirits,  and  their  influence  on  the  world  and 
on  man,  somewhat  resembling  those  of  the 
Israelites,  though  not  necessarily  derived  from 
them.  Such  were  the  opinions  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, according  to  the  testimony  of  Diodorus 
Siculus,  and  also  of  the  Greeks.  The  latter, 
however,  do  not  appear  in  the  early  stages  of 
their  history  to  have  had  the  idea  of  interme- 
diate spirits  or  angels.  The  Scu'^ovs?  of  Homer 
are  only  $101,  under  a  different  name,  though,  in- 
deed, the  offices  assigned  to  them  and  to  many 
of  the  gods  by  the  Greeks  are  not  more  elevated 
than  those  assigned  by  the  Hebrews  and  other 
nations  to  their  angels  or  intermediate  spirits. 
The  Grecian  philosophers,  however,  for  the  most 
part,  believed  that  besides  God  and  the  human 
soul,  and  intermediate  between  them,  there  were 
other  spiritual  existences.  They  proceeded  on 
the  supposition,  confirmed  by  so  many  experi- 
ments and  observations,  that  there  is  in  nature 
a  general  connexion  or  chain  (s«pa),  by  which 
all  creatures  are  most  intimately  united  together; 
that  each  class  of  beings  borders  upon  and  runs 
into  others  ;  so  that  there  is  no  break  in  the  de- 
scending scale  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest. 
When,  therefore,  they  considered  the  immense 
interval  between  God  and  their  own  souls,  they 
naturally  concluded  that  it  must  be  occupied  by 
intermediate  beings,  subordinate  to  God,  but 
superior  to  man  ;  and  that  these  beings  must 
themselves  exist  in  various  degrees  of  perfection. 
Such  appear  to  have  been  the  opinions  of  Py- 
thagoras. According  to  the  "  Carmina  Aurea," 
and  Diogenes  Laert.  viii.  segm.  23,  he  believed 
that  besides  the  Supreme  Being  there  were  four 
orders  of  intelligences  —  viz.,  gods,  demons,  he- 
roes, and  men.  To  the  first  three  he  ascribed 
about  the  same  offices  as  were  ascribed  by  the 
Hebrews  to  their  angels  ;  so  that  his  theory 
really  seems  somewhat  to  resemble  the  Biblical 
doctrine.  Considerably  different  from  these  are 
the  views  of  Plato.  Some  have  indeed  thought 
that  they  could  see  in  the  Phaedrus  of  Plato,  in 


his  book  "  De  legibus,"  and  in  some  other  writ- 
ings of  his,  the  traces  of  a  distinction  between 
good  and  bad  demons.  But  this  distinction,  as 
Ficinus  justly  remarks,  was  first  made  by  the 
followers  of  Plato,  and  especially  by  the  Jews 
and  Christians,  who  philosophized  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  new  Platonic  school,  and 
was  then  ascribed  by  them  to  their  great  master. 
The  learned  Jews  of  the  first  and  second  centu- 
ries of  the  Christian  era,  being  conversant  with 
the  Grecian,  and  especially  with  the  Platonic 
philosophy,  adopted  the  doctrines  of  these  dif- 
ferent schools,  and  connected  them  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Jewish  religion;  and  many 
Christian  teachers  proceeded  in  the  same  way, 
and  connected  the  principles  of •  the  Platonic 
school,  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  angels 
among  others,  with  what  they  were  taught  from 
the  Bible,  and  indeed  endeavoured  to  interpret 
the  Bible  in  accordance  with  these  Platonic 
principles.  Aristotle  likewise  admitted  certain 
intelligences  as  intermediate  beings  between 
God  and  men,  and  his  theory  on  this  subject  was 
adopted  by  the  schoolmen.  The  stoics,  too, 
allowed  of  some  intermediate  spirits.  Epicurus, 
on  the  contrary,  denied  the  existence  of  angels 
altogether;  and  in  this  he  was  consistent  with 
himself,  since  he  denied  the  providence  of  God, 
whose  instruments  these  intermediate  beings 
were  supposed  to  be  by  other  philosophers. 
Among  the  Jews,  the  Sadducees  denied  the  ex- 
istence of  angels.  Vide  Acts,  xxiii.  8.  They 
seem  to  have  regarded  the  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  which  angels  are  spoken  of  as 
figurative,  and  the  whole  account  of  them  as 
mythological.  [The  existence  of  angels  has 
been  wholly  denied  in  modern  times  by  Hobbes, 
Spinoza,  and  Edelmann.] 

Note. — We  have  no  great  abundance  of  useful 
works  on  the  general  history  of  the  doctrine  of 
angels.  Most  of  them  take  too  confined  and 
narrow  a  view  of  the  subject.  They  merely  re- 
cord the  opinions  of  Jews  and  Christians,  with- 
out shewing  in  what  manner  these  opinions  were 
developed  and  modified.  Among  these  works 
are  the  following :  Dr.  Joach.  Oporin,  Erlaiiterte 
Lehre  von  den  Engeln;  Hamburg,  1735,  8vo. 
Jac.  Ode,  De  Angelis,  Trajecti  ad  Rhenum, 
1739,  4to,  (a  book  in  which  everything  relative 
to  this  subject  is  brought  together,  but  without 
judgment  or  discrimination.)  Jo.  Fr.  Cotta, 
Diss.  ii.  historiam  succinctam  doctrinae  de  an- 
gelis  exhibentes;  Tubingae,  1765 — 67,  4to. 
Also,  Petavius,  Theol.  Dogm.  torn,  iii.,  and 
Cud  worth,  Syst.  Intellectuale,  c.  5,  with  the 
notes  of  Mosheim.  There  are  some  treatises  of 
very  unequal  value  in  Eichhorn's  "Bibliothek 
der  bib.  Lit."  and  in  Henke's  "Magazin  fur 
Exeg.  Kirchengesch,  u.  s.  w."  The  treatise  of 
Ewald,  entitled  "Die  Bibellehre  von  guten  and 
boseri  Engeln,"  published  in  his  "  Christlichen 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


207 


Monatschrift,"  for  the  year  1800,  s.  326,  f.  and 
395,  f.,  deserves  to  be  recommended  to  the  pe- 
rusal of  the  Christian  teacher. 

SECTION  LIX. 

OF  THE  APPELLATIONS  OF  ANGELS J  THEIR  NA- 
TURE J  PROOFS  OF  THEIR  EXISTENCE  ',  THEIR 
CREATION  AND  ORIGINAL  STATE;  AND  THE 
CLASSES  INTO  WHICH  THEY  ARE  DIVIDED. 

I.  Appellations  of  Angels. 

THE  most  common  appellation  given  them  is, 
^p,  D^s'Vp.  The  correspondent  term  in  Hel- 
lenistic Greek  is  oyytkoj,  messenger,  servant, 
envoy,  ambassador.  This  name  is  sometimes 
given  to  men  who  are  engaged  in  any  offices  in 
the  employ  of  others.  Est  nomen  MUNERIS,  non 
naturae,  as  is  justly  remarked  by  Morus,  p.  86. 
Vide  Num.  xx.  14,  16;  Josh.  vi.  17;  James, 
ii.  25.  Hence  oyyt^oc  txxtyGias,  in  the  Apo- 
calypse, and  w<j)^  dyylTuxj,  (the  disciples  of 
Christ,  the  apostles,)  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  The 
analogy  upon  which  these  names  are  founded 
has  already  been  exhibited,  s.  58,  II.  1. 

Another  name  given  to  angels,  besides  these 
and  others  which  are  derived  from  their  office 
and  employment,  is,  o^riSN  rn,  children  of  God; 
Job,  xxxviii.  7,  "  Where  wast  thou  when  I  laid 
the  foundations  of  the  earth — when  the  morning 
stars  sang  together,  and  the  sons  of  God  shouted 
for  joy]"  Here,  indeed,  it  may  be  objected, 
that  sons  of  God  may  be  a  poetic  expression  sy- 
nonymous with  morning  stars,  with  which  it  is 
parallel  in  the  construction.  But  no  such  objec- 
tion lies  against  the  passage,  Job,  i.  6,  where  a 
solemn  assembly  of  the  sons  of  God  is  described. 
And  since  even  earthly  kings  were  sometimes 
called  sons  of  God,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
Hebrew  idiom  would  permit  the  application  of 
this  name  to  angels,  the  inhabitants  of  heaven. 
Hence  they  were  called  by  the  Jewsfamilia  Dei 
ccelestis.  Cf.  Ephes.  iii.  15,  and  Heo.  xii.  22, 
23,  where  the  souls  of  the  pious  dead  are  in- 
cluded in  this  heavenly  family. 

Still  another  title,  which,  in  the  opinion  of 
many,  is  given  to  angels,  is  D^riSx.  That  this 
title  may  be  given  them  is  certain;  since  it  is 
given  even  to  rulers,  judges,  and  all  those  who 
act  as  the  vicegerents  of  God  upon  the  earth. 
But  the  argument  to  prove  that  this  title  is  ac- 
tually given  to  angels  is  mostly  founded  on  the 
fact  that  the  LXX.  render  the  word  D>r6s,  by 
ayyttot,  in  some  texts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
where,  however,  the  context  does  not  make  this 
rendering  absolutely  necessary.  The  texts  cited 
are  Ps.  viii.  6,  and  xcvii.  7,  in  both  of  which  the 
original  a\-iSx  is  rendered  by  the  LXX.  dyy^xot — 
a  rendering  which  is  approved  and  retained  by 
Paul,  Heb.  i.  6,  and  ii.  7.  I  am  at  present  in- 
clined to  believe  that  even  the  original  writer 


intended  to  denote  angels  by  this  title  in  both 
places,  and  especially  in  Psalm  viii. 

II.  The  Nature  of  Angels. 

The  only  conception  which  we  form  of  angels 
is,  that  they  are  spirits  of  a  higher  nature  and 
nobler  endowments  than  men  possess.  They  are 
described  by  Morus  (p.  94,  s.  14)  as  spiritus  deo 
inferiores,  hominibus  superiores.  In  making  our 
estimate  of  them,  we  must  compare  them  with 
the  human  soul  as  the  measure.  The  human 
soul  possesses  understanding  and  free  will,  or,  a 
rational  and  moral  nature.  Hence  we  conclude, 
via  eminentise,  that  other  spirits — angels  and  God 
himself — must  possess  the  same ;  angels,  in  a 
far  higher  degree  than  men,  and  God,  in  the 
highest  possible  perfection.  With  respect  to 
the  nature  of  angels,  we  are  informed  in  the 
Bible  (a)  that  they  far  excel  us  in  powers  and 
perfections,  Matt.  xxii.  30,  seq.;  2  Pet.  ii.  11. 
(6)  They  are  expressly  called  spirits  (jtvtvpa'ta, ;) 
Heb.  i.  14,  TtvEv^ata  tevtovpyixd.  And  the  at- 
tributes which  belong  to  spirits — understanding 
and  will,  are  frequently  ascribed  to  them — e.  g., 
Luke,  xv.  10;  James,  ii.  19. 

Note. — The  question,  whether  angels  have  a 
body,  (more  refined,  indeed,  than  the  human 
body,)  is  left  undecided  in  the  Bible.  And  the 
texts  by  which  it  has  been  supposed  to  be  an- 
swered (Ps.  civ.  4,  and  others)  have  no  relation 
to  this  question.  Still  it  is  not  improbable,  from 
the  prevailing  opinions  of  the  ancient  world,  that 
the  sacred  writers  believed  that  angels  some- 
times assumed  a  body  in  which  they  became 
visible  to  men.  Vide  Morus,  p.  88,  n.  2,  supra. 
The  arguments  a  priori  which  are  frequently 
adduced  in  behalf  of  this  opinion  are  unsatisfac- 
tory. Thus  it  is  said,  that  as  spirits  angels 
could  not  act  upon  the  material  world  without 
assuming  a  body.  But  if  God,  as  a  Spirit,  may 
act  on  matter  without  a  body,  why  may  not  other 
spirits  do  the  same?  We  cannot  in  any  case 
determine,  a  priori,  what  can  or  cannot  be  done 
by  spiritual  beings.  This  question  is  therefore 
generally  dismissed  by  modern  theologians  with 
the  remark,  that  the  body  of  angels,  if  they  have 
one,  must  be  very  unlike  the  human  body. 

The  Christian  fathers  of  the  Platonic  school 
ascribed  to  all  spirits,  the  supreme  God  alone  ex- 
cepted,  a  subtile  body,  so  subtile  as  to  be  invi- 
sible to  us,  and  imperceptible  by  any  of  our 
senses.  So  Justin  the  Martyr,  Irenseus,  Athen- 
agoras,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  and 
Augustine.  They  appear  to  have  entertained 
about  the  same  notion  of  the  bodies  of  angels 
as  the  Greeks  had  of  the  bodies  of  their  gods. 
Vide  Homer,  II.  v.  339—342.  Justin  the  Mar- 
tyr, (Dial,  cum  Tryph.  Jud.  c.  57,)  and  some 
others,  believed  that  angels  partook  of  heavenly 
nourishment,  as  the  gods  of  the  Greeks  partook 
of  nectar  and  ambrosia;  that,  like  them,  they 


208 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


could  at  choice  become  visible  or  invisible  to 
men,  &c.  The  latter  opinion  is  quite  ancient, 
as  appears  from  the  account  of  Balaam  in  Num. 
xxii.  22  —  34,  and  from  the  representation  of 
Horner,  in  the  Odyss.  xvi.  160,  seq.,  where 
Minerva  is  visible  to  Ulysses,  and  not  to  Tele- 
machus  — 


Otl  yap  JTCJ  jravTEOffi  Seoi  Qaivovrai 

The  ass,  however,  in  the  one  case,  and  the 
dogs  in  the  other,  perceived  the  apparition,  and 
were  frightened.  So  again  in  the  Iliad,  i.  198, 
Achilles  beheld  Minerva,  who  stood  before  him, 
fZiV  8'  aMiwv  ovTft,^  opd/r'o. 

At  the  second  Nicene  Council,  in  the  year 
787,  it  was  established  as  a  doctrine  of  the  ca- 
tholic church,  that  angels  have  a  thin  body  of 
fire  or  air.  Afterwards,  however,  Peter  of  Lorn- 
bardy,  (Sent.  1.  ii.  dist.  8,)  and  many  other 
schoolmen,  maintained  the  opposite  opinion, 
and  held  that  angels  had  no  body  of  their  own, 
(corpus  proprium,")  but  could  assume  one  in 
order  to  become  visible.  So  Gassendus  repre- 
sents that  they  assume  corpora  extraor  dinar  ia, 
when  they  design  to  act  upon  the  material 
world.  This  opinion  of  the  schoolmen  respect- 
ing angels  was  founded  upon  the  philosophy  of 
their  great  master,  Aristotle,  who  makes  his  in- 
telligences entirely  incorporeal.  Vide  s.  58,  ad 
finem. 

III.  Proofs  of  the  Existence  of  Angels. 

\.  Some  theologians  and  philosophers  have 
undertaken  to  prove  the  existence  of  angels  by 
aguments  a  priori.  Their  most  plausible  argu- 
ment is  that  derived  from  the  unbroken  grada- 
tion and  chain  in  which  all  beings  are  seen  to 
exist  —  an  argument  which  was  employed  by 
many  even  of  the  ancient  heathen  philosophers. 
Vide  s.  58,  II.  4.  But  although  the  possibility 
of  the  existence  of  angels  cannot  be  disproved 
by  any  valid  arguments  a  priori,  so  neither  can 
the  reality  of  their  existence  be  proved  satisfac- 
torily by  arguments  of  this  nature.  All  that 
such  arguments  can  do  is,  to  render  probable 
that  which  must  depend  for  proof  on  different 
evidence;  but  to  deny  the  existence  of  angels 
on  the  ground  of  arguments  a,  priori,  is  ex- 
tremely absurd.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  86,  s.  3.  These 
proofs  are  stated,  after  the  method  of  Wolf,  by 
Reinbeck,  in  his  "  Betrachtungen  iiber  die  Augs. 
Conf."  th.  i.  s.  298;  and  also  by  Ewald,  in  a 
treatise  on  this  subject. 

2.  The  sacred  writers  affirmed  the  existence 
of  angels  so  clearly  that  it  is  hardly  credible 
that  any  one  should  seriously  doubt  their  opi- 
nions on  this  subject.  He  might  as  well  doub 
whether  Homer,  who  speaks  of  the  gods  on 
every  page,  really  believed  in  them.  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  Saddu- 
cees,  that  there  are  no  angels,  as  a  gross  error, 


Acts,  xxiii.  8.  The  Pharisees  believed  in  the 
existence  of  angels,  and  contributed  by  their 
nfluence  to  render  this  doctrine  almost  univer- 
sally prevalent  among  the  Jews.  In  this  parti- 
cular, Jesus  and  the  apostles  agreed  fully  with 
the  Pharisees,  as  appears  from  innumerable 
texts  in  the  New  Testament.  In  Matt.  xxii.  30, 
Christ  expressly  and  designedly  professes  his 
jelief  in  the  existence  of  angels,  in  the  presence 
of  the  Sadducees;  also  in  Matt.  viii.  28 — 34. 
Paul,  too,  as  is  very  clear  from  his  writings, 
aelieved  in  the  real  existence  of  angels,  and  re- 
tained and  sanctioned,  as  a  Christian  and  an 
apostle,  many  opinions  on  this  subject  which 
had  learned  in  the  schools  of  the  Pharisees. 
Thus,  for  example,  both  he  and  Stephen  (Acts, 
vii.  53)  held,  in  common  with  the  Pharisees, 
that  the  Mosaic  law  was  given  through  the 
ministry  of  angels,  Gal.  iii.  19;  Heb.  ii.  2. 
And  he  labours  through  the  whole  of  the  first 
two  chapters  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to 
prove  that  Jesus  Christ  was  superior  to  the  an- 
gels, and  a  messenger  of  God  of  a  more  exalted 
character  than  they.  His  meaning  cannot  be, 
as  some  have  strangely  supposed,  that  Christ 
was  superior  to  beings  whom  he  supposed  to 
exist  merely  in  the  fancy  of  the  Jews.  He  has 
so  interwoven  the  theory  of  the  Pharisees  with 
his  own  instructions  on  this  subject,  as  plainly 
to  shew  that  while  he  did  not  countenance 
those  fabulous  representations,  with  which  he 
must  certainly  have  been  acquainted,  in  their 
schools,  he  yet  regarded  their  doctrine  as  essen- 
tially true. 

IV.  The  Creation  of  Angels,-  their  Perfections, 
and  Number. 

1.  The  Bible  teaches  us  nothing  definitely 
respecting  the  origin  of  angels.  But  when  it 
represents  all  things  as  coming  from  God,  it 
must  clearly  be  understood  to  imply  that  angels 
also  derive  their  existence  from  him.  Paul  says 
expressly,  Col.  i.  16,  "God  made  all  things, 
visible  and  invisible.'1''  Their  creation  is  not, 
indeed,  mentioned  by  Moses  in  his  account  of 
the  creation.  And  as  he  undertakes  to  describe 
the  creation  of  only  the  visible  world,  their  crea- 
tion did  not  come  within  the  compass  of  his 
plan.  Vide  s.  49. 

The  question  has  been  asked,  On  which  day 
of  the  creation  were  the  angels  made  ?  and  at 
least  an  historical  view  of  the  opinions  enter- 
tained on  this  subject  must  here  be  exhibited, 
(a)  Some  have  held,  that  the  angels  were  cre- 
ated before  the  visible  world,  and  that  this  is 
the  reason  why  Moses  does  not  mention  them. 
Of  this  opinion  were  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Hie- 
ronymus,  John  of  Damascus,  and  others,  among 
the  ancients;  and  among  the  moderns,  Heil- 
mann,  Michaelis,  and  others.  (£)  Others  held 
that  ano-els  were  created  after  man,  because  the 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


209 


Creator  proceeded  in  his  work  from  the  lower 
to  the  higher ;  and  so,  as  his  last  upon  the  earth, 
created  man.  So  Gennadius,  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. But  this  opinion  was  opposed  by  Augus- 
tine. It  has  been  advocated  in  modern  times 
by  Schubert  of  Helmstadt.  (c)  Others  still 
maintain  that  angels  were  created  on  the  first 
of  the  six  days,  when,  as  they  suppose,  the  hu- 
man soul  and  other  simple  and  incorporeal 
beings  were  made,  and  were  stationed  as  spec- 
tators, or  employed  as  assistants,  of  the  remain- 
ing work.  So  Theodoret  of  Mopsvestia,  Augus- 
tine, Peter  of  Lombardy,  and  others;  and  in 
modern  times,  Calovius,  who  appealed  to  Job, 
xxxviii.  7,  (vide  No.  I.,)  Seiler,  and  others. 
Some  hold  that  they  were  created  on  the  fourth 
day,  because  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  were  then 
created,  in  connexion  with  which  angelic  spirits 
are  always  enumerated. 

2.  The  perfections  with  which  angels  were 

endued  can  be  ascertained  only  from  the  analogy 

of  those  of  the  human  soul.     Vide  No  II.  and 

Morus,  p.  88,  s.  9.     Their  intellectual  poviers 

must  be  greater  than  our  own ;  they  must  pos 

sess  more  strength  of  thought  and  clearness  of 

conception.  Their  wora/ powers,  the  perfections 

of  their  will,  must  also  be  greater  than  ours 

For  them,  therefore,  to  persevere  in  holiness 

must  accordingly  be  easier  than  for  men ;  and 

hence  the  guilt  incurred  by  them  in  their  fall  is 

represented  as  far  greater  than  that  incurred  by 

men  in  their  apostasy.   We  are  unable,  however 

to    determine  the    exact   measure    of  angeli 

powers  and  excellences.     From  the  fact  tha 

men  have  a  state  of  probation  (status  gratis 

allowed  them,  in  which  their  virtue  may  be  ex 

ercised  and  confirmed,  and  from  which  they 

pass  to  a  state  of  perfection,  enjoyment,  and  re 

ward,   (status  glorias,)  we  conclude,  that   th 

case  is  the  same  with  regard  to  angels.     Th 

New  Testament  says  nothing  expressly  respect 

ing  the  perfections  of  angels,  except  that  the 

possess  greater  strength  and  power  than  men 

2  Pet.  ii.  11,  ia%v'C  xai  SuWjUst  jtisi/'^ovfj.     Henc 

the   phrase   ayysXoe,    8vva.p,e^,   2  Thess.   i. 

Hence  also  the  word  oyyctos  is  used  adjectively 

like  ©EOS,  to  denote  the  excellence  of  a  thing 

2  Sam.  xiv.  17,  20,  the  wisdom  of  angels;  P 

Ixxviii.  25,  the  food  of  angels  ,•  Acts,  vi.  1 

the  face  of  angels. 

3.  The  number  of  the  angels  is  by  some  r 
presented  as  very  great ;  and  they  justify  th 
representation  by  arguments  a  priori.  God  ha 
made,  they  say,  a  great  number  of  creatures  o 
all  the  different  kinds,  even  in  the  materia 
world ;  and  it  is  therefore  just  to  suppose  th 
in  the  more  exalted  sphere  of  spirit  the  creatur 
of  his  power  are  still  more  numerous.  An 
indeed,  the  Bible  always  describes  God  as  su 
rounded  by  a  great  multitude  of  heavenly  se 
vants.  Vide  Dan.  vii.  10 ;  Ps.  Ixviii.  17 ;  Jud 
27 


r.  14;  Matt.  xxvi.  53.   Cf.  s.  58,  and  Morus, 
89,  note. 

V.  Division  of  Angels. 
Angels  are  divided  into  good  and  evil  in  refer- 
nce  to  their  moral  condition.     There  is  no  dis- 
nct  mention  of  apostate  angels  in  the  Bible  be- 
re  the  Babylonian  captivity ;  though  from  this 
lence  it  does  not  follow  that  the  idea  of  them 
as  wholly  unknown  to  the  ancient  Hebrews, 
ide  s.  58,  II.  3.     This  idea,  however,  even  if 
had  before  existed,  was  more  distinctly  re- 
ealed  and  developed  at  the  time  of  the  exile, 
nd  afterwards.     It  was  sanctioned  by  Christ 
nd  the  apostles,  and  constituted  a  part  of  their 
aith,  as  really  as  it  did  of  the  faith  of  the  Jews 
ho  were  contemporary  with  them.   The  name, 
ml  or  bad  angels,  was  taken  from  Ps.  Ixxviii. 
9,  the  only  passage  in  which  it  occurs  in  the 
Jible ;  though  even  in  this  passage  it  does  not 
enote  disobedient  angels,  evil  in  a  moral  re- 
pect;  for  in  this  sense  the  phrase  evil  angels  is 
ever  used  in  the  Bible ;  nor,  on  the  contrary, 
s  the  phrase  good  angels  ever  used  to  denote 
hose  who  are  morally  good,  though  indeed  they 
re  sometimes  called  holy  in  this  sense.     But 
Ithough  this   term  is  not   derived   from  the 
acred  writers,  but  from  the  schoolmen,  it  should 
unquestionably  be  retained,  since  the  meaning 
t  conveys  is  wholly  accordant  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible.     The  term  angel  is  applied  in  the 
Bible  to  evil  spirits  only  in  reference  to  their 
brmer  state,  when  they  were  still  the  servants 
of  God.     Vide  2  Pet.  ii.  4.     Since  they  have 
apostatized,  they  can  no  more,  strictly  speaking, 
)e  denominated  his  angels — i.  e.,  servants,  mes- 
sengers.    On  the  contrary,  they  are  called  in 
the  Bible,  oi-yy^ot  tov  Siafiotov,  or  tov  Sarcwa, 
Matt.  xxv.  41,  Rev.  xii.  9.     The  phrase,  bad  or 
unclean  spirits  (not  angels,}  occurs  frequently  in 
the  New  Testament,  especially  in  the  writings 
of  Luke.   Paul,  too,  uses  the  phrase  rtvcvftoftxa 
Ttowfpt'oj,  Eph.  vi.  12.     Whenever  the  term 
yyetot  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  without 
qualification,  good  spirits  or  holy  angels  are  al- 
ways intended  ;  as  Matt.  iv.  11,  where  it  is  op- 
posed to  SuxjSoTioj.  We  proceed  now  to  consider 
these  two  classes  more  particularly. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  ANGELS. 

SECTION  LX. 

OF  THE  PRESENT  STATE  AND  EMPLOYMENT  OF 
HOLY  ANGELS. 

I.  Their  Present  State. 

1.  ANGELS  are  properly  regarded,  according 
to  the  general  remarks,  s.  59,  IV.  2,  as  beings 
possessing  great  intellectual  excellence— intelli- 
s  2 


210 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


gence,  knowledge,  and  experience.  Hence, 
whatever  is  great  and  excellent  is  in  the  Bible 
compared  with  them ;  great  wisdom  is  called 
the  wisdom  of  angels;  excellent  food,  the  food 
of  angels;  beautiful  appearance,  the  appearance 
of  angels.  Their  advice  is  accordingly  said  to 
be  asked  for  by  God  ;  they  are  summoned  into 
council  before  him,  and  compose,  as  it  were, 
his  senate  or  divan.  Cf.  Job,  i.  and  ii.  This 
does  not  imply  that  God  needed  their  council ; 
but  rather,  that  he  wished  to  instruct  and  em- 
ploy them. 

We  should  beware,  however,  of  exaggerated 
conceptions  of  their  knowledge,  and  should 
never  ascribe  to  them  anything  like  divine  in- 
telligence and  wisdom.  We  should  not  sup- 
pose, for  example,  that  they  are  acquainted  with 
the  thoughts  of  men,  or  that  they  have  a  know- 
ledge which  borders  on  omniscience.  The 
Bible,  while  it  describes  their  great  superiority 
over  us,  still  represents  their  knowledge  as  very 
limited  and  defective  in  comparison  with  the 
knowledge  of  God,  and  as  capable  of  great  in- 
crease. In  Job,  iv.  18,  God  is  said  to  charge 
his  angels  with  folly.  In  Mark,  xiii.  32,  the 
angels  of  God  are  said  not  to  know  the  hour  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  1  Pet.  i.  12,  stj 
a  erti^vfiovdiiV  ayysyot  rtapaxv^ai. 

2.  They  are  also  described  as  possessing 
great  moral  perfection,  which  is  called  their  holi- 
ness. Thus  they  are  sometimes  called  aytot,  in 
opposition  to  axa^ap-r'of  also  ixtexitol,  Deo  pro- 
bati,  elect,  1  Tim.  v.  21.  Hence  they  take  their 
greatest  pleasure  in  witnessing  and  promoting 
integrity  and  virtue.  In  Luke,  xv.  10,  they  are 
said  to  rejoice  over  the  repentance  of  sinners. 
It  is  in  general  true,  that  the  more  advanced  in 
holiness  one  is  himself,  the  more  pleasure  he 
takes  in  that  of  others,  the  more  interested  is  he 
in  the  diffusion  of  morality  and  piety,  and  the 
more  distressed  at  the  prevalence  of  vice.  And 
if  this  is  the  case  with  man,  how  much  more 
with  spirits  of  a  higher  order!  We  see  here, 
why  the  plan  of  redemption  engages  the  interest 
of  the  whole  spiritual  world,  and  fills  angels 
with  delight  and  wonder  when  they  contemplate 
it,  as  is  represented  in  the  New  Testament; 
1  Pet.  i.  xii. ;  Eph.  iii.  10.  The  angels  are  de- 
scribed as  very  actively  engaged  before  and  at 
the  birth  of  Christ,  Luke,  i.  They  sung  praises 
to  God  on  this  occasion,  and  announced  his  ad- 
vent to  men,  Luke,  ii.  With  equal  activity  and 
interest  they  attended  him  during  his  life,  mi- 
nistered to  his  wants,  witnessed  his  passion  and 
resurrection,  and  were  interested  in  whatever 
concerned  him.  The  union  of  so  many  natural 
and  moral  excellences  in  the  angels  is  the  rea- 
son why  great  wisdom  is  also  ascribed  to  them. 

3.  From  what  has  now  been  said,  we  may 
determine  what,  in  a  general  view,  is  their  con- 
dition. It  is  always  described  as  one  of  the 


greatest  happiness;  for  of  this,  their  holiness, 
which  is  the  essential  condition  of  happiness  in 
moral  beings,  renders  them  eminently  suscepti- 
ble. Vide  s.  51,  II.  They  are  said  in  the 
Bible  to  stand  in  the  most  intimate  connexion 
with  God,  and  to  behold  his  countenance  conti- 
nually. Matt,  xviii.  10.  When  the  sacred 
writers  would  describe  the  blessedness  of  which 
we  shall  hereafter  be  partakers,  they  do  it  by 
saying,  that  we  shall  then  be  like  the  angels  of 
God  ;  torayyttot,  Luke,  xx.  36.  It  is  sometimes 
said,  that  the  angels  are  now  so  confirmed  in 
goodness  that  they  cannot  sin.  We  cannot  sup- 
pose, however,  that  there  is  any  absolute  impos- 
sibility of  their  sinning;  for  this  would  be  in- 
consistent with  their  freedom.  It  is  true,  in- 
deed, that  they  never  will  intentionally  and 
deliberately  commit  sin,  or  wish  to  do  so.  Still 
to  sin  must  be  possible  to  them,  and  to  all  finite 
beings,  in  short,  to  all  but  God  himself. 

Note.  —  The  schoolmen,  like  the  Rabbins  be- 
fore them,  proposed  many  questions  on  this 
subject  which  were  wholly  unanswerable;  and 
many,  too,  which  were  extremely  frivolous, 
which  may  also  be  justly  said  of  the  answers 
which  they  gave.  Vide  Morus,  p.  88,  n.  5. 
Among  these  questions  were  the  following:  — 
Whether  an  angel  could  be  in  more  than  one 
place  at  the  same  time1?  Whether  more  than 
one  angel  could  be  in  the  same  place  at  the  same 
time1?  Whether  they  spake  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, or  what  language  was  meant  by  the 
,  spoken  of  1  Cor.  xiii.  1  1 


II.  The  Employments  of  Holy  Angels. 

They  are  represented  in  the  Bible  as  the  ser- 
vants of  Divine  Providence,  and  as  chiefly  em- 
ployed in  promoting  the  good  of  men.  The 
text,  Heb.  i.  14,  teaches  explicitly  that  they  are 
all  spirits,  engaged  in  the  service  of  God,  and 
employed  by  him  for  the  good  of  those  whom 
he  will  save.  In  Matt.  xxvi.  53,  we  read  that 
God  could  have  sent  more  than  twelve  legions 
of  angels  to  the  service  of  Christ.  Cf.  Matt. 
xviii.  10;  and  also  Psa.  xxxiv.  7,  and  xci.  11, 
where  it  is  said  that  they  encamp  about  the 
righteous,  and  bear  them  up  in  their  hands,  both 
of  which  are  proverbial  phrases.  These  are  the 
general  representations  contained  in  the  Bible 
respecting  the  employments  of  angels;  and  be- 
yond these  the  teacher  of  religion  should  not  at- 
tempt to  go  in  the  instructions  which  he  gives. 
There  are  two  cautions  which  it  may  be  well  for 
him  to  suggest  in  connexion  with  this  subject. 

(a)  We  are  unable,  in  any  particular  cases 
of  providential  protection  or  deliverance  which 
may  occur  at  the  present  time,  to  determine 
whether  the  ministration  of  angels  has  been  em- 
ployed, or  how  far  their  intervention  has  extend- 
ed. It  is  sufficient  for  us  to  know  that  we  are 
watched  over  and  provided  for  by  the  providence 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


211 


of  God,  and  that  his  angels  are  employed  in 
our  behalf;  and  it  is  of  no  importance  to  us  to 
be  informed  of  the  particular  cases  in  which 
their  agency  is  exerted.  If  we  may  believe  that 
God  is  not  confined  to  the  established  course  of 
nature,  that  he  may  sometimes  turn  aside  and 
afford  us  special  and  extraordinary  assistance, 
protection,  deliverance,  and  instruction,  through 
the  instrumentality  of  his  angels,  as  we  are 
clearly  taught  to  believe  in  the  Bible,  this  surely 
must  be  sufficient  to  comfort  and  encourage  us 
during  the  dangers  and  difficulties  of  life,  even 
if  may  not  know  when  and  how  these  services 
are  performed. 

(b)  We  are  not  to  conclude  that  because  ex- 
traordinary appearances  and  interpositions  of 
angels  are  recorded  in  the  holy  scriptures  as 
having  taken  place  in  former  times,  similar  oc- 
currences are  to  be  expected  at  the  present  day. 
The  events  described  in  such  passages  as  Matt. 
i.  24 ;  ii.  13 ;  Luke,  i.  11,  26 ;  ii.  9 ;  xxii.  43 ; 
Acts,  xxvii.  23;  should  be  exhibited  by  the  re- 
ligious teacher,  as  real  occurrences,  indeed,  but 
as  peculiar  to  that  day.  This  is  far  better  than 
to  attempt  to  explain  away  the  obvious  meaning 
of  these  passages,  as  has  often  been  done,  to  the 
great  injury  of  the  interests  of  truth. 

Moreover,  the  Bible  does  not  teach  that  an- 
gels are  present  with  men  at  all  times  and  under 
all  circumstances,  and  that  they  are  conversant 
uninterruptedly  with  our  affairs.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  are  generally  represented  as  present 
and  active  only  in  extraordinary  cases,  in  unex- 
pected events,  the  occurrence  of  which  cannot 
easily  be  explained  without  supposing  their 
agency.  Vide  Isaiah,  xxxvii.  36;  Acts,  xii.  7. 
Cf.  s.  59,  and  Morus,  p.  89.  Hence  we  find  them 
employed  at  the  giving  of  the  law,  the  last  judg- 
ment, and  other  great  events  of  this  nature,  as 
even  the  Jews  supposed.  Vide  Matt.  xiii.  39, 
41 ;  xvi.  27;  xxv.  31 ;  2  Thess.  i.  7.  They  are 
frequently  exhibited,  especially  in  the  prophetic 
writings,  in  a  symbolical  and  parabolical  man- 
ner ;  and  much  which  is  there  said  concerning 
them  must  be  understood  as  merely  figurative 
representations— e.  g.,  Isa.  vi.  1,  seq. ;  Dan,  x. 
13;  Zac.  iii.  1;  Luke,  xvi.  22.  But  at  the 
ground  of  all  these  figurative  and  parabolical 
representations  lies  the  truth,  that  angels  are 
actively  employed  for  the  good  of  men.  The 
source  of  the  imagery  contained  in  these  pas- 
sages has  already  been  pointed  out  in  s.  58. 
We  cannot,  however,  leave  this  subject  without 
considering  more  fully  the  opinions  which  have 
been  entertained  respecting  two  particular  of- 
fices or  works  ascribed  to  angels. 

1.  One  of  these  offices  is  that  of  guardian 
angels.  The  general  notion  of  them  is,  that  they 
are  appointed  to  superintend  particular  countries 
and  provinces  of  the  earth,  and  also  to  watch 
over  individual  men,  and  administer  their  con- 


cerns. We  find  no  clear  evidence  that  this  doc- 
trine was  held  by  the  Jews  before  the  Babylo- 
nian exile ;  and  many  suppose  that  they  adopted 
it  for  the  first  time  in  Chaldea.  The  origin  of 
this  opinion  at  that  time  is  accounted  for  on  the 
supposition  that  angels  were  compared  with  the 
viceroys  who  ruled  over  the  provinces  of  the 
vast  oriental  kingdoms.  We  find,  indeed,  the 
doctrine  that  angels  were  guardian  spirits,  in  a 
general  sense,  developed  in  the  earlier  books  of 
the  Old  Testament;  but  not  so  clearly  the  opi- 
nion that  each  particular  man  and  country  had 
an  angel  as  an  appropriate  and  permanent  guar- 
dian. The  guardian  spirit  (rSa  "H^SD)  men- 
tioned Job,  xxxiii.  23,  as  promoting  the  virtue 
of  man,  and  interceding  for  him  when  he  lies 
desperately  sick,  does  not  seem  to  be  one  among 
many  of  the  same  kind,  but  altogether  extraor- 
dinary. He  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  a  man, 
Vide  Dathe  and  Schultens,  in  loc.  Those, 
however,  who  are  spoken  of  in  Dan.  x.  13,  20, 
are  unquestionably  guardian  angels  over  parti- 
cular countries  and  people.  Daniel,  in  a  vision, 
beholds  Michael,  the  guardian  angel  of  the  Jews, 
contending  with  the  guardian  angel  of  the  Per- 
sian empire.  In  whatever  way  this  passage 
may  be  interpreted,  it  discloses  the  idea  that 
angels  were  intrusted  with  the  charge  of  parti- 
cular countries  and  people.  This  idea  was  so 
familiar  to  the  Seventy,  and  so  important  in  their 
view,  that  they  introduced  it  surreptitiously  even 
into  their  version  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  thus 
contributed  to  its  wider  diffusion — e.  g.,  they 
rendered  the  passage,  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  9,  xata, 
dpt^ttov  dyyiXcoi'  ®?ou.  And  DTlSx-^ja,  Ttot  ©sov» 
Gen.  vi.  2,  is  rendered  by  Philo  and  Josephus 
ayysTtoi.  ®fov.  Cf.  Gen.  xi.  1, 2, 5, 9,  They 
supposed  that  evil  spirits  reigned  over  heathen 
countries — =-an  opinion  respecting  which  we  shall 
say  more  hereafter.  The  Rabbins  held,  that 
there  are  seventy  people  and  as  many  languages, 
over  which  seventy  angels  preside.  Vide  the 
paraphrase  of  Jonathan  on  Gen.  xi.  and  Deut. 
xxxii.  This  idea  was  the  source  of  many  other 
representations.  Every  star,  element,  plant, 
and  especially  every  man,  was  now  supposed  to 
have  an  appropriate  angel  for  a  guardian. 

We  find  some  traces  of  the  latter  opinion — 
viz.,  that  every  man  had  his  own  guardian  an- 
gel, even  in  the  New  Testament.  In  Acts,  xii. 
15,  when  they  could  not  believe  that  it  was 
Peter  himself  who  appeared,  they  said,  6  ayyfXoj 
avtov  tattr.  But  Luke  merely  narrates  the 
words  of  another,  without  assenting  to  the  opi- 
nion expressed.  Vide  Wetstein,  in  loc.  Some 
suppose  that  in  Matt,  xviii.  10,  Christ  himself 
utters  and  sanctions  the  opinion  in  question: 
"Their  (jtuxpwv)  angels  behold  the  face  of  my 
Father."  But  neither  does  this  passage  author- 
ize the  opinion  that  each  particular  man  has  his 
appropriate  guardian  angel.  Their  angels  may 


212 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


mean,  those  who  guard  and  preserve  them  when- 
ever and  wherever  occasion  might  require;  ac- 
cording to  Heb.  i.  14 ;  John,  i.  51.  It  does  not 
necessarily  imply  that  there  is  a  particular  angel 
appointed  to  guard  each  individual  man  and  to  be 
his  constant  attendant.  The  word  ptxpot,  which 
primarily  signifies  children^  means  also  those  who 
have  the  disposition  of  children^  and  are  therefore 
liable  to  be  despised  and  abused.  Videver.  14 
and  Matt.  xi.  11.  The  meaning  of  the  whole 
passage  may  be  thus  expressed : — As  we  are 
very  careful  not  to  offend  the  favourites  of  those 
who  stand  high  in  favour  with  earthly  kings, 
we  should  be  still  more  careful  not  to  offend  the 
favourites  of  Divine  Providence — the  humble 
pious — who  are  intrusted  to  the  special  care  of 
those  who  stand  high  in  the  favour  of  God,  (who 
behold  his  face.) 

The  Jews  believed,  moreover,  that  angels  ad- 
ministered the  affairs  of  men  before  God,  brought 
their  supplications  and  complaints  to  him,  &c. 
Many  of  these  opinions  afterwards  prevailed  in 
the  Christian  church,  and  are  found  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  earlier  Christian  teachers.  Much  is 
said  respecting  the  care  of  angels  over  particular 
kingdoms  of  the  earth  by  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
(Strom,  b.  7,)  Origen,  (Contra  Gels.  b.  4  and 
8 ;  also  b.  5,  10,  26,  30,  31 ;  Homilia  11  in  Nu- 
meros;  and  in  Gen.  homil.  9,)  and  Eusebius, 
(Demonstr.  Evang.  iv.  7,  seq.)  The  latter 
speaks  of  the  care  of  angels  over  seas,  fruits,  &c. 
The  angel  of  fire  is  spoken  of,  in  conformity 
with  the  opinions  of  the  Jews,  in  Rev.  xiv.  18; 
the  angel  of  water,  Rev.  xvi.  5;  John,  v.  4. 
Similar  passages  respecting  the  guardian  angels 
of  particular  countries  and  people  occur  in  the 
writings  of  the  Platonists,  Jamblicus,  Julian, 
and  others.  Vide  the  work  of  Ode,  before  cited, 
s.  779,  ff.  Much  is  said  respecting  the  guardian 
angels  of  particular  men,  by  Hennas,  Pastor,  b. 
ii.,  and  Origen,  who  says,  among  other  things, 
(Adv.  Celsum,  i.  8,)  that  the  angels  bring  the 
prayers  of  men  to  God,  according  to  the  opinion 
of  the  Jews.  So  say  Eusebius,  Basilius,  Hiero- 
nymus,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  and  most  of 
the  schoolmen;  and  among  protestant  theolo- 
gians, Baier,  Er.  Schmidt,  Gerhard,  and  others. 
This  idea  of  guardian  spirits  was  likewise 
widely  diffused  among  the  ancient  Greeks  and 
Romans.  It  is  found  in  the  writings  of  Hesiod, 
though  not  in  Homer.  It  was  received,  and 
philosophically  discussed  by  Socrates,  and  by 
Plato  in  various  of  his  works.  Plotinus,  Por- 
phyry, Jamblicus,  and  Proclus,  taught  it  in  the 
manner  peculiar  to  the  new  Platonists.  It  was 
likewise  taught  in  a  similar  manner  at  Alexan- 
dria and  the  other  schools  of  Christian  philoso- 
phy, where  the  maxims  of  the  new  Platonists 
were  adopted.  Thus  this  opinion  was  rapidly 
and  widely  diffused. 

2.  The  assistance  of  angels  at  the  giving  of 


the  law.  They  are  said  to  have  been  present 
on  this  solemn  occasion,  and  to  have  been  em- 
ployed as  the  instruments  through  whom  the 
law  was  given.  Moses  says  nothing  which 
either  proves  or  disproves  this  opinion.  But 
we  find,  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  17,  that  Jehovah  was  on 
Sinai  with  thousands  of  angels.  We  find  also 
in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Deut.  xxxiii.  2, 
that  God  appeared  at  the  giving  of  the  law  avv 
pvpidat, — ix  6f|twv  avr'ov  ayyfTiot  /JUT?'  a/vtov. 
This  opinion  was  universally  received  both 
among  Jews  and  Christians  at  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  and  sometimes  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament.  Heb.  ii.  2,  8i  ayyshuv  Tiato^Etj 
(i.  e.,  i/6/ioj.)  Acts,  vii.  53  ;  Gal.  iii.  19, 
tj  §&'  ayysXwv.  Now,  because  God  em- 
ployed angels  as  his  servants  at  the  giving  of 
the  law,  and  published  it  through  them,  and,  as 
the  Jews  supposed,  governed  the  world,  and 
especially  the  Jewish  church,  by  them,  Paul 
says,  Heb.  ii.  5,  that  the  former  world  was  sub- 
ject to  angels,  but  the  times  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  Christ  alone.  The  same  opinion  re- 
specting the  giving  of  the  law  by  angels  is 
found  in  Josephus,  Antiq.  xv.  5.  The  Israel- 
ites, he  says,  received  the  law  &'  dyysTuov  rtapa 
©f  ov.  It  is  also  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
later  Rabbins.  Vide  Wetstein  on  Gal.  iii.  19. 
Cf.  s.  58. 

Note. — The  manner  in  which  this  whole  sub- 
ject should  be  treated  in  practical  discourse  is 
well  exhibited  by  Moms,  p.  87,  s.  3.  The 
great  principle  which  should  be  first  of  all  in- 
culcated is,  that  Divine  Providence  aids  those  de- 
pendent on  its  care  in  various  ways,  and  fre- 
quently in  a  way  wholly  unknown  and  inexpli- 
cable to  us.  This  should  be  shewn  by  examples. 
Among  other  means,  angels  are  employed,  as 
we  are  taught  in  the  Bible,  for  the  good  and 
safety  of  man.  And  since  this  is  so,  it  is  alike 
our  duty  and  privilege  to  live  quietly  and  peace- 
fully, with  trust  in  that  Providence  which  em- 
ploys so  many  means,  both  of  an  ordinary  and 
extraordinary  nature,  for  the  good  of  those  who 
comply  with  the  conditions  prescribed  in  the 
gospel.  We  need  not  be  distressed  even  in 
view  of  death ;  but  may  go  with  a  cheerful  heart 
from  this  world  into  the  next,  knowing  that  we 
are  attended  by  the  angels  of  God,  and  shall  be 
borne  by  them  into  the  bosom  of  Abraham. 
Vide  Luke,  xvi.  22. 

SECTION  LXI. 

OF  THE  CLASSES  OF  GOOD  ANGELS  ;  THEIR  NAMES  ; 
AND  THE  WORSHIP  RENDERED  THEM. 

I.  Classes  of  Good  Angels. 

ANGELS  are  described  as  existing  in  a  society 
composed  of  members  of  unequal  dignity, 
power,  and  excellence;  as  having  chiefs  and 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


213 


rulers,  and,  in  short,  as  exhibiting  all  those  dif- 
ferences of  rank  and  order  which  appear  in 
human  society,  and  among  the  courtiers  and 
ministers  of  earthly  kings.  It  is  hardly  conceiv- 
able that  a  great  society  should  exist  without 
higher  orders,  and  those  of  a  lower  and  sub- 
ordinate grade.  Hence  the  Biblical  represen- 
tations that  angels  are  divided  into  various 
classes  (ordines),  over  which  chiefs  are  placed, 
and  to  which  appropriate  employments  are  as- 
signed. 

The  conception  is  not  clearly  expressed  in 
the  books  written  before  the  Babylonian  capti- 
vity, (vide  s.  58;)  but  it  is  developed  in  the 
books  written  during  the  exile  and  afterwards, 
especially  in  the  writings  of  Daniel  and  Zecha- 
riah.  In  Zech.  i.  11,  an  angel  of  the  higher 
order,  one  who  stands  before  God,  appears  in 
contrast  with  angels  of  an  inferior  class,  whom 
he  employs  as  his  messengers  and  agents.  Cf. 
iii.  7.  In  Dan.  x.  13,  the  appeltetions  p'tyson  -\&, 
and  in  xii.  1,  Svinn  nfe>,  are  given  to  Michael. 
The  Grecian  Jews  rendered  this  appellation  by 
the  term  dp^ayysxoj,  which  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament,  Jude,  ver.  9,  and  1  Thess.  iv.  16, 
where  we  are  taught  that  Christ  will  appear  to 
judge  the  world  sv  fyuvy  dp^ayystov.  This  term 
denotes,  as  the  very  analogy  of  language  teaches, 
a  chief  of  the  angels,  one  superior  to  the  other 
angels ;  like  dp^tspfv?,  dp^c-oiT'paT'^yos,  dp£icft>- 
vaytoyo?.  The  opinion,  therefore,  that  there  are 
various  orders  of  angels  was  not  peculiar  to  the 
Jews;  but  was  held  by  Christians  at  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  and  sanctioned  by  the  apostles 
themselves. 

These  distinct  divisions  in  which  angels  are 
arranged  according  to  their  rank  in  the  writings 
of  the  Jews  of  later  times,  were,  however,  either 
almost  or  wholly  unknown  to  the  Jews  contem- 
porary with  the  apostles ;  in  proof  of  which  it 
may  be  mentioned,  among  other  things,  that 
Philo,  who  has  much  to  say  respecting  angels, 
takes  no  notice  of  any  such  divisions.  The  ap- 
pellations, dp^at,  ffjovtfi/'ac.,  8vvdiA£i$,  ^povot,  xv- 
ptoT^fcs,  are  indeed  applied  in  Ephes.  i.  21,  Col. 
i.  16,  and  other  parallel  texts,  as  they  often  are 
in  the  writings  of  the  Jews  to  the  angels  ;  but 
not  to  them  exclusively,  and  with  the  intention 
of  denoting  their  particular  classes ;  but  to  them 
in  common  with  all  beings  possessed  of  might 
and  power,  those  visible  as  well  as  invisible,  on 
earth  as  well  as  in  heaven.  The  same  is  true 
of  1  Peter,  iii.  22.  A  general  division  of  angels 
into  chiefs  and  subjects  is  indicated  in  Rev.  xii. 
7,  6  Mt^cwfk  xai  ot  dyyfkoc  cuv-r'ov,  those  that  be- 
longed  to  his  train,  and  were  subject  to  him.  But 
these  general  classes  were  greatly  subdivided  by 
the  later  Jews.  The  fathers,  too,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  their  Platonic  ideas,  went  far  beyond 
the  instructions  of  the  Bible  in  classifying  the 
angels.  An  example  of  this  may  be  seen  in  the 


work,  De  Hierarchia  Coelesti,  which  appeared 
about  the  fifth  century,  and  was  falsely  ascribed 
to  Dionysius  Areopagita — a  work  full  of  the 
most  extravagant  fictions  and  conceits.  This 
work  was  in  high  repute  with  Peter  of  Lom- 
bardy,  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  other  schoolmen, 
who  adopted  its  division  of  the  angels  into  nine 
classes. 

The  Cherubim  (ooro)  and  Seraphim  (a-'Eni?) 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  have  been  con- 
sidered by  some  as  forming  classes  of  angels. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  87,  s.  4.  But  (a)  Cherubim  are 
not,  properly  speaking,  angels,  but  originally 
hieroglyphical  figures  in  the  form  of  beasts ;  like 
the  sphynx  of  the  Egyptians,  the  bird-griffin, 
&c.  They  are  represented  as  bearing  God  when 
he  rides  over  the  heavens,  in  order  to  shoot  his 
lightnings,  and  hence  are  always  mentioned 
when  tempests  are  described,  Psalm  xcix.  1 ; 
Genesis,  iii.  24.  They  thus  came  to  be  used  as 
symbols  of  the  divine  majesty  and  power,  and 
as  such  were  placed  over  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant, as  pillars  of  the  throne,  and  engraven  on 
the  walls  of  the  temple.  They  were  variously 
composed  of  forms  of  men  and  beasts,  (two, 
rto^uop^a.)  Vide  Ezek.  i.  5,  seq. ;  Michaelis, 
De  Cherubis,  equis  tonantibus  Hebraeorum, 
Commentar.  Soc.  Scient.  Gottingae,  t.  i.  p.  157, 
seq.  The  four  beasts  (tflrrerapa  fwa)  in  the  Apo- 
calypse (which  in  their  form  resemble  the  Che- 
rubim) are  represented  indeed  as  endowed  with 
speech  and  reason,  and  as  serving  before  the 
throne  of  God  ;  and  yet  as  distinct  from  the  an- 
gels. Vide  Rev.  iv.  6,  seq.;  v.  8 — 14;  vi.  1, 
seq. ;  vii.,  xiv.,  xix.  (J)  The  Seraphim  appear 
only  in  the  prophetic  vision,  (Isaiah,  vi.  2,  6,) 
and  there,  judging  from  the  analogy  of  other 
passages,  would  seem  indeed  to  be  angels  who 
surround  the  throne  of  God ;  not,  however,  a 
particular  class  or  order  of  angels;  but  in  gene- 
ral, the  nobles  and  princes  of  heaven ;  the  name 
being  derived  from  the  Arabic  «  * -'•;  to  be 
noble,  excellent.  Cf.  Job.  i.  and  ii. 

II.  Names  of  Good  Angels. 

Wherever  there  are  many  of  the  same  kind  it 
becomes  necessary  to  make  use  of  appropriate 
names  to  ^distinguish  one  individual  from  an- 
other; and  so  it  was  with  regard  to  the  angels. 
Particular  names  are  given  to  some  of  them  in 
the  Bible,  by  which  we  are  able  to  distinguish 
between  them,  and  by  which  also,  as  some  Jews 
and  Christians  have  supposed,  they  are  actually 
denominated  in  heaven.  We  find  no  names 
given  to  particular  angels  in  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  written  before  the  Babylonian 
exile ;  they  occur  for  the  first  time  in  the  books 
written  during  the  captivity  and  afterwards ;  in 
Daniel,  and  the  Jewish  and  Christian  apocryphal 
writings.  These  names  are,  Michael,  Gabriel, 


214 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Raphael,  Uriel,  Jeremiel,  Sealthiel,  &c.  The  first 
two  only,  Michael  and  Gabriel,  are  found  in  our 
canonical  books.  Vide  Dan.  viii.— xii. ;  Luke, 
i.  19,  26 ;  Jude,  ver.  9 ;  Rev.  xii.  7. 

HI.  Worship  of  Good  Angels 
It  is  well  known  to  be  a  doctrine  which  still 
belongs  to  the  creed  of  the  Roman,  and,  to  some 
extent,  of  the  Grecian  church,  that  angels,  and 
indeed  the  souls  of  the  pious  dead,  should  be 
worshipped  and  invoked.  The  teachers  of  these 
churches,  however,  always  protest  decidedly 
against  paying  divine  worship  to  angels,  and 
contend  that  a  merely  civil  homage  should  be 
rendered  them,  and  that  they  should  be  suppli- 
cated to  intercede  for  us  with  God.  This,  in 
itself  considered,  is  not  sinful,  as  has  been  some- 
times unjustly  asserted.  It  is  not  improper  for 
me  to  request  even  a  pious  man  now  living  to 
intercede  with  God  for  me,  any  more  than  it  is 
improper  for  one  to  request  a  favourite  at  court 
to  intercede  for  him  with  the  king.  The  prac- 
tice of  invoking  the  aid  and  intercession  of  an- 
gels proceeds  on  the  supposition  that  they  are 
intimately  acquainted  with  the  affairs  of  men, 
and  hear  the  prayers  offered  up  to  them.  But 
this  supposition  is  unfounded ;  for  angels  are 
neither  omniscient  nor  omnipresent.  Vide  s. 
60,  II.  .To  invoke  their  aid,  therefore,  before 
we  know  that  they  will  hear  our  prayer,  is  as 
absurd  as  it  would  be  for  a  subject  at  a  great 
distance  from  court,  and  in  the  retirement  of  his 
own  house,  to  supplicate  the  aid  and  assistance 
of  the  prince  or  minister,  believing  that  his  re- 
quest would  be  regarded.  Hence  it  must  appear 
that  supplication  to  angels  and  saints  is  not  so 
sinful  as  it  is  irrational.  To  these  considera- 
tions we  may  add  the  following: — 

1.  The  Bible  furnishes  us  with  no  example 
of  the  invocation  of  an  absent  angel.     On  the 
contrary,  even  a  present  angel  is  represented  in 
Rev.  xix.  10  ;  xxii.  9,  as  seriously  displeased 
with  John,  who  fell  down  before  him,  because 
he  was  his  brother,  and,  like  him,  employed  in 
the  service  of  God,  (<yvv6ov7ioj.)     Again;  Paul 
teaches  (Heb.  ii.  5)  that  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation is  not  placed  under  the  control  of  angels. 
We  are  instructed  by  the  example  of  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  to  address  our  prayers  directly  to 
God  and  to  Christ,  and  that  we  do  not  need  the 
intercession  and  mediation  of  other  beings.     Re- 
specting the  passage,  Job,  xxxiii.  23,  seq.,  vide 
s.  60,  II. 

2.  The  propriety  of  this  practice  must  like- 
wise be  rendered  very  suspicious  by  the  fact, 
which  experience  has  abundantly  established, 
that  wherever  the  invocation  of  saints  and  angels 
is  allowed,  the  great  mass  of  mankind,  notwith- 
standing all  the  protestations  of  their  teachers, 
do  actually  render  them,  not  merely  civil  ho- 
mage, but  divine  worship,  and  regard  them  very 


much  as  the  heathen  do  their  gods.  This  has 
been  seen  ever  since  the  worship  of  saints  and 
images  was  introduced  in  the  fifth  and  sixth 
centuries. 

The  following  remarks  will  shew  how  the 
worship  of  angels  came  to  be  authorized  and 
established  in  the  church.  It  was  an  ancient 
Jewish  opinion  that  angels  were  intermediate 
persons  between  God  and  men,  that  they  con- 
ducted our  affairs  with  God,  and  carried  our  de- 
sires and  prayers  before  him.  This  opinion  is 
found  in  the  apocryphal  writings,  Tob.  xii. 
12 — 15;  also  in  the  book  of  Enoch,  and  is  al- 
luded to,  Rev.  viii.  3,  4.  We  do  not  find,  how- 
ever, that  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles  ever  worshipped  the  angels  or  invoked 
their  aid.  Some  indeed  thought  (and  so  Peirce 
and  Michaelis)  that  they  found  an  allusion  to 
the  worship  of  angels  in  Col.  ii.  18,  19,  where 
Paul  warns  his  readers  against  the  •tartscvofypo- 
fivvq,  and  the  ^fijGxs ta  dyyffoov  of  some  seditious 
persons  of  Jewish  feelings.  But  faatewo^poavvij 
and  ^p)7<mict  ayyt^cov  here  signify  humility  and 
worship,  like  that  of  angels,  to  which  these  per- 
sons pretended ;  like  ao^ia  oyys^wv.  Vide  s. 
59,  iv.  2,  ad  finem.  It  is  synonymous  with 
£>EV&p>7<rsMt'a,  ver.  23.  What  the  Jews  believed 
with  regard  to  their  angels,  the  Grecians,  and 
especially  the  Platonists,  believed  with  regard 
to  their  demons — viz.,  that  they  conducted  the 
affairs  of  men  with  God,  and  laid  our  prayers 
and  offerings  before  him.  Hence  this  idea  be- 
carne'more  and  more  prevalent  among  the  Gre- 
cian Jews  and  Christian  teachers.  It  occurs  in 
the  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries — e.  g.,  in  Origen,  (Contra  Cel- 
surn,  viii.  36,)  who  says,  in  cap.  57  of  the  same 
work,  that  angels  deserve  honour  and  thanks 
from  men.  The  Valentinians  and  other  Gnos- 
tics are  said  by  the  ancients  to  have  gone  fur- 
ther, and  to  have  rendered  a  kind  of  divine 
worship  to  the  angels.  But  this  was  always 
very  much  disapproved  by  the  catholic  fathers, 
until  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries ;  as  we  see 
from  the  writings  of  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Irenaeus,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Augustine,  and 
Theodoret,  and  by  the  acts  of  the  Council  at 
Laodicea,  about  the  year  360,  Can.  35.  But 
when  at  length  the  worship  of  images  and  saints 
came  in  vogue  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries, 
we  find  that  not  only  the  great  mass  of  the  peo- 
ple rendered  religious  homage  to  saints  and  an- 
gels as  to  deities,  but  that  even  many  Christian 
teachers  expressed  themselves  in  such  an  incau- 
tious manner  as  to  justify  this  practice.  Not  a 
single  respectable  theologian,  however,  has  ever 
directly  defended  it,  nor  is  it  now  defended  in 
the  Romish  church.  The  Trent  Catechism  con- 
tains the  doctrine,  Jlngelos  pro  iis  provinciis  pre- 
ces  fundere  quibus  praesunt ;  and  the  Romish 
church  teaches,  that  it  is  proper  to  pray  to  angels 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


215 


for  holiness,  and  to  seek  their  intercession  in 
articulo  mortis.  Vide  Jo.  Himmelius,  De  Na- 
tura  Verse  ac  Religiosae  Invocationis,  Contra 
Barthold.;  Nihusium,  1624.  Protestant  theo- 
logians— e.  g.,  Brochmand  and  Baumgarten — 
have  allowed  that  angels  may  give  good  coun- 
sel, awaken  pious  thoughts,  and  produce  plea- 
surable emotions. 


CHAPTER   II. 

OF  THE  FALLEN  ANGELS,  OR  EVIL  SPIRITS. 

SECTION  LXII. 

OF  THE  EXISTENCE    OF    EVIL  SPIRITS;    AND  THEIR 
APOSTASY. 

IN  addition  to  the  works  of  Ode,  Cotta,  and 
others,  mentioned  s.  58,  note,  the  student  should 
consult  the  following,  in  reference  to  the  history 
of  this  doctrine.  J.  G.  Mayer,  Historia  Diaholi, 
&c.,  Ed.  2;  Tubings?,  1780,  8vo— a  work  in 
which  the  existence,  condition,  power,  agency, 
&c.,  of  evil  spirits  are  considered,  and  in  which 
the  common  doctrine  is  defended  ;  and,  on  the 
other  side,  the  work  "  Versuch  einer  biblischen 
Damonologie,  oder  Untersuchung  der  Lehre 
vom  Teufel  urid  seiner  Macht,"  with  a  preface 
and  appendix  by  Semler;  Halle,  1776,  8vo;  in 
which  the  agency  of  the  devil  is  denied.  Cf. 
the  work  of  Ewald,  above  cited.  Other  works 
relating  to  some  particular  points  in  this  doc- 
trine will  be  noticed,  s.  65.  [A  complete  view 
of  the  literature  of  this  doctrine  is  contained  in 
Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  67.] 

I.  The  Existence  of  Evil  Spirits. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  as  has  been  often  con- 
tended, that  the  more  savage  and  ignorant  men 
are,  the  more  slavish  is  their  fear  of  such  invi- 
sible beings,  whether  gods,  angels,  or  of  some 
other  name,  as  are  supposed  to  be  evil  and  ma- 
lignant ;  and  also  that  the  belief  in  the  existence 
and  influence  of  such  beings  commonly  de- 
creases as  science  and  civilization  advance. 
Some  of  the  ancient  nations  believed  in  only 
one  evil  spirit,  while  others  conceived  of  many 
such,  under  the  government  of  one  head.  These 
were  regarded  as  the  authors  of  every  description 
of  evil,  natural  and  moral,  and  to  them  were 
attributed  all  the  diseases  and  calamities  with 
which  men  are  visited.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Jews  respecting  evil  spirits,  which  has  a  general 
resemblance  to  that  of  other  nations,  though  in 
many  points  it  is  entirely  different,  was  not  fully 
developed,  as  has  been  already  remarked  (s.  58, 
II.  3),  until  the  time  of  the  captivity. 

The  existence  of  any  such  evil  spirits  as  are 


exhibited  in  the  Jewish  and  Christian  scriptures 
has  been  either  doubted  or  wholly  denied  by 
some  philosophers  in  every  age.  The  principal 
objections  urged  by  them  against  the  existence 
of  evil  spirits  are  the  following: — 

1.  The  idea  of  a  spirit,  by  nature  wise  and  in- 
telligent, and  yet  opposed  to  God,  seems,  they 
think,  to  involve  a  contradiction.     But  if  this 
objection  were  valid  with  regard  to  angels,  it 
must  also  hold  true  with  regard  to  men  ;  and  it 
would  be  impossible  to  find  a  man  highly  intel- 
ligent and  sagacious,  and  yet  wicked.     [This 
is  the  principal  objection  upon  which  Schleier- 
macher  rests  his  rejection  of  the  common  doc- 
trine respecting  evil  angels.     If  Satan  were  ac- 
quainted with  God,  and  knew  his  power,  he 
could  not  hope  to  succeed  in  opposing  him ; 
with  all  the  high  intelligence  ascribed  to  him 
he  must  see  the  folly  and  ruin  of  wickedness,  and 
repent,  otherwise  his  understanding  and  his  will 
would  remain  in  fixed  opposition;  whereas  the 
functions  belonging  to  any  real  existence  must 
be  harmonious.     Hence  the  conclusion  is,  that 
the  idea  of  Satan,  as  a  being  possessed  of  high 
intelligence  and  yet  opposed  to  God,  contains 
logical  contradictions,  and  cannot  therefore  be 
received.     But  if  the  existence  of  a  depraved 
will  be  not  inconsistent  with  the  highest  degree 
of  intelligence  with  which  we  are  acquainted  in 
human  beings,  how  can  we  tell  that  it  may  not 
be  consistent  with  a  far  higher,  and  indeed  the 
very  highest,  degree  of  finite  intelligence?   Be- 
sides, in  a  moral  apostasy,  though  the  defection 
of  the  will  must  precede  the  error  of  the  under- 
standing, yet  the  error  of  the  understanding  is 
sure   to  follow;    and    the  higher  intelligence 
which  angels  by  nature  possess  may  have  be- 
come perverted  by  their  fall,  as  is  the  case  with 
men.— TR.] 

2.  There  is  no  trace  of  a  belief  in  the  exist- 
ence of  evil  spirits,  even  among  the  Jews,  until 
the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity.     [But  if, 
as  has  been  shewn  in  a  previous  section,  there 
was  no  necessity  for  the  revelation  of  this  doc- 
trine before  that  time,  and  then  it  became  neces- 
sary, the  fact  of  its  being  previously  unknown 
cannot,  surely,  be  an  argument  against  its  truth 
when  revealed.     It  is  enough  that  it  was  at  any 
time  taught  by  inspired  prophets. — TR.] 

[3.  Connected  with  the  foregoing  objection, 
and  perhaps  implied  in  it,  is  another,  which 
needs  to  be  more  fully  stated.  It  is  said,  that 
the  Biblical  doctrine  of  a  Satan  is  derived  from 
the  system  of  dualism  so  prevalent  in  the  East, 
and  is  liable  to  the  objections  to  which  that  sys- 
tem is  exposed.  This  objection  is  urged  by 
Henke,  Eckermann,  and  others  of  the  same 
school.  But  in  answer  to  this  it  may  be  said, 
that  even  supposing  the  Biblical  doctrine  re- 
specting Satan  to  agree  with  oriental  dualism, 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  former  is  untrue. 


216 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


I 


If  it  is  taught  by  inspired  writers,  it  certainly 
does  not  become  less  true  by  having  been  taught 
by  Zoroaster,  and  believed  by  the  Persians,  any 
more  than  the  doctrines  of  God  and  divine  pro- 
vidence are  to  be  discarded  because  universally 
believed.  But  there  are,  it  must  be  remembered, 
very  obvious  differences  between  the  demonolo- 
gy  of  the  sacred  writers  and  of  the  Eastern  phi- 
losophers. According  to  the  latter,  the  two 
principles  of  good  and  evil  are  co-eternal  and  in 
every  respect  equal ;  and  it  is  from  this  repre- 
sentation that  all  the  evils  connected  with  ori- 
ental dualism  result;  and  it  is  in  this  very  point 
that  it  differs  from  the  Biblical  doctrine.  Ac- 
cording to  this,  Satan  himself,  and  all  his  le- 
gions, are  creatures  of  God,  dependent  upon 
him,  and  trembling  before  him.  Thus,  although 
possessed  of  vast  power,  they  are  still  under  the 
entire  control  of  the  Ruler  of  the  universe  ;  and 
so  our  trust  in  him  remains  unshaken. — TR.] 

4.  Belief  in  evil  spirits  is  confined,  it  is  said, 
to  rude  and  uncultivated  men,  and  disappears 
as  science  and  civilization  advance,  and  ought 
therefore,  in  these  enlightened  times,  to  be 
wholly  discarded.  But  it  should  be  remembered 
that  learned  men  in  enlightened  periods  some- 
times fall  into  errors,  as  well  as  ignorant  men 
in  barbarous  ages,  and  that  an  opinion  is  not 
true  merely  because  believed  by  the  one,  nor 
false  because  believed  by  the  other. 

Those  who  deny  the  existence  of  evil  spirits 
are  called  Ademonists.  Many  of  these,  who  are 
hardly  prepared  flatly  to  oppose  the  authority 
of  the  inspired  writers  and  to  set  aside  their  in- 
structions, undertake  the  useless  labour  of  ex- 
plaining away  the  doctrine  of  the  devil  from  the 
Bible,  and  in  doing  this  resort  to  the  most  forced 
and  unauthorized  modes  of  interpretation.  Vide 
Morus,  p.  93,  s.  13. 

[The  modes  of  interpretation  here  alluded  to 
were  practised  long  since  by  the  Rationalists 
of  the  seventeenth  century — the  Cartesians,  Spi- 
noza, and  his  friends.  A  good  specimen  of  the 
manner  in  which  these  fathers  of  modern  Ra- 
tionalism disposed  of  the  instructions  of  the  Bi- 
ble upon  the  subject  of  evil  spirits  is  given  by 
Stosch,  in  his  "  Concordia  rationis  et  fidei,"  p. 
8,  s.  17 :  "  Quee  de  angelis  et  daemonibus  tarn 
in  s.  scriptura  quam  historia  humana  traduntur, 
sunt  partim  somnia,  partim  visiones  et  appari- 
tiones,  partim  phantasmata,  partim  morbi,  par- 
tim figmenta  et  illusiones."  But  the  most  plau- 
sible of  all  the  systems  of  Ademonism  is  that 
by  which  Satan  is  made  to  denote,  not  a  real 
existence,  but  some  mode  of  moral  evil.  This 
system  is  well  expressed  by  Ammon  when  he 
says,  *«  Acquiescamus  non  tarn  in  existentia  et 
factis,  quam  notione  Satanae,"  Sum.  Theol. 
Christ,  p.  105.  The  particular  form  of  moral 
evil  denoted  by  the  word  Satan  is  very  various 
according  to  different  authors,  each  of  whom 


modifies  it  to  suit  his  own  philosophical  system. 
Thus,  according  to  one,  it  is  that  disposition 
which  pursues  evil  for  its  own  sake,  and  not  for 
any  advantages  with  which  it  may  be  connect- 
ed— perttnacia  in  damnum  proprium  vel  alienum 
agendi,  absque  ilkcebris  carnis,  vel  mundi,  sive 
glorise  vanas.  In  the  school  of  Kant,  Satan  is 
the  IDEA  of  what  is  absolutely  displeasing  in  the 
sight  of  God,  and  so  is  the  direct  opposite  of  the 
Son  of  God,  who,  according  to  Kant,  is  the  IDEA 
of  what  is  absolutely  well-pleasing  with  God. 
Thus  in  each  different  system  does  Satan,  at  the 
option  of  the  framer,  assume  a  different  form, 
and  act  a  different  part. — TR.] 

Our  modern  theologians  have  often  chosen  a 
middle  course,  and  endeavoured  to  unite  the 
opinions  of  those  who  totally  deny  the  existence 
o.f  demons,  and  of  those  who  contend  strongly 
for  their  existence  and  agency ;  but,  as  is  usual 
with  those  who  endeavour  to  please  opposite 
parties,  they  have  given  satisfaction  to  neither. 
In  order  to  prevent  the  appearance  of  rejecting 
the  authority  of  the  holy  scriptures,  they  admit 
the  existence  of  evil  spirits,  while,  in  order  to 
avoid  the  difficulties  to  which  the  common  doc- 
trine is  liable,  and  to  conform  to  the  prevailing 
notions  of  the  day,  they  deny  that  the  devil  can 
exert  any  power  on  men,  at  least  at  the  present 
time,  (a  very  necessary  limitation  for  them  to 
make ;)  that  to  us,  therefore,  it  is  all  the  same 
as  if  he  did  not  exist ;  and  that  when  Christ  and 
the  apostles  spoke  of  the  agency  of  the  devil, 
they  merely  accommodated  themselves  to  the 
popular  superstitions  of  the  Jews,  while  they 
themselves  neither  believed  in  demoniacal  in- 
fluence, nor  even,  as  some  will  go  so  far  as  to 
say,  in  the  existence  of  a  devil.  (Of  this  num- 
ber, the  most  distinguished  perhaps  is  Wegschei- 
der,  who  thus  gives  his  views  in  his  "  Institu- 
tiones,"  s.  106:  "Verisimile  est  magistrum 
ilium  divinum  rectius  quidem  de  demonologia 
Judaeorum  cogitantem,  at  formulis  quibusdam 
usum  symbolicis,  regnum  divinum  regno  dia- 
bolico  oppositum  adumbrantibus,  quae  apud  Ju- 
daeos  tune  temporis  pervulgatae  erant,  a  disci- 
pulis  suis  non  satis  intellectual  fuisse,  et  ipsam 
providentiam  divinam  posteritati  doctrinam 
istam  emendendam  tradi  voluisse."  Cf.  De 
Wette,  Bib.  Dogm.  s.  241.— TR.] 

But  these  views  are  liable  to  very  weighty 
objections;  for, 

(a)  Since  it  was  a  great  object  with  Jesus 
to  free  mankind  from  hurtful  prejudices,  and 
especially,  during  his  earthly  ministry,  to  era- 
dicate the  errors  which  prevailed  among  the 
Jews,  we  may  be  very  certain  that  he  would  not 
have  spared  their  belief  in  the  existence  and 
agency  of  the  devil,  if  he  had  regarded  it  as  false. 
It  is  said,  indeed,  that  it  was  necessary  for  him 
to  indulge  those  prejudices  of  the  Jews  which 
he  could  not  at  once  eradicate,  and  that  when 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


217 


he  spoke  of  the  influences  of  Satan  it  was  merely 
in  condescension  to  those  deep-rooted  Jewish 
prejudices.  But  an  examination  of  his  words, 
in  the  connexion  in  which  they  stand,  will  con- 
vince us  that  this  was  not  the  case.  Christ 
does  not  merely  forbear  to  contradict  this  prevail- 
ing doctrine,  or  merely  allude  to  it  incidentally, 
but  he  frequently  brings  it  directly  forward,  and 
expressly  teaches  the  existence  of  the  devil  and 
his  agency  upon  men.  Thus,  for  example,  in 
John,  viii.  38,  44,  he  speaks  of  the  devil,  with- 
out having  the  least  inducement  on  the  part  of 
his  hearers  for  so  doing,  and  this  in  the  very 
same  discourse  in  which  he  demands  from  them 
implicit  faith  in  everything  which  he  says,  on 
his  simple  word,  and  in  which  he  declares  his 
utter  abhorrence  of  all  falsehood  and  deception. 
Vide  ver.  38 — 47.  And  he  frequently  mentions 
this  doctrine  in  his  discourses,  when  he  could 
have  had  no  motive  for  doing  so  from  a  desire 
of  pleasing  his  hearers,  and  siding  with  their 
prejudices.  Vide  Matt.  xii.  22—31,  43—45; 
xiii.  39.  Had  not  Christ  himself  believed  this 
doctrine  he  would  have  introduced  it  as  seldom 
as  possible  into  his  discourses,  and  would  have 
thrown  out  hints  here  and  there,  by  which  the 
more  discerning  would  have  discovered  that  he 
himself  entertained  different  opinions  on  the 
subject.  It  could  not  certainly  have  been 
through  fear  of  any  consequences  injurious  to 
himself  attending  the  denial  of  this  doctrine, 
that  he  was  induced  to  indulge  and  authorize  it ; 
since  the  Sadducees  had  before  renounced  it 
without  experiencing  persecution;  and  since 
Christ  was  never  known  in  other  cases  to  give 
way  to  any  false  or  dangerous  opinions,  how 
much  soever  the  Pharisees  and  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple might  have  been  attached  to  them.  Thus, 
for  example,  he  fearlessly  opposed  their  doctrine 
respecting  traditions,  though  this  was  far  more 
important  in  their  view  than  the  doctrine  re- 
specting angels. 

(6)  Christ  himself  informs  us,  that  during 
his  life  on  earth  he  privately  taught  his  disci- 
ples many  things  which  were  not  to  be  pub- 
lished by  them  till  after  his  ascension,  (Matt. 
x.  26,  27 ;)  and  that  much  which  he  could  not 
teach  them,  because  they  were  unable  to  bear 
it,  would  be  communicated  to  them  by  the  Pa- 
racletus,  John,  xvi.  12,  13.  But  we  do  not 
find  that  among  these  more  familiar  instruc- 
tions the  disciples  were  taught  that  there  is  no 
devil,  or  that  he  is  not  the  author  of  evil,  or  that 
he  is  destitute  of  all  power.  On  the  contrary, 
Christ  expressly  and  particularly  sanctions  a 
belief  in  evil  spirits,  in  presence  of  his  disci- 
ples, (Matthew,  xiii.  39,  seq. ;  Luke,  xxii.  31;) 
and  even  mentions  the  fact  that  the  prince  of 
this  world  is  judged,  (not  that  there  is  no  Satan,) 
as  one  of  those  things  of  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
would  convince  the  world  through  their  instru- 
28 


mentality.  After  the  ascension  of  Jesus,  the 
apostles  made  use  of  the  same  expressions  and 
representations  with  regard  to  evil  spirits  which 
he  himself  had  employed ;  as,  1  John,  iii.  8 ; 
1  Pet.  v.  8 ;  and  often  in  the  Acts.  With  what 
freedom  and  fearlessness  does  Paul  often  attack 
the  prevailing  prejudices  and  superstitions  of 
the  Jews  and  Greeks !  But  so  far  is  he  from 
either  opposingthis  doctrine,  or  merely  passing 
it  by  unnoticed,  that  he  expresses  his  own  be- 
lief in  all  the  essentials  of  the  Jewish  demon- 
ology;  Ephes.  ii.  1,  2,  seq.;  vi.  11,  seq.  et 
passim.  The  apostles,  indeed,  held  this  doc- 
trine in  a  manner  somewhat  different  from  that 
in  which  it  was  held  by  the  Jews,  and  discard- 
ed many  of  their  gross  and  fabulous  representa- 
tions ;  but  yet,  as  it  must  appear  from  what  has 
been  said,  they  themselves  really  believed  it. 
Our  modern  philosophers  are  at  liberty  to  follow 
their  own  convictions  upon  this  subject,  and  to 
reason  upon  their  own  principles ;  but  they  are 
not  at  liberty  to  ascribe  their  hypothesis  to 
Christ  and  the  apostles,  nor  to  impose  upon  the 
common  people  this  boasted  wisdom,  which 
they  will  never  relish,  and  by  which  they  will 
be  rather  confounded  than  enlightened. 

Our  belief  of  this  doctrine  must  rest  ulti- 
mately on  our  conviction  of  the  divine  mission 
of  Christ  in  its  most  full  and  proper  sense.  If 
we  receive  him  as  a  divinely-commissioned 
teacher,  we  must  abide  by  his  decision  on  this 
subject  as  well  as  on  all  others,  whatever  diffi- 
culty we  may  find  in  the  way.  Otherwise,  we  are 
driven  to  the  alternative  of  saying  either  that 
Christ  did  himself  believe  and  teach  the  exist- 
ence of  evil  spirits,  though  they  do  not  exist, — 
in  which  case  he  is  not  an  infallible  teacher, — 
or,  that  Christ  did  not  himself  believe,  but  yet 
taught  the  existence  of  evil  spirits,  in  which 
case  his  moral  character  is  impeached.  The 
same  is  true  in  regard  to  the  apostles. 

[Note  1. — In  confirmation  of  the  remark  of 
the  author,  that  our  belief  of  this  doctrine  must 
depend  ultimately  on  the  testimony  of  Christ,  it 
may  be  said  that  the  attempts  which  have  been 
made  to  prove  the  existence  of  evil  spirits  by 
arguments  a  priori,  have  proved  as  unsuccess- 
ful as  the  attempts  to  disprove  it  by  arguments 
of  the  same  nature.  The  most  noted  attempt  of 
this  kind  is,  perhaps,  that  made  by  Heinroth,  in 
the  last  chapter  of  his  late  work,  "Ueber  die 
Wahrheit."  He  there  endeavours  to  demon- 
strate the  existence  of  evil  spirits  from  the  apos- 
tasy of  man,  which  he  thinks  can  be  accounted 
for  only  on  the  supposition  that  he  was  tempted 
by  a  being  who  had  previously  fallen.  Man 
was  made  pure  and  holy,  and  could  therefore 
find  no  inducement  to  disobedience  from  any- 
thing in  his  own  nature.  The  inducement  to 
sin  must  therefore  have  come  to  him  from  with- 
out; and  as  he  acts  only  in  view  of  seeming 
T 


218 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


good,  he  must  have  been  made  to  believe  that 
transgression  would  conduce  to  his  advantage; 
in  short,  he  must  have  been  deceived.  But  he 
could  not  have  been  deceived  by  God,  nor  any- 
thing in  the  world  in  which  he  was  placed, 
which  is  a  work  and  revelation  of  God ;  and  if 
deceived  at  all,  therefore,  it  must  have  been  by 
an  older  apostate,  a  spirit  of  evil,  a  father  of  lies  ; 
and  only  on  the  admission  of  such  a  spirit  can 
the  incontrovertible  fact  of  the  fall  of  our  race 
be  in  any  way  accounted  for.  But,  in  the  first 
place,  this  temptation  does  by  no  means  account 
for  that  moral  act  in  which  the  essence  of  the  apos- 
tasy consisted.  A  change  in  man's  moral  charac- 
ter must  have  already  taken  place,  before  trans- 
gression could  have  been  made  alluring.  With- 
out this  previous  defection  of  his  will  from  God, 
and  the  consequent  disorder  of  his  powers  and 
darkness  of  his  mind,  he  could  have  seen  no  at- 
traction in  what  was  forbidden,  and  could  have 
looked  upon  the  inducements  to  it,  as  Christ 
did,  only  with  abhorrence,  and  certainly  never 
would  have  preferred  them  to  the  infinitely 
stronger  inducements  which  the  government  of 
God  holds  out  to  the  obedient;  and  even  if, 
without  this  change,  he  had  yielded  to  the  in- 
fluence of  some  delusion  from  without  to  which 
he  had  been  subjected,  he  would  have  been 
chargeable  with  mistake  only,  and  not  have  been 
guilty  of  sin.  And,  in  the  second  place,  the 
agency  of  a  tempter,  though  employed  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  in  the  apostasy  of  man,  is  not  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  account  for  it.  If  the  fall 
of  Adam  cannot  be  accounted  for  except  by  the 
influence  of  temptation,  neither  can  that  of 
Satan  ;  and  the  tempter  himself  must  have  been 
before  tempted  and  deceived.  But  if  Satan — a 
spiritual  existence,  and  stationed  near  the 
throne  of  God — could  have  apostatized  without 
having  been  drawn  away  by  an  older  apostate, 
certainly  this  may  be  supposed  of  Adam,  in 
whom,  both  from  his  nature  and  his  circum- 
stances, apostasy  must  have  been  more  proba- 
ble. The  argument  of  Heinroth  is  liable, 
therefore,  to  the  twofold  objection,  that  the 
agency  of  a  tempter  does  not  fully  account  for 
the  apostasy  of  Adam,  and  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  account  for  it,  since  the  tempter  him- 
self fell  without  any  such  agency,  though  pos- 
sessed of  a  nature  and  placed  in  circumstances 
far  more  favourable  to  obedience. — TR.] 

Note  2.-*- Since  demons  and  their  influence 
are  mentioned  so  frequently  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  doctrine  which  relates  to  them  ought 
not  to  be  omitted  in  popular  instruction.  If  it  is 
passed  by,  the  common  people  will  fall  into 
very  erroneous  and  superstitious  notions  with 
regard  to  evil  spirits.  The  truth  ought  there- 
fore to  be  exhibited  with  wise  caution,  in  such 
a  way  as  to  obviate  both  unbelief  and  supersti- 
tion, to  rectify  false  views,  and  yet  so  as  to 


leave  the  authority  of  the  Bible  uninfringed, 
and  the  whole  sense  of  scripture  unperverted. 
The  following  is  the  simple  scriptural  view  of 
this  subject  which  the  religious  teacher  should 
exhibit: — (a)  Christ,  by  his  death  and  the 
gracious  dispensation  which  he  administers,  has 
taken  away  from  the  devil  the  power  of  injur- 
ing his  true  followers;  those,  therefore,  who 
are  sincerely  pious  towards  God,  and  believers 
in  Christ,  and  followers  of  his  instructions,  have 
nothing  to  fear.  (6)  The  existence  of  demons 
and  their  influence  may,  however,  furnish  us 
with  motives  to  piety  and  virtue,  and  serve  to 
deter  us  from  vice  and  corruption.  If  we  are 
pious,  we  are  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ; 
if  wicked,  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  Satan — re- 
presentations by  which  the  states  of  moral  good- 
ness and  badness  are  figuratively  described. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  90,  s.  8,  seq.  [Cf.  Bretschneider, 
Handbuch,  b.  i.  s.  723.] 

II.  Apostasy  of  Evil  Spirits. 

All  the  angels,  according  to  the  Jews  and  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  were  placed  ori- 
ginally in  a  state  of  innocence  and  holiness ; 
some  of  them  afterwards  sinned,  apostatized  from 
God,  and  were  consequently  punished.  Respect- 
ing the  time  at  which  this  apostasy  took  place, 
or  in  what  the  sin  of  the  fallen  angels  consisted, 
we  are  not  clearly'informed  in  the  scriptures ; 
hence  very  different  opinions  have  been  enter- 
tained on  these  subjects. 

1.  Some  suppose  that  the  first  sin  of  the 
apostate  angels  was  the  temptation  which  they 
offered  to  the  progenitors  of  the  human  race. 
This  opinion  has  been  advocated  in  modern 
times  by  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Heilmann,  Schmid 
of  Wittenberg,  and  others.  The  devil  is  not  in- 
deed expressly  mentioned  in  the  narrative  in 
Gen.  iii. ;  but  after  the  Israelites  were  made  bet- 
ter acquainted  with  the  nature  and  influence  of 
evil  spirits  (s.  58),  they  always  supposed  that 
they  were  intended  in  this  passage,  and  that 
death  and  sin  had  come  into  the  world  by  Satan. 
So  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  ii.  24,  and  the  New 
Testament  everywhere.  They  accordingly  re- 
garded the  devil  as  the  tempter;  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  they  regarded  the  temptation  as  his 
first  offence,  that  by  which  he  first  rebelled 
against  God.  On  the  contrary,  they  seem  to 
presuppose  that  he  was  previously  wicked.  The 
passage,  John,  viii.  44,  cannot  therefore  be  em- 
ployed, as  Heilmann  has  employed  it,  in  support 
of  this  opinion.  The  sense  of  this  passage  may 
be  thus  given: — "You  resemble  the  devil  in 
your  dispositions  and  conduct,  (tx  lov  rtarp6$ 
T'OII  5taj3oXou  irrti ;)  he  was  a  murderer  from  the 
beginning,  (av$pa>7tox't6vo$  art'  dp^s,  alluding  to 
the  murder  of  Abel  by  Cain,  Gen.  iii.;  1  John, 
iii.  12,  and  other  events,)  and  remained  not  in 
the  truth,  (the  knowledge  and  worship  of  God, 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


219 


or  moral  rectitude,  or  both  united  ;)  the  love  of 
truth  and  integrity  is  not  in  him ;  it  is  his  plea- 
sure to  speak  and  propagate  falsehood  and  error, 
(r64*v6oj,  Rev.  xxi.  27;  xxii,  15;)  for  he  is 
the  author  (rtar^p)  and  patron  of  falsehood  and 
error,  (unbelief,  superstition,  and  immorality,  of 
which  he  is  always  represented  as  the  founder.)" 
This  passage  certainly  does  not  teach  that  this 
was  the  first  instance  in  which  Satan  revolted 
from  God. 

2.  Others  place  the  chief  offence  of  the  evil 
spirits  in  pride,  which  was  shewn,  according  to 
some,  in  one  way,  according  to  others,  in  an- 
other.  So  Athanasius,  Hieronymus,  Augustine, 
and  others,  particularly  the  Latin  fathers,  who 
were  followed  by  many  of  the  schoolmen,  and 
in  modern  times  by  Luther,  Buddeus,  Mosheim, 
Cotta,  and  others.     They  refer  to  the  passage  1 
Tim.  iii.  6,  (which,  however,  admits  of  another 
interpretation,)  and  also  to  the  proud  expressions 
which  are  ascribed  to  the  seducer  of  men  in  the 
holy  scriptures,  Gen.  iii.  5 ;  Matt.  iv.  9.     This 
view  is  partially  correct;  but  the  first  sin  of  the 
fallen  angels  may  be  ascertained  still  more  de- 
finitely. 

3.  We  are  led  to  believe  by  the  writings  of 
the  apostles  that  in  many  particulars  they  agreed 
with  the  Jewish  teachers  of  their  own  day  re- 
specting the  first  transgression  of  fallen  spirits. 
We  may  accordingly  consider  the  Jewish  opi- 
nions, in  these  particulars,  as  sanctioned  by  the 
assent  of  the  apostles.     Now  the  Jews  held, 
especially  after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  that 
God  entrusted  to  angels,  as  overseers  or  govern- 
ors, particular  provinces  of  the  earth,  and  also 
the  heavenly  bodies  (cf.  s.  60,  II.),  while  their 
more  proper  home  and  abode  was  heaven.    The 
Jews  further  held   that  some  of  these  angels 
were  discontented  with  their  lot,  and  entered 
into  a  rebellious  concert  among  themselves. 
They  proudly  aspired  to  higher  posts  than  those 
assigned  them,  revolted  from  God,  and  deserted 
heaven ;  and  then,  for  their  punishment,  were 
thrust  by  God  into  Tartarus,  like  the  giants  or 
Titans,  who,  according  to  the  Grecian  mytho- 
logy, were  cast  as  rebels  out  of  heaven,     Tarta- 
rus is  now  their  proper  abode,  as  heaven  was 
formerly ;  and  from  thence  they  exert,  under  the 
the  Divine  permission,  an  influence  upon  the 
world.     They  seduced  our  first  parents,  and 
brought  sin  and  death  into  the  world ;  they  reign 
over  heathen  nations,  whom  they  led  into  idol- 
atry ;  they  also  rule  wicked  men — i.  e.,  exert 
a  controlling  influence  over  them  ;  but,  together 
with  those  over  whom  they  have  ruled,  they 
will  be  punished  in  Tartarus  after  the  day  of 
judgment.     With  this  account  the  Jews  min- 
gled many  fabulous  and  unscriptural  representa- 
tions, which  were  adopted  even  by  many  of  the 
Christian  fathers ;  but  the  general  account  above 
given  is  very  clearly  authorized  even  in  the 


New  Testament,  especially  in  the  passages  2 
Pet.  ii.  4,  and  Jude,  ver.  6,  7.  The  first  passage 
teaches,  that  we  cannot  expect  that  God  will 
leave  transgression  unpunished;  "for  he  spared 
not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast  them  down 
to  hell  (rap-r'apwtfaj),  where  he  keeps  them  in 
reserve  for  future  punishment,  (stj  xpc<w.)M 
Still  clearer  is  the  parallel  text,  Jude,  ver.  6, 
where  we  are  taught  that  God  keeps  enchained 
o  £o$oj/)  in  Tartarus,  reserved  for  the  judg- 
ment of  the  great  day,  the  angels 

"f^v  lavtuv  a-w^v,  o-M.a> 
olxtrfiiov.  'Ap#r/  does  not  here  signify, 
their  original  state,  but  the  dominion  entrusted 
to  them  as  governors.  T^ps Iv  is  tueri,  conscrvare, 
to  retain,  and  the  latter  clause  is  not  a  descrip- 
tion of  their  punishment,  but  of  their  crime, 
Thus  Jude  and  Peter,  though  they  by  no  means 
take  part  in  all  the  Jewish  notions  with  regard 
to  the  apostasy  of  the  fallen  angels,  clearly 
authorize  the  general  doctrine  of  the  Jewish 
teachers,  as  given  above. 

Note.—~ The  question  has  been  asked,  how  it 
can  appear  probable,  or  even  possible,  that  such 
perfect  beings  as  angels  are  represented  to  be, 
with  all  their  intelligence  and  knowledge,  could 
have  fallen  in  this  manner,  and  so  foolishly  have 
rebelled  against  God,  with  whom  tney  must  have 
been  acquainted  ?  It  might  be  asked,  with  equal 
plausibility,  how  it  is  possible  that  men  can  act 
so  frequently  as  they  do  against  the  clearest 
knowledge  and  strongest  convictions  of  duty  1 
We  often  find  men,  endued  with  the  greatest  ta- 
lents, and  possessing  the  clearest  discernment, 
who  are  yet  grossly  vicious,  and  act  in  a  man» 
ner  unaccountably  foolish  and  unadvised,  Emi- 
nent intellectual  endowments  are  not  unfre- 
quently  attended  by  eminent  virtues,  and  then 
are  eminently  useful;  but  they  are  also  fre- 
quently accompanied  by  vices,  and  then  are  to  the 
last  degree  hurtful.  But  were  it  not  that  expe- 
rience justifies  this  remark,  it  would  be  easy  to 
demonstrate,  a  priori,  that  high  intelligence  and 
moral  depravity  could  not  possibly  go  together, 
Demonstrations  a  priori  on  such  subjects  are 
therefore  wholly  inadmissible. 

SECTION  LXIII. 

OF  THE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  EVII^  SPI- 
RITS; THEIR  PRESENT  AND  FUTURE  CONDITION; 
THEIR  NUMBER,  CLASSES,  AND  NAMES, 

I.  Their  Nature  and  Attributes, 
THE  essential  constitution  of  human  nature  is 
not  altered  by  the  depravity  of  the  heart.  Man 
continues  to  possess  the  inborn  excellences  and 
perfections  of  his  nature,  however  depraved  he 
may  be  as  to  his  moral  condition.  The  case  is 
the  same  with  evil  spirits,  as  they  are  represent* 
ed  in  the  Bible.  In  common,  then,  with  good 
angels,  they  are  still  spiritual  beings,  and  even 


220 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


in  their  present  state  possess  the  excellences 
and  perfections  which  are  peculiar  to  spiritual 
existences — great  intellectual  powers,  internal 
energy  and  activity.  Vide  s.  59,  II.  And  if 
good  angels  are  invested  with  a  body,  or  can 
assume  one  as  occasion  requires,  the  same  must 
be  supposed  with  respect  to  evil  spirits.  Vide 
ubi  supra.  But  their  moral  state,  their  will  and 
affections,  are  described  as  very  depraved  and 
evil.  They  therefore  employ  their  intellectual 
powers  in  behalf  of  evil  and  not  of  good ;  they 
act  in  opposition  to  the  divine  purposes,  and  are 
the  enemies  of  truth  and  righteousness,  John, 
viii.  44.  The  <jo<j><,'a  aiv^sv  xot-tepxo/Atvq  is  con- 
trasted with  0o<j>t'a  Sa^ovudS^j,  James,  iii.  15 ; 
and  men  are  warned  of  the  ^f^oSetat  tov  StajSo- 
?iov,  Eph.  vi.  11 ;  ii.  2.  1  Pet.  v.  8.  Matt. 
xiii.  39. 

II.  Their  Present  and  Future  State. 

Their  condition  is  described  as  extremely  un- 
happy. Vide  Matt.  xxv.  41.  Even  the  natu- 
ral consequences  of  sin — the  power  and  domi- 
nion of  the  passions,  the  remembrance  of  their 
former  happy  condition,  the  frustration  of  their 
wishes  and  plans,  remorse  of  conscience,  &c., 
would  be  enough  to  render  them  miserable. 
But  these  are  "not  all  which  they  endure ;  since 
positive  punishments,  as  we  are  taught  in  the 
scriptures,  are  inflicted  on  them,  and  will  be 
more  especially  after  the  day  of  judgment.  We 
are  not.  able  to  determine  accurately,  from  the 
language  of  the  Bible,  which  is  for  the  most  part 
figurative,  in  what  these  punishments  consist. 
The  principal  texts  relating  to  this  point,  besides 
that  already  cited  in  Matt.  xxv.  41,  46,  are  2 
Pet.  ii.  4,  and  Jude,  ver.  6.  Taprapow,  or,  as 
the  Greeks  otherwise  write  it,  xarafapfopovy, 
signifies,  in  Tartarum  dejicere,  (e  cos/0.)  Tar- 
tarus, in  the  Grecian  mythology,  is  the  place 
of  punishment  and  condemnation.  Hesiod,  in 
his  Theogony,  and  Plato,  in  his  Gorgias,  repre- 
sent it  as  the  prison  of  the  Titans.  But  at  a 
later  period  it  came  to  signify  the  general  place 
of  suffering.  It  is  that  part  of  afys  where  the 
wicked  were  confined,  and  is  represented  as 
dark,  and  deep  under  the  earth.  The  place  of 
punishment  was  more  commonly  described  by 
the  Jews  as  DJn  s^,  ysivva,,  and  eternal  fire.  But 
as  their  notion  of  yttwo,  corresponded  perfectly 
with  the  Grecian  idea  of  Tartarus,  they  adopted 
the  latter  term  into  their  own  dialect,  as  in  many 
other  cases.  In  this  place  condemned  men  and 
spirits  are  confined ;  and  hence  the  latter  are 
said  to  suffer  such  judgments  and  dreadful  tor- 
ment as  will  constitute  the  punishment  of  wick- 
ed men  after  this  life.  Such  is  the  representa- 
tion, Matt.  xxv.  41, 46,  "  Depart  into  everlasting 
fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels."  The 
phrase,  <j«pat£  £o<j>ou  rfaps'&oxE  (he  bound  them 
in  dismal  Tartarus  with  chains),  describes  their 


misery  as  unavoidable  and  remediless.  Great 
wretchedness  is  often  described  by  the  Hebrews 
under  the  image  of  captiVes  bound  in  a  dark  pri- 
son. The  evil  spirits  are  not  as  yet,  however, 
chained  for  ever  in  Tartarus  —  i.  e.,  they  are  not 
now  confined  to  this  single  place  of  misery. 
They  sometimes,  under  divine  permission,  roam. 
beyond  their  prison,  and  exert  their  influence 
upon  men.  Vide  Revelation,  and  Luke,  viii. 
31,  &c.  But  a  more  strict  confinement  and  a 
higher  degree  of  punishment  are  impending 
over  them,  as  over  wicked  men,  and  will  fall 
upon  them  at  the  last  day  :  sis  xpt- 
cf.  ver.  9,  and  Jude,  ver.  6,  «t$  x 
lyjitlpaj.  Cf.  Matt.  xxv.  41.  The  question  of 
the  demon,  Matt.  viii.  29,  9^£$  ciSs  rtpo  xat,- 
pou  fiasav  tcrat  y^as,  alludes  to  this  impending 
punishment.  Cf.  2  Pet.  ii.  4.  Hence  the  evil 
spirits  are  described  as  fearing  God,  and  trem- 
bling before  him  as  their  Judge;  James,  ii.  19, 


Note.  —  Will  evil  spirits  repent,  obtain  for  give- 
ness,  and  be  restored  to  happiness?  These  are 
questions  which  have  often  been  asked  in  mo- 
dern times,  and  to  which  various  answers  have 
been  given.  Origen  was  the  first  among  Chris- 
tian teachers  who  distinctly  avowed  the  opinion 
that  evil  spirits  would  repent,  and  be  restored 
to  happiness.  Vide  Augustine,  Con.  Jul.  v.  47, 
and  vi.  10.  This  opinion  has  been  adopted  in 
modern  times  by  theologians  of  the  most  differ- 
ent parties  ;  by  Eberhard,  in  his  "  Apologie  des 
Sokrates,"  th.  i.,  by  Lavater,  in  his  "  Aussicht 
in  die  Ewigkeit,"  th.  iii.,  [Bretschneider,  in  his 
Handbuch,  b.  i.  s.  691,]  and  others. 

If  we  had  nothing  but  reason  to  guide  us  in 
our  inquiries  on  this  subject,  we  should  proba- 
bly argue  thus  :  —  (a)  If  wicked  men  truly  re- 
pent, reform,  and  comply  with  the  other  condi- 
tions prescribed,  God  will  forgive  them,  and 
remove  the  punishment  of  their  sins.  But  con- 
sidering that  these  spirits  are  in  the  highest  de- 
gree depraved,  that  their  vicious  propensities,  so 
long  cherished,  must  have  taken  deep  root,  and 
that  the  habit  of  sin  must  have  become  confirmed, 
we  must  conclude,  from  all  human  analogy,  that 
their  repentance  and  reformation  must  be  ex- 
tremely difficult,  though  we  might  not  be  able 
to  pronounce  it  absolutely  impossible.  (6)  But 
should  they  from  the  heart  repent  of  their  sins, 
and  were  it  possible  for  them  to  fulfil  the  other 
conditions  prescribed,  it  is  probable  that  God, 
who  is  perfect  goodness,  and  who  is  ready  to 
forgive  men  on  certain  conditions,  and  who  de- 
sires the  salvation  and  happiness  of  all  his  crea- 
tures, would  also  forgive  them,  and  restore  them 
to  his  favour;  or  at  least,  he  might  perhaps  re- 
move the  positive  punishments  inflicted  on  them, 
should  they  comply  with  the  conditions  pre- 
scribed ;  if  indeed  we  can  suppose  their  situa- 
tion such  that  conditions  could  be  offered  them  — 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


221 


a  point  which  we  are  unable  to  determine.  But 
(c)  since  every  good  action  has  its  natural  and 
permanent  good  consequences,  and  every  evil 
action  its  natural  and  permanent  evil  conse- 
quences, it  is  certain  that  the  happiness  of  such 
repentant  angels  must  always  be  less  in  amount 
than  the  happiness  of  those  who  never  sinned, 
and  have  persevered  in  obedience.  The  former 
must  always  take  a  lower  stand,  in  point  of 
happiness  and  character,  than  the  latter ;  and  in 
this  sense  we  may  affirm,  even  on  principles  of 
reason,  that  their  punishment  will  be  eternal. 

But  if  we  inquire  what  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles teach  on  this  subject,  we  can  find  nothing  to 
justify  the  hope  that  the  fallen  angels  will  be  re- 
stored. Their  punishments  are  described  as 
i  ai8iot,  Jude,  ver.  6 ;  as  rtvp  ai&viov,  x6huaL$ 
f,  Matt.  xxv.  41,  46.  These  expressions 
do  not,  indeed,  necessarily  denote  positive  pu- 
nishments, although  it  cannot  be  shewn  that 
natural  punishments  are  here  exclusively  in- 
tended. There  is  some  plausibility  in  the  argu- 
ment that  the  words  cuwvtoj  and  diStoj,  like  the 
Hebrew  oSty,  do  not  denote  eternity,  in  the  strict 
philosophical  sense,  but  only  a  long  and  inde- 
terminate duration.  Vide  s.  20,  III.  But  while 
this  remark  is  doubtless  true  in  itself,  yet  in  the 
passage  cited,  Matt.  xxv.  46,  xohams  alwio$ 
and  £co?7  atwvioj  are  contrasted,  and  if  in  the  lat- 
ter case  atwvtoj  is  allowed  to  denote  absolute 
eternity,  what  right  have  we  to  use  it  in  the 
former  case,  in  a  less  strict  sense  1  From  these 
words,  therefore,  no  argument  can  be  drawn  in 
behalf  of  the  cessation  of  the  punishments  of 
fallen  spirits ;  nor  can  it  be  shewn  that  these 
punishments  are  merely  natural.  The  argu- 
ment for  restoration  is  therefore  left  by  the 
scriptures  very  doubtful.  The  consideration  of 
the  question  will  be  resumed,  s.  157,  158. 
[however  hesitating  and  undecided  the  theolo- 
gians of  the  Lutheran  church  may  be  with  re- 
gard to  the  endless  punishment  of  the  fallen 
angels,  the  doctrinal  standards  of  their  church 
express  no  doubts;  and  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion (Art.  xvii.)  expressly  condemns  those, 
"qui  sentiunt,  hominibus  damnatis  ac  DIABOLIS 
finem  poenarum  futurum  esse."  Neander  sug- 
gests, that  the  doctrine  of  the  final  and  perfect 
restoration  of  all  things  (ajtoxaTfarnfaca^ftavtuv}, 
which  is  ascribed  to  Origen  as  its  author,  was 
the  result  of  the  principles  of  the  Alexandrine 
Gnosis,  and  was  abandoned  by  him  at  a  later 
period  of  his  life.  Allg.  Kirchengesch,  b.  i. 
abth.  3,  s.  1098.— TR.]  ' 

III.  Number  and  Classes  of  Evil  Spirits. 

The  New  Testament  gives  us  no  definite  in- 
formation with  respect  to  the  number  of  evil 
spirits ;  but  they  were  supposed  by  the  Jews  to 
be  very  many  (Luke,  viii.  30),  and  indeed  are 
often  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  in  the 


plural.  We  are  likewise  informed  that  evil 
spirits  compose  a  kingdom,  and  exist  in  a  social 
relation;  and  hence  the  phrase  37  jSaoas/a  tov 
Xatava,  Matt.  xii.  26.  This  representation 
must  be  understood  in  the  same  way  as  that  in 
reference  to  good  angels.  Vide  s.  61,  II.  They 
have  a  leader,  prince,  or  commander,  (o  oip%u>v 
*HV  8ai/jLovMv,  Matt.  xii.  24,)  represented  often 
as  a  fallen  archangel,  and  called  Beelzebub  (vide 
No.  iv.),  also,  by  way  of  eminence,  6taj3o^oj, 
Sar'avaf,  x.  tf.  X.  In  Rev.  xii.  7,  9,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  good  angels  who  fought  on  the  side 
of  -Michael,  the  angels  of  Satan  are  called  ot 
dyye^ot,  avitov.  The  names  devil  and  Satan 
are  not  used  in  the  Bible  in  the  plural,  and  are 
applied  only  to  the  ap^wv  fuv  Scu^ovuov.  It  is 
not  therefore  according  to  scriptural  usage  to 
speak  of  devils  in  the  plural. 

IV.  Names  of  Evil  Spirits. 

Respecting  the  title  evil  angel,  vide  s.  59,  V. 
[Cf.  Bretschneider,  Handbuch,  b.  i.  s.  627; 
Hahn,  Glaubenslehre,  s.  294,  Anm.] 

1.  General  appellations  of  evil  spirits  as  a  body. 
(a)  Tlvtvpafa  axc&api'a — i.  e.,  morally  impure 
and  evil;  Luke,  xi.  24,  et  passim.  Synony- 
mous with  this  is  (6)  rtvevpata  rtovqpd,  Luke, 
vii.  21 ;  Ephes.  vi.  12,  ta  rtvevpatixa,  tq$  rtovri- 
ptaj.  (c)  Acuftovfs  or  Sa^ovia.  The  etymology 
of  this  word  is  quite  uncertain.  In  Homer  and 
all  the  most  ancient  Grecian  writers  it  means 
neither  more  nor  less  than  gods,  (^EOI.)  And 
although,  in  process  of  time,  it  acquired  various 
additional  meanings,  it  always  retained  this.  It 
is  accordingly  used  by  the  LXX.  to  denote  the 
heathen  gods  (oiS^N,)  and  also  in  1  Cor.  x.  20, 
21,  and  Rev.  ix.  20,  where  Scu/iona  and  Eidu&a 
are  connected.  It  was  very  commonly  used  in 
this  sense  by  the  Attic  writers;  and  so,  when 
Paul  was  at  Athens,  (Acts,  xvii.  18,)  some  be- 
lieved that  he  wished  to  introduce  %eva  Sou/towa, 
foreign  deities.  But  the  name  Scu^towj  was 
afterwards  given  by  the  Greeks  to  those  invi- 
sible beings  whom  they  supposed,  in  connexion 
with  their  deities,  to  exert  an  agency  in  the 
world.  Hence  8a,i,povss,  is  the  name  given  by 
Pythagoras,  Plato,  and  others,  to  the  human 
soul,  even  when  connected  with  the  body,  but 
especially  when  separated  from  it.  The  inter- 
mediate spirits  between  God  and  our  race — 
deified  men,  and  heroes,  were  also  called  de- 
mons. And  lastly,  the  internal  spring,  impulse, 
the  foreboding  or  presentiment  of  the  mind,  which 
appeared  so  inexplicable  to  Socrates,  and  which 
he  therefore  personified  and  deified,  was  called 
by  him  his  Saipoviov.  Whenever  this  invisible 
agent  was  the  cause  of  good  to  men,  it  was 
called  aya^oSatjucov  or  fuSai/^wv ;  and  when  the 
cause  of  evil,  xaxoSaipuv.  At  the  time  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles,  Suipuv  was  a  common 
appellation  given  by  the  Grecian  Jews  to  evil 
T2 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


spirits,-  those  morally  so,  and  indeed  by  the 
Apocryphal  writers  also.  Vide  Tob.  iii.  8, 
rtovypov  Saipoviov.  In  the  evangelists,  the 
phrases  rtvsv/Aata  axd^apta  and  rtoi^pa  are  in- 
terchanged, times  without  number,  with  6cu- 
fiovsf  and  itvevpa  Saipovwv  axa^dptov.  In  Matt, 
xii.  24,  8ai/j,ovss  are  distinctly  mentioned  as  be- 
longing to  the  kingdom  of  the  devil.  The 
woman  who  is  described  in  Luke,  xiii.  11,  as 
rtvEiJjtta  l%ovao,  a<j^fvftaj,  is  said  (ver.  16)  to  be 
one  qv  ISrjuev  6  Satfai/aj.  Vide  s.  64,  I.  2.  The 
opinion  of  Farmer,  therefore,  in  his  "  Essay  on 
Demoniacs,"  that  other  spirits — gods,  departed 
souls,  &c.,  and  not  devils — were  intended  in  the 
New  Testament  by  this  appellation  is  unfound- 
ed. In  James,  ii.  19,  Sou/towa  has  clearly  the 
signification  above  given.  But  how  came  8  a  i- 
pov e  $  to  have  this  peculiar  signification  among 
the  Grecian  Jews?  The  LXX.  usually  rendered 
the  Hebrew  words  which  signify  idols  by  the 
word  8ai/jiovf$,  and  the  Greeks  called  their  gods 
by  this  name.  Now  the  Jews  connected  with 
this  name  their  idea  that  evil  spirits  ruled  in  the 
heathen  world,  and  caused  themselves  to  be 
worshipped  as  gods,  under  the  names  of  Jupiter, 
Mercury,  &c.,  and  had  seduced  the  heathen  into 
this  idolatry.  Hence  8aip)v£$  and  evil  spirits 
came  to  be  regarded  by  them  as  synonymous 
terms. 

2.  But  one  of  the  evil  spirits  is  represented 
as  their  prince,  leader,  commander.  Vide  No. 
iii.,  and  Morus,  p.  91,  s.  10.  He  is  called  by 
various  names,  (a)  Satan,  ftofe?,  Satfavaj,  lite- 
rally, enemy,  fiend,  accuser,  Ps.  cix.  6 ;  Job,  ii. 
(s.  58)  ;  Matt.  xvi.  23 ;  and  hence,  by  way  of 
eminence,  princeps  daemonum,  because  he  is  re- 
presented as  the  greatest  enemy  of  man,  and  of 
the  kingdom  of  truth  and  holiness.  Synony- 
mous with  this  title  are  the  names  6  e^poj  and 
o  avtiSixos*  (6)  'O  rtoj/^poj,  malignus,  noxious, 
the  foe  of  man'.  This  name  is  frequently  given 
him  by  John;  as  1  John,  ii.  13,  14.  (c)  A«x- 
POXOJ  is  the  most  common  Grecian  name  of  the 
devil ;  and  from  this  word  our  devil  and  the 
German  Tenfel  are  derived.  It  signifies  fiend, 
destroyer  of  peace,  calumniator.  The  LXX.  ren- 
dered the  Hebrew  jafer  by  Staj3o?w>j,  Job,  i.  6 ;  Ps. 
cix.  6.  This  name  was  sometimes  applied  to 
men,  1  Tim.  iii.  11 ;  Tit.  ii.  3.  (d)  BsTuafc  or 
Be^t'op,  2  Cor.  vi.  15,  from  SjnVa,  compounded 
of  >Sa,  not,  and  Sp>,  high — i.  e.,  low,  abject.  It 
has  different  senses.  In  the  Old  Testament  it 
sometimes  signified  the  under  world,  the  king- 
dom of  the  dead,  Psalm  xviii.  5;  and  sometimes 
unworthy  men,  abject  principles,  Deut.  xiii.  13. 
After  the  Babylonian  exile  it  was  frequently 
used  as  the  name  of  the  devil,  and  occurs  once 
in  this  sense  in  the  New  Testament,  2  Cor.  vi. 
15,  "What  concord  hath  Christ  with  Belial!" 
— i.  e.,  How  can  the  worship  of  Christ  con- 
sist with  the  worship  of  the  devil  (idolatry)  ? 


(e)  B££^fj3oi;j3,  or  "Bfi^ffiovh,  who  is  expressly 
called  dp£wi/  tuv  ScUjUoWwj/,  Matt.  xii.  24.  This 
was  an  appellation  very  common  among  the 
Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ.  In  2  Kings,  i.  2, 
Beelzebub  appears  as  a  god  of  the  Philistines. 
The  name  when  written  with  final  j3,  is  derived 
from  aia?  Sya.  It  most  probably  means,  God  of 
the  fiies,  Fly-Baal,  Deus  averruncus  muscarum, 
whose  office  it  was  to  protect  his  worshippers 
from  the  flies,  which  were  among  the  greatest 
plagues  of  Egypt  and  Philistia.  [It  corres- 
ponds with  the  Greek  Zsv$  drt6[Avio$.~]  Accord- 
ing to  the  later  Jews,  it  means  dominus  crimi- 
nationis,  accuser,  complainant,  and  is  synony- 
mous with  5«xj3o?L,o$  and  Satavaj,  from  the  Sy- 
riac  aa-i,  which  signifies  criminari.  The  other 
form,  Bff^fjSovX,  is  derived  from  SiaT  Spa,  and  is 
either  an  intentional  alteration  of  the  word  into 
an  epithet  of  disgrace,  and  so  signifies  deus  ster- 
coris  (Mistgott),  from  Sar,  stercus ,-  or  signifies, 
deus,  or  pr&fectus  sepulcri,  (as  *?ur  signifies  in 
Chaldaic  and  Syriac,)  dominus  inferni,  or  infe- 
rorum,  o  xpdtog  e%uv  tov  ^avdtov,  Heb.  ii.  14. 
It  was  at  first,  then,  the  name  of  the  angel  of 
death,  and  afterwards  of  the  devil,  when  he  was 
supposed  to  be  the  same  person.  (/)  'O  8pdxuv 
o  /ulycis,  and  o  ofyis  6  dp^atoj,  Rev.  xii.  9,  13. 
This  appellation  might  have  been  given  to  him 
from  his  general  character  for  cunning  and  de- 
ceit, (o  TtXcxfuv  "tv\v  Oixov/A£v7]v.}  But  the  Word 
dp^atoj  evidently  alludes  to  Gen.  iii.,  since  the 
agency  of  the  devil  in  the  occurrence  there  de- 
scribed was  doubtless  believed  by  the  Jews  at 
the  time  of  Christ. 

3.  The  Jews  gave  particular  names  to  evil  as 
well  as  to  good  spirits.  Among  these  is  'A0/j,o- 
&MOJ,  Jlsmodi,  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Tobias, 
iii.  8,  also  Samuel,  Azazel,  &c.  But  none  of 
these  proper  names  of  evil  spirits  occur  in  the 
New  Testament,  unless  the  name  of  the  angel 
of  destruction,  'AjSaSStov — i.  q.,  'ArtoM/woi/, — o 
dyyt^oj  T?ij$  afivatiov,  Rev.  ix.  11,  be  considered 
as  such. 

SECTION  LXIV. 

OF  THE  EMPLOYMENTS  AND  THE  EFFECTS  OF 
EVIL  SPIRITS. 

I.  Objections  to  the  common  theory. 

THE  power  of  Satan  and  his  influence  upon 
men  were  formerly  stated  in  a  very  exaggerated 
manner,  and  represented  as  excessively  great 
and  fearful ;  and  this  view  was  the  more  plausi- 
ble, as  it  seemed  to  be  supported  by  many  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament.  But  this  mistake 
would  have  been  avoided  if  the  true  spirit  of  the 
Bible  had  been  more  justly  apprehended,  and 
the  true  meaning  of  its  language  better  under- 
stood. Vide  No.  ii.  According  to  the  common 
theory,  evil  spirits  were  supposed  to  be  actively 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


223 


employed  at  their  own  pleasure  all  over  the 
earth,  to  have  immediate  influence  on  the  souls 
of  men ;  to  inspire  wicked  thoughts,  doubts,  and 
anxieties ;  to  intrude  themselves  into  all  societies 
and  mysteries;  and  to  rule  in  the  air,  and  over 
the  whole  material  world.  Such  are  the  opinions 
which  formerly  prevailed  to  a  great  extent,  and 
which  are  often  found  in  the  older  ecclesiastical 
writers.  They  were  long  preserved,  and  trans- 
mitted from  one  age  to  another  with  more  or  less 
of  exaggeration.  And  many  theologians  of  the 
protestant  church,  even  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
held  opinions  on  this  subject  which  were  more 
conformed  to  the  prevailing  superstitious  ideas 
of  that  age  than  to  reason  or  scripture.  Luther 
and  Melancthon  were  inclined  to  the  belief  that 
good  and  evil  spirits  were  at  all  times  present  in 
the  world,  and  stood  in  a  very  intimate  relation 
to  men.  In  the  symbols  of  the  Lutheran  church, 
however,  the  connexion  of  superior  spirits  with 
the  world  is  not  very  minutely  determined,  and 
the  doctrine  of  demons  is  exhibited  in  the  gene- 
ral Biblical  phraseology.  Thus,  in  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  many  texts  of  scripture  are 
cited,  but  no  definite  meaning  is  affixed  to  them. 
Many  of  the  ideas  formerly  prevalent  on  this 
subject  are  either  wholly  without  foundation,  or 
are  carried  beyond  the  bounds  of  truth.  For, 

1.  It  is  contradictory  to  the  ideas  of  the  power, 
wisdom,  holiness,  and  goodness  of  God  which 
we  derive  from  the  Bible  and  from  reason,  to 
ascribe  to  the  devil  such  vast  and  almost  infinite 
power.     Nor  can  we  see  any  rational  way  of 
accounting  for  it  that  God  should  permit  so  great 
and  injurious  an  influence  to  be  exerted  in  the 
world. 

2.  The  opinion  maintained  by  some  that  evil 
spirits  can  produce  wicked  thoughts  in  the  minds 
of  men  by  an  immediate  influence  is  incapable 
of  proof.     The  evil  influences  exerted  on  the 
human  mind  have  by  some  been  supposed  to  be 
as  immediate  and  efficient  as  the  divine  influ- 
ences ;  and  as  God  infuses  good  thoughts,  as  he 
inspired  prophets  and  apostles,  so  does  Satan,  it 
is  supposed,  directly  infuse  evil  thoughts  into 
the  minds  of  the  wicked,  and  into  the  minds  of 
the  good  also,  when  he  is  permitted  so  to  do  by 
God.     That  these  inspirations  of  the  devil  can 
be   distinguished   by   any   certain    signs   from 
thoughts  and  desires  which  arise  in  the  mind 
from  other  sources  is  not  pretended ;  this  opi- 
nion, therefore,  cannot  be  established  by  expe- 
rience, and  certainly  it  cannot  be  derived  from 
scripture ;  at  least,  the  opinion  that  evil  spirits 
do  always  or  commonly  exert  an  immediate  in- 
fluence of  this  kind  cannot  be  proved  from  the 
Bible. 

3.  This  theory,  when  carried  to  the  length  to 
which  it  has  sometimes  been  carried,  is  incon- 
sistent with  human/reeefom.  If  the  agency  of 
Satan  was  of  the  nature  often  believed,  man 


would  not  be  the  agent  of  the  wicked  actions  he 
seems  to  perform,  but  merely  the  instrument  of 
the  irresistible  influence  of  Satan ;  and  thus  an 
excuse  for  sin  would  be  furnished. 

4.  In  many  texts  in  the  New  Testament  in 
which  the  common  origin  of  particular  sins  is 
described,  Satan  is  not  mentioned,  but  their  ex- 
istence is  accounted  for  in  another  way,  agree- 
able alike  to  reason  and  experience.  Cf.  espe- 
cially James,  i.  13 — 15,  "  Let  no  man  say,  when 
he  is  tempted,  I  am  tempted  of  God.  Every  man 
is  tempted  when  he  is  drawn  away  of  his  own 
lust,  and  enticed,  when  he  gives  indulgence  to 
rising  desires,  which  is  internal  sin.  When  lust 
hath  conceived  it  bringeth  forth  sin,  (it  breaks 
forth  in  sinful  words  and  works,  which  is  exter- 
nal szn,-)  and  sin,  when  it  is  brought  into  the 
world,  bringeth  forth  death,  (its  uniform  conse- 
quence is  misery.y  Cf.  Matthew,  xv.  19  ;  Gal. 
v.  16 — 21 ;  Rom.  vii.  5,  8,  seq. 

From  these  texts,  however,  we  cannot  con- 
clude, as  some  have  done,  that  the  Bible  excludes 
the  agency  of  Satan  in  the  sins  of  men.  This 
would  be  an  extreme  equally  contrary  to  the 
scriptures  with  the  other,  for  the  Bible  expressly 
teaches  (a)  that  Satan  is  hostile  to  man,  and  is 
active  in  promoting  wickedness,  Eph.  ii.  2,  vi. 
11,  seq.,  &c.  Morus,  p.  92,  93,  n.  i.  (6)  That 
he  contributes  something  to  the  sins  which  pre- 
vail among  men — e.  g.,  1  Cor.  vii.  5,  where 
Satan  is  distinguished  from  axpaaia,  incontinence, 
to  which  he  is  said  to  tempt  men;  from  which 
it  is  clear,  as  Morus  justly  observes,  that  Satan 
is  not  used  in  the  scriptures  to  denote  merely  an 
abstract  idea,  and  moral  evil.  Vide  ubi  supra, 
n.  2.  (c)  That  he  opposes  goodness;  Luke, 
viii.  12;  John,  viii.  44;  and  is  therefore  the 
enemy  of  Christianity  and  morality.  Vide  ubi 
supra,  n.  3.  This  is  what  the  Bible  teaches ; 
still  it  does  not  deny  that  the  ignorance  of  man* 
his  sinful  passions,  and  other  causes,  have  a 
tendency  to  lead  him  to  sin;  nor  does  it  under- 
take to  determine  the  manner  in  which  Satan 
does  what  is  ascribed  to  him  ;  nor  does  it  justify 
us  in  deciding  in  particular  cases  whether  Satan 
has  had  any  agency  in  the  crimes  committed,  or 
what  and  how  much  it  may  have  been.  So 
thought  Origen  (rttpt  dp^wv,  iii.)  and  many  of 
the  ecclesiastical  fathers,  who  endeavoured  to 
rectify  the  unscriptural  notions  respecting  the 
power  of  the  devil  which  were  entertained  by 
many  of  their  contemporaries. 

The  extravagant  opinions  which  formerly  pre- 
vailed on  this  subject  were  the  means  of  much 
injury,  as  appears  from  experience,  (a)  They 
led  the  common  people  to  what  was,  in  effect,  a 
belief  in  two  gods — a  good  and  an  evil  deity ; 
and  also  to  entertain  false  conceptions  of  the  at- 
tributes of  the  true  God,  which  could  not  have 
been  without  a  practical  influence  on  the  life. 
(j3)  They  often  furnished  a  real  hindrance  to 


224 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


moral  improvement;  for  instead  of  seeking  for 
the  origin  of  sin  in  themselves,  and  endeavour- 
ing to  stop  its  sources, — instead  of  becoming 
acquainted  with,  and  avoiding  the  external  oc- 
casions of  sin, — they  laid  the  whole  blame  of  it 
upon  Satan,  and  when  they  had  made  him  guilty, 
held  themselves  sufficiently  justified  and  excul- 
pated, (y)  They  gave  rise  to  many  other  false 
opinions  and  superstitious  practices,  similar  to 
some  already  existing  among  the  Jews.  Ori- 
gen,  Eusebius,  and  Augustine,  represent  demons 
as  fluttering  about  in  the  air,  from  the  misun- 
derstanding of  Eph.  ii.  2.  Vide  No.  ii.  Euse- 
bius speaks  of  them  as  present  at  pagan  sacri- 
fices, regaling  themselves  with  the  sweet  savour, 
according  to  an  opinion  which  prevailed  both 
among  the  Jews  and  Greeks  respecting  their 
gods.  Sometimes  they  are  represented  as 
speaking  in  the  heathen  oracles,  and  plotting 
evil  against  men  at  prayer ;  to  secure  themselves 
against  which,  the  ancient  saints,  as  appears 
from  the  fabulous  histories  of  their  lives,  were 
accustomed  to  make  use  of  the  sign  of  the  cross. 
They  were  supposed  to  keep  themselves  in  de- 
serts, swamps,  and  subterranean  caves,  Is. 
xxxiv.  13,  14;  Matt.  iv.  1;  Luke,  xi.  24;  1 
Sam.  xviii. ;  and  also  to  dwell  in  men  before 
their  baptism,  even  in  the  children  of  Christian 
parents,  and  not  merely  in  the  heathen,  as  was 
at  first  supposed ;  and  this  gave  origin  to  the  rite 
of  exorcism.  Vide  Doderlein,  Disp.  de  redemp- 
tione  a  potestate  diaboli;  Altorf,  1774,  4to;  also 
in  his  "  Opuscula  Theologica ;"  Jenae,  1789, 8vo. 
Tollner,  Theol.  Untersuchungen,  th.  i.  st.  2, 
"  Die  Lehre  von  den  Versuchungen  des  Teufels 
1st  nicht  praktisch."  Runge,  Man  muss  auch 
dem  Teufel  nicht  zu  viel  aufbiirden;  Bremen, 
1776,  8vo. 

In  opposing  these  false  and  superstitious  no- 
tions, many,  however,  fell  into  an  opposite 
fault,  and  wholly  denied  the  power  and  influ- 
ence of  evil  spirits,  and  explained  the  passages 
of  the  Bible  relating  to  this  subject  in  an  arbi- 
trary manner,  in  order  to  make  them  agree  with 
their  own  previously  established  theories.  It 
was  with  the  texts  relating  to  this  doctrine  that 
the  Rationalists  began,  about  the  middle  of  the 
.eighteenth  century,  to  indulge  themselves  in 
that  arbitrary  mode  of  interpretation  which  they 
have  since  applied  to  such  other  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  as  they  have  wished  to  reject. 

II.  Remarks  on  some  texts  relating  to  this  subject. 

The  general  notion  which  formerly  prevailed 
among  the  Jews  respecting  evil  spirits,  and 
•which  has  been  adopted  and  authorized  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  is,  that  they  are 
the  authors  and  promoters  of  evil  among  men, 
John,  vhi.  44.  The  following  general  doctrines 
are  at  the  basis  of  the  Biblical  representations 
of  this  subject. 


1.  God  is  indeed  the  governor  of  all  mankind ; 
but  he  is  especially  the  kind  father,  benefactor, 
and  protector  of  those  who  truly  reverence  his 
authority,  obey  his  precepts,  and  in  their  conduct 
endeavour  to  imitate  him.   Of  these  his  kingdom 
is  composed ;  they  are  citizens  of  it,  children  nf 
God,-  by  which  appellation  is  meant,  that  they 
are  those  who  honour,  love,  and  obey  him,  as 
dutiful   children  do  their  father;  and  whom, 
therefore,  he  loves  in  return,  as  a  good  father 
does  his  dutiful  children.    Now  as  the  Israelites 
were  in  ancient  times  selected  by  God  as  the 
means  of  diffusing  the  true  knowledge  of  him- 
self and  pure  morals,  and  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  other  great  designs,  they  are  called,  in 
an  eminent  sense,  his  people,  his  children,  and 
he,  their  king  and  father.    These  titles  are  pro- 
perly transferred  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  to  Christians,  who  take  the  place  of 
the  Israelites,  and  succeed  them  in  all  their 
rights.     Christians  now  constitute  the  kingdom 
of  God ;  they  are  his  house,  his  family ;  he  is 
their  father  and  counsellor ;  and  he  employs  in 
their  behalf  the  good  angels,  who  are  the  invi- 
sible instruments  of  his  providence.     After  the 
same  manner,  the  great  mass  of  mankind — the 
xofljitoj,  (as  the  heathen  world  is  called,  from  the 
multitude  of  which  it  is  composed,)  and  the 
UXOT'OJ,  (as  it  is  also  called,  from  the  ignorance 
and  moral  corruption  that  prevails  over  it) — has 
also  its  invisible  head.     It  is  governed  by  the 
spirits  who  are  at  enmity  with  God,  and  by  their 
prince  the  devil.     To  whomsoever  men  yield 
obedience,  his  children  they  are,  and  to  his 
kingdom  they  belong,  John,  viii.  44.     And  thus 
all  those  who  follow  their  sinful  passions  and 
desires,  who  are  the  servants  of  sin,  and  resist 
the  will  of  God,  are  said  to  obey  the  devil,  or  to 
stand  under  his  dominion,  because  they  act  ac- 
cording to  his  will,  and  imitate  him.     And  so 
the  heathen,  who  have  no  true  knowledge  of 
God,  and  whose  moral  character  is  debased,  are 
said  to  belong  to  his  kingdom.     The  supremacy 
here  spoken  of  is,  then,  df  a  moral  nature,  found- 
ed upon  resemblance  in  conduct,  moral  charac- 
ter, and  opinion. 

2.  There  is  another  doctrine  intimately  con- 
nected with  this.    As  Satan  opposes  the  designs 
of  God,  and  does  only  evil,  he  is  represented  as 
the  seducer  of  our  first  parents,  and  so  the  author 
of  sin  among  men,  and  of  all  its  evil  conse- 
quences.   Vide  Book  of  Wisdom,  ii.  2-4.    He  is 
generally  described  as  the  great  enemy  of  man, 
6  t%$p6s,  dv^pcortoxT'ovoj.     Vide  Morus,  p.  92, 
sec.  11.     According  to  this  view,  the  events 
narrated  in  Gen.  iii.  were  referred  to  Satan  by 
the  Jews,  in  which  they  were  followed  by  the 
New-Testament  writers,  John,  viii.  44 ;  1  John, 
iii.  8;  Rev.  xii.  9.     Since  the  time  of  the  first 
apostasy,  men  are  born  with  a  strong  and  pre- 
dominant bias  and  propensity  to  sin,  Rom.  vii. 


WORKS  OF  GOD, 


225 


23,  coll.  v.  12,  19.  This  now,  and  everything 
regarded  as  a  consequence  of  the  apostasy  to 
which  Satan  tempted  our  first  parents,  is  con- 
sidered as  belonging  to  his  kingdom,  and  is 
ascribed  to  his  influence,  even  in  those  cases  in 
which  he  himself  may  not  have  been  imme- 
diately engaged.  Thus  all  errors,  especially 
those  in  religion,  all  wickedness,  deceitfulness, 
and  whatever  else  is  offensive  to  God,  are 
ascribed  to  him,  even  when  he  himself  has  not 
been  personally  or  immediately  active  in  pro- 
moting them;  and  this,  because  he  is  the  first 
cause  of  all  this  evil  which  has  followed  ;  just 
as,  on  the  contrary,  all  the  good  which  is  op- 
posed to  this  evil  is  ascribed  to  God,  even  in 
those  cases  where  he  has  not  immediately  pro- 
duced it,  only  because  it  is  according  to  his 
will,  and  results  from  the  wise  institutes  which 
he  has  founded.  And  so  everything  connected 
with  moral  evil,  as  cause  or  as  consequence, 
and  all  wicked  men,  (6  xo/ipos,  o  axotos,)  belong 
to  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  (vide  Morus,  p.  91, 
Num.  1 ;)  while,  on  the  contrary,  all  the  pious, 
and  all  moral  goodness,  with  its  causes  and  con- 
sequences, belong  to  the  kingdom  of  light — the 
kingdom  of  God,  or  of  Jesus  Christ.  Vide  the 
texts  referred  to,  ubi  supra.  From  what  has 
now  been  said,  light  is  cast  upon  the  following 
Biblical  representations  and  expressions  : — " 

(a)  The  prevalence  of  immorality  and  the 
diffusion  of  false  religious  observances  are 
striking  proofs  of  the  great  corruption  of  human 
nature;  they  are  accordingly  ascribed  in  a  pe- 
culiar sense  to  the  influence  of  evil  spirits,  who 
are  hence  called  the  gods  or  rulers  of  this  world. 
Eph.  ii.  2,  ap^wv  t^  tfpvaUtf  tov  cU'poj,  prince 
of  the  power  of  darkness,  (dwjp,  tenebrx,  Homer, 
Od.  ix.  144;  Virgil,  acre  sepsit) — i.  e.,  of  the 
heathen  world,  darkened  by  ignorance  and  error. 
Cf.  Eph.  vi.  12,  ol  xo<3[jLOxpdtopa$  tov  6xotw$ 
tov  cuw7'oj  tovtov.  To  the  former  passage  the 
apostle  subjoins  the  declaration  that  evil  spirits 
were  tvtpyovvtts  iv  vlol$  tys  ajtefeeias,  and  in 
ver.  3  mentions  at  irtfrufwu  tr$  oapxoj,  the  de- 
sires which  spring  from  our  bodily  nature,  and 
which  lead  to  immorality.  Satan  is  called  in 
the  same  sense  6  &b$  tov  cuu>vo$  tovtov,  who 
blinds  the  understanding  of  the  unbelieving,  2 
Cor.  iv.  4;  also  opgwv  tov  xoapov,  John,  xii. 
31 ;  xvi.  11 ;  and  paganism,  irreligion,  and  im- 
morality, are  called  Qovalo,  tov  Safava,  Acts, 
xxvi.  18;  while  the  Christian  church,  the  object 
of  which  is  to  make  men  pious,  and  to  prepare 
them  to  become  citizens  of  the  society  of  the 
blessed  above,  is  called  jSoaiteta  tov  Tlov  ©*ov, 
Col.  i.  13. 

(6)  Christ  carne  into  the  world  in  order  to  re- 
move the  misery  and  disorder  arising  from  the 
seduction  of  our  first  parents  by  the  devil,  and 
to  shew  us  the  way  to  true  holiness  and  happi- 
ness. 1  John,  iii.  8,  l^owspw^ — iVa  hvoy  to. 
29 


ipya  tov  6ta)36xoD,  and  according  to  Col.  ii.  15, 
Christ  prevailed  and  triumphed  over  Satan. 
The  works  of  the  devil  are  sin,  and  everything 
by  which  sin  and  unbelief  are  occasioned. 
Where  sin,  and  misery  as  its  consequence,  pre- 
vail, there  Satan  rules.  John  says,  in  the  pas- 
sage above  cited,  6  rtotwv  trjv  a/j.a^tiav,  ix  tov 
StojSokov  iativ.  Thus  he  rules  over  unbelieving 
Jews  and  Christians,  as  well  as  over  the  hea- 
then, John,  viii.  44. 

(c)  All  the  hindrances  to  the  spread  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  to  the  prevalence  of  that  piety  and 
holiness  which  Christianity  is  intended  to  pro- 
mote— all  the  temptations  and  persecutions 
which  Christians  are  called  to  endure; — in 
short,  the  whole  system  of  efforts  opposed  to 
Christianity,  are  regarded  as  the  works  of  Satan, 
and  the  enemies  of  Christianity  as  his  instru- 
ments. Morus,  p.  91,  s.  9,  note.  Hence,  when 
Judas  formed  the  infernal  purpose  (as  we  should 
say)  of  betraying  Christ,  it  is  said,  the  devil  en- 
tered into  him — i.  e.,  took  possession  of  him, 
John,  xiii.  2,  27,  coll.  Acts,  v.  3.  By  the 
wiles  of  the  devil,  Eph.  vi.  11,  seq.,  the  persecu- 
tions which  Christians  were  called  to  endure, 
and  the  efforts  made  to  turn  them  aside  from  the 
truth,  are  principally  intended.  Cf.  1.  Pet.  v. 
8,  9,  where  jto^r^ata  are  expressly  mentioned. 
The  enemies  of  Christians  are  the  instruments 
by  which  he  brings  suffering  upon  them,  in 
order  to  injure  them  and  lead  them  to  apostasy 
and  unbelief.  He  has  a  hand  also  in  the 
schisms,  controversies,  and  heresies  which  arise 
among  Christians  themselves,  2  Cor.  ii.  11 ;  xi. 
14,  15,  Siaxovot,  'Zatavd.  Unbelief  in  particular 
individuals  is  also  ascribed  to  him,  Luke,  xxii. 
31,  as  are  all  gross  vices  and  crimes. 

(rf)  Death,  and  every  other  evil  which  may 
be  regarded  as  the  punishment  of  sin,  is  also 
ascribed  to  the  devil,  and  is  said  to  have  come 
into  the  world  through  him  ;  Book  of  Wisdom, 
ii.  4;  John,  viii.  44;  Heb.ii.  14.  In  the  last  pas- 
sage he  is  described  as  the  one  who  has  power  over 
death,  to  xpdto$e%uv  tov  ^avdtov,  which  is  taken 
from  the  image  of  the  angel  of  death,  Asmodi, 
or  Samael.  And  as  sickness  may  also  be  re- 
garded as  the  punishment  of  sin,  they  too  are 
often  represented  as  the  works  of  the  devil. 
We  are  prevented,  however,  from  considering 
Satan  as  the  sole  and  independent  cause  of  the 
death  of  men,  by  those  texts  in  which  the  power 
over  life  and  death,  and  the  whole  disposal  of 
the  destinies  of  man,  is  ascribed  to  God  alone. 
The  representation,  therefore,  that  Satan  is  the 
author  of  death  and  misery,  is  to  be  understood 
figuratively  ;  for  he  is  such  to  individuals  only 
as  he  was  the  first  cause  of  that  apostasy  of  man 
which  brought  death  and  misery  upon  our  race. 
Still  we  are  taught  in  the  Bible,  that  for  the 
same  wise  reasons  which  lead  him  to  permit 
other  evils,  for  the  attainment  of  certain  good 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


ends,  not  otherwise  attainable,  God  allows  more 
power  to  evil  spirits,  in  particular  cases  and  at 
certain  times,  than  they  commonly  possess. 

(e)  But  evil  spirits,  according  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible,  cannot,  with  all  their  efforts,  do 
us  harm,  unless  we  resemble  them  in  our  dis- 
position, and  are  ourselves  devoted  to  sin;  1 
John,  v.  18;  iii.  8;  John,  viii.  44.  Christ  has 
robbed  evil  spirits  of  their  power,  has  conquered 
them — i.  e.,  has  rendered  them  harmless  to  those 
who  believe  in  him  ;  and  this  he  has  done,  partly 
by  delivering  us  from  the  punishment  of  sin, 
and  partly  by  freeing  us  from  its  power  and 
dominion, — the  one,  by  his  sufferings  and  death, 
the  other,  by  his  instructions  and  example.  All 
those,  therefore,  who,  in  compliance  with  his 
precepts,  and  in  conformity  with  his  example, 
keep  themselves  from  sin,  or  are  pardoned  for 
sins  already  committed,  are  secured  against  the 
temptations  and  wiles  of  evil  spirits,  1  John,  v. 
18.  Prayer,  faith  in  Christ,  the  wholesome  use 
of  his  precepts,  watchfulness,  in  short,  the  means 
prescribed  in  the  Bible  for  security  against  vice 
and  sin, — these,  and  only  these,  are  the  means 
appointed  for  security  against  evil  spirits  ;  Eph. 
vi.  11 — 18;  1  Peter,  v.  8,  seq. ;  James,  i.  14; 
iv.  7.  Morns,  p.  93,  n.  6.  The  excuse,  there- 
fore, that  one  has  been  tempted  of  the  devil,  and 
is  on  that  account  exculpated,  is  always  un- 
founded, even  in  those  cases,  if  such  occur,  in 
which  it  is  capable  of  proof  that  the  inducement 
to  sin  was  really  offered  by  the  devil ;  for  he 
could  not,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
have  found  this  opportunity  unless  the  nature 
of  our  hearts  had  been  depraved,  1  Cor.  vii.  5. 
In  those  cases  only  in  which  men  indulge  the 
sinful  desires  of  their  own  hearts  (James,  i.  14) 
are  they  liable  to  temptations  either  from  the 
devil  or  any  other  quarter;  they  themselves, 
in  such  cases,  are  always  in  fault. 


APPENDIX. 

POWER  OF  SATAN  OVER  THE  HUMAN  BODY 
AND  THE  MATERIAL  WORLD. 


SECTION  LXV. 

OF   THE    BODILY    POSSESSIONS    RECORDED    IN   THE 
NEW   TESTAMENT. 

I.  Meaning  of  the  term  "Possession'1 

ORIGINALLY  it  was  doubtless  supposed  to  de- 
note a  real  indwelling  in  the  human  body.  An 
agent,  in  order  to  exert  an  influence  on  the  hu- 
man body,  must,  it  was  thought,  be  near  to  it, 
and  substantially  dwell  in  it,  as  the  soul  dwells 
in  the  body.  Such  was  at  first  the  general,  in- 
determinate notion.  But  it  was  afterwards  re- 


fined upon,  and  the  belief  in  a  literal,  substantial 
indwelling  of  the  devil  was  abandoned,  and  the 
term  possession  was  understood  to  indicate 
merely  the  powerful  influence  which  Satan 
sometimes  exerted  in  controlling  and  abusing 
the  bodies  of  men  said  to  be  possessed.  In  the 
New  Testament  we  do  indeed  sometimes  meet 
with  a  phrase  like  the  following,  Saram* 
fiavj^^fv  fij  "tiva  ('lovdav),  John,  xiii.  27; 
but  by  this  phrase  nothing  more  than  an  obsessio 
spiritualis^  an  influence  upon  the  mind,  is  intend- 
ed; and  the  common  expressions  are,  l%tiv  Scu- 
UOMOV,  &a,ifiovi£e<s$cu,  x.-r-.x.  The  term  posses- 
sion is  not  used  in  the  New  Testament,  although 
Josephus  speaks  of  Ttov^pa  tivtvpa-ta,  xai  8cu,p6- 
via  tyxo&f£6/ji,fva,  (insidentia),  Ant.  vi.  11 ;  and 
of  rtvfvpa-ca,  h8v6psva,  (induentes  se,  sive,  in- 
gredientes,)  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  6.  The  words  to 
possess,  and  possession,  are  exact  translations  of 
the  Latin  words  possidere,  obsidere,  possessio,  ob- 
sessio, which  were  first  used  in  relation  to  this 
subject  by  the  Latin  fathers  and  schoolmen. 
Obsidere  is  synonymous  with  occupare,  implere, 
and  is  so  employed  by  Cicero,  where  he  says, 
corporibus  omnis  obsidetur  locus.  It  was  then 
spoken  figuratively  of  the  orator,  who  possesses 
himself  of  his  hearers,  and  gains  them  over  to 
his  own  views,  obsidet  at  tenet  auditorem,  Ci- 
cero, De  Orat.  62.  Possidere  is  also  sometimes 
used  for  tenere,  inpotesfafe  sua  habere.  So  Pliny, 
Hist.  Nat.  xxx.  1,  says,  with  regard  to  magic, 
possideri  ed  hominum  sensus  vinculis,  the  senses 
of  men  were  controlled  by  magic  as  by  chains, 
were  held  absolutely  under  its  power;  and  in 
the  same  place,  Gallias  possedit  magia,  because 
it  was  very  prevalent  and  deeply  rooted  in  Gaul. 
Hence  when  one  was  afflicted  with  an  obstinate 
and  fixed  disease,  he  was  said  possessum  esse  ; 
so  Aurelian,  a  physician  in  Africa,  near  the 
close  of  the  second  century,  says  of  one  who 
was  afflicted  with  epilepsy,  passione  possessum 
esse.  This  phraseology  was  now  applied  par- 
ticularly to  those  diseases  which  were  ascribed 
to  the  immediate  agency  of  demons.  The  Bi- 
blical terms  which  have  the  nearest  resemblance 
to  this  phraseology  are  those  which  are  found 
in  Luke,  xiii.  16,  where  Satan  is  said  to  have 
bound  (I'&fffE)  a  sick  woman;  and  in  Acts,  x. 
38,  where  some  are  described  as  xata8vr>a<jtfv6- 
ptvoi  vito  tov  8ta/3d?u>v. 

II.  History  of  this  Doctrine. 

1.  Among  the  Greeks.  The  belief  of  this  doc- 
trine is  found  among  many  heathen  nations  both 
of  ancient  and  modern  times.  The  general  ori- 
gin of  this  idea  is  to  be  sought  in  the  fact  that 
uncultivated  men  are  in  the  habit  of  ascribing 
everything,  the  immediate  cause  of  which  they 
do  not  perceive,  (especially  if  the  thing  is  in 
any  degree  extraordinary,)  to  the  direct  influ- 
ence of  the  Deity,  or  of  some  other  spiritual 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


227 


agent  more  powerful  than  man.  Whatever  of 
this  kind  is  good  or  desirable  they  regard  as  an 
effect  proceeding  immediately  from  good  spirits  ; 
and  the  opposite,  from  evil  spirits.  Cf.  s.  58, 
II.  Thus  it  came  to  pass  that  evil  spirits  were 
considered  often  as  the  authors  of  all  kinds  of 
sickness,  and  especially  of  those  diseases  which 
were  attended  with  unusual  and  inexplicable 
phenomena.  Forthecureof  such  diseases,  which 
were  supposed  to  be  miraculously  inflicted  by  a 
malignant  deity,  or  by  demons,  and  therefore 
to  be  beyond  the  reach  of  human  art,  resort  was 
had  to  miraculous  remedies.  The  diseases  which 
have  commonly  been  regarded  by  different  na- 
tions as  of  this  miraculous  nature  are,  melan- 
choly, madness  ,•  also  such  nervous  diseases  as  are 
attended  with  the  more  frightful  appearances  — 
cramp,  epilepsy,  lunacy,  &c.  These  general 
opinions  prevailed  among  the  Greeks,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  writings  of  some  of  their  oldest 
physicians  —  e.  g.,  Hippocrates,  who  lived  400 
years  before  Christ,  and  wrote  jttpl  tr^  dprj, 
fociov,  also  Galen,  and  Aretaeus  of  Cappadocia, 
who  is  quoted  by  Wetstein,  Nov.  Test.  torn.  i. 
p.  282,  seq.  Hence  it  was  common  among  the 
Greeks  to  use  the  phrases  baipovav,  xaxobaifio- 
vq.v,  and  8cup6viov  ££fw,  as  synonymous  with 
jucu,Wc£(u.  This  is  seen  in  the  writings  of  Xe- 
nophon,  Aristophanes,  and  others;  and  also  in 
the  New  Testament,  as  John,  vii.  20;  x.  20, 
21.  In  the  earliest  ages,  the  Greeks  ascribed 
such  diseases  as  those  above  mentioned  to  some 
malignant  deity.  Thus  it  is  said  even  in  Homer, 
Odyssey,  v.  396— 

e\pat 


But  when,  at  a  later  period,  the  doctrine  of  in- 
termediate spirits  was  received  among  the 
Greeks,  and  these  spirits  were  called  batpovts, 
(demigods,  heroes,  and  the  souls  of  the  depart- 
ed ;)  they  were  now  censidered  as  the  authors 
of  these  evils  ;  and  this  not  by  the  people  only, 
but  by  many  of  the  philosophers,  who  adopted 
these  ideas  into  their  systems,  and  formed  theo- 
ries respecting  them,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
New  Pythagoreans  and  the  New  Platonists,  es- 
pecially in  Egypt,  both  before  and  after  the  birth 
of  Christ.  But  Hippocrates,  Galen,  and  som< 
other  Greek  physicians,  who  supposed  they 
could  explain  these  diseases  in  part  from  natu- 
ral causes,  rejected  this  prevailing  opinion  as 
superstitious  ;  and  in  this  many  of  the  philoso- 
phers agreed  with  them.  Origen  remarks,  in 
his  Commentary  on  Matt,  xvii.,  that  the  physi- 
cians in  his  day  did  not  believe  in  possessions. 
They,  however,  retained  the  expressions  which 
were  in  common  use  among  the  people  on  this 
subject;  such  as  Saijuoj/i^fc&at,  baifiuv  ftosp^ftat, 
t,  txjSctt.toT'at,  ^ftat  voaoi. 

2.  Among  the  Jews. 

(a)  There  is  no  mention  made  of  possessions 


in  any  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  either  in  the 
older  books,  or  in  those  composed  after  the  Ba- 
bylonian exile.  It  is  indeed  often  said  that  par- 
ticular diseases,  or  deaths,  were  inflicted  by 
God,  or  by  his  angels,  even  by  evil  angels 
(messengers  of  evil)  sent  by  him.  Vide  s.  58. 
But  this  does  not  at  all  correspond  with  the  idea 
of  demoniacal  possessions  entertained  at  a  later 
period  by  the  Jews.  There  is  one  passage, 
however,  1  Sam.  xvi.  14 — 23,  where  an  evil 
spirit  is  said  to  come  upon  Saul,  which  has 
sometimes  been  appealed  to  on  this  subject. 
But  the  evil  spirit  here  mentioned  was  not  one 
whose  moral  character  was  evil ;  and  in  this  re- 
spect, therefore,  the  case  of  Saul  is  distinguish- 
ed from  the  cases  of  bodily  possession  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  evil  spirit  here  mention- 
ed is  an  evil  spirit  from  Jehovah,  in  opposition 
to  the  good  spirit  which  came  from  Jehovah 
upon  David,  ver.  13,  and  previously  upon  Saul 
himself,  1  Sam.  x.  10.  This  good  spirit  in- 
spired him  with  a  high  and  kingly  disposition, 
and  with  resolution  for  great  and  good  deeds; 
but  the  other  spirit  was  to  him  the  messenger 
of  evil,  and  harassed  him  with  anxiety  and  me- 
lancholy, which  ended  in  total  madness.  Nor 
is  there  any  mention  of  bodily  possessions  in 
the  Grecian  apocryphal  books  which  were  writ- 
ten before  the  coming  of  Christ;  in  short,  no 
trace  of  this  opinion  can  be  found  among  the 
Jews  before  the  Christian  era. 

(6)  But  the  age  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  is 
altogether  remarkable  in  this  respect.  There 
were  then  in  Judaea  and  Galilee  many  sick  per- 
sons, whose  diseases  were  considered  by  the 
great  body  of  the  Jews  (the  Sadducees,  perhaps, 
only  excepted)  as  the  effects  of  the  agency  of 
evil  spirits.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  this  is 
not  found  to  be  the  case  at  all  in  the  age  pre- 
ceding that  of  Christ,  nor,  at  least  in  the  same 
degree,  in  those  which  followed  it.  We  see 
from  the  New  Testament  that  Jesus,  and  after 
him  the  apostles,  healed  many  of  these  diseases ; 
nor  do  we  anywhere  find  that  Jesus  assigned 
other  causes  for  these  diseases  than  those  to 
which  they  were  supposed  to  be  owing  by  the 
contemporary  Jews ;  nor  that  on  this  subject 
more  than  on  others  the  apostles  and  evangelists 
undertook  to  go  farther  than  their  Master.  We 
see  also,  from  the  New  Testament,  that  the 
Pharisees  interested  themselves  in  this  subject, 
and  at  least  attempted  the  cure  of  some  of  these 
diseases.  Cf.  Matt.  xii.  27.  The  truth  of 
these  facts — viz.,  that  there  were  at  that  time 
sick  persons  of  this  description  in  Palestine  and 
its  vicinity — that  they  were  there  almost  univer- 
sally regarded  as  possessed  of  evil  spirits,  and 
that  many,  especially  from  among  the  Pharisees, 
appeared  as  exorcists,  is  confirmed  by  the  testi- 
mony of  Josephus,  Ant.  viii.  2.  A  few  only  of 
the  Jews,  who  pretended  to  be  more  liberal  and 


228 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


enlightened  than  the  rest,  either  wholly  rejected 
the  belief  of  possessions,  and  indeed  of  the  ex- 
istence of  evil  spirits,  (as  was  done  by  the  Sad- 
ducees  in  Palestine,)  or  adopted  the  opinion  of 
the  later  Greeks,  according  to  which  demons 
were  regarded,  not  as  evil  angels,  but  as  a  sort 
of  intermediate  spirits — the  souls  of  the  de- 
ceased, &c.,  as  was  done  by  some  of  the  more 
learned  Jews,  who  wished  to  conform  to  the 
philosophy  of  the  age.  Of  this  class  was  Jose- 
phus,  who  says,  Bel.  Jud.  vii.  6,  ta 
Stufiovia — jtoi/jypwi/  iatt,  dv^-ptortw 

(c)  The  Jews  of  later  times,  after  the  second 
century,  believed  very  generally,  not  only  that 
there  had  been  possessions  formerly,  but  that 
instances  of  the  same  kind  sometimes  occurred 
even  in  their  own  day.  The  latter  opinion  was, 
however,  denied  by  Maimonides  and  some  other 
Rabbins  ;  while  others,  with  the  Sadducees,  re- 
jected the  whole  doctrine  of  evil  spirits,  and 
declared  themselves  decidedly  for  adsemonism. 
Vide  Wetstein,  ubi  supra. 

3.  Jlmong  Christians  since  the  second  century. 

(a)  The  early  Christian  teachers  since  the 
second  century  are  united  in  the  opinion  that 
the  so  called  demoniacs  of  the  New  Testament 
were  truly  possessed  by  the  devil,  because 
Christ  expressly  declared  them  to  be  so.  This 
was  the  opinion  of  Origen  himself.  They 
moreover  believed  that  there  might  be,  and  ac- 
tually were,  demoniacs  in  their  own  day ;  al- 
though we  have  not  sufficient  evidence  to  con- 
vince us  that  those  whom  they  regarded  as  pos- 
sessed were  so  in  truth.  But  as  this  was 
believed  by  the  Christians  of  that  day,  exorcists 
soon  appeared  among  them,  who  adjured  the 
demons  in  the  name  of  Jesus  to  depart,  and  who 
were  afterwards  in  many  places  established  as 
regular  officers  of  the  church,  and  placed  in  the 
same  rank  with  the  clergy.  Among  these  Chris- 
tian teachers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries 
there  were  many  New  Platonists,  who  contri- 
buted much  to  the  diffusion  of  the  belief  that 
possessions  continued  beyond  the  first  ages  of 
the  church,  and  who,  in  full  accordance  with 
the  philosophic  theory  which  they  had  adopt- 
ed, understood  by  the  demons  supposed  to 
occupy  the  body,  not  evil  spirits,  but  fyvxai 
ario^avovtuv — the  opinion  of  Josephus,  as 
stated  above,  No.  i.  Such  is  the  doctrine 
expressed  by  Justin  the  Martyr,  Apoll.  ii. 
This  latter  opinion,  however,  was  not  univer- 
sal, and  gradually  disappeared,  as  the  influ- 
ence of  the  New  Platonic  philosophy  ceased  ; 
though  a  belief  in  the  continuance  of  real  pos- 
sessions still  prevailed  both  in  the  Eastern  and 
Western  church,  and  in  the  latter  was  retained 
even  by  the  schoolmen.  At  no  time,  however, 
was  the  belief  that  evil  spirits  have  power  to 
possess  the  bodies  of  men,  even  since  the  age 


of  Christ,  more  prevalent  in  the  Western  church 
than  from  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  to  the  middle 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  Hence  we  find  tliftt 
this  belief  was  received  even  by  Luther  and 
Melancthon,  and  other  theologians  of  both  the 
protestant  churches,  and  was  transmitted  by 
their  disciples  to  those  who  came  after  them. 

(6)  But  about  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century  some  doubts  arose  with  regard  to  demo- 
niacal possessions,  and  in  general  with  respect 
to  the  whole  notion  that  the  power  of  evil  spi- 
rits, especially  over  the  material  world,  still 
continued.  These  doubts  were  engendered  at 
first  by  the  prevalence  of  the  principles  of  the 
Cartesian  philosophy.  The  first  public  attack 
was  made  upon  this  doctrine  in  England,  about 
the  year  1G76,  and  was  shortly  followed  up  in 
France.  But  a  new  epoch  in  the  history  of  this 
doctrine  was  made  by  Balthasar  Becker,  a  Car- 
tesian philosopher,  and  a  preacher  at  Amster- 
dam, who  in  1690  published  at  Leuwarden  a 
quarto  volume,  entitled,  The  Enchanted  World, 
afterwards  translated  into  German  by  Sch wager, 
and  published  at  Leipsic,  1781-82,  with  a  pre- 
face and  notes  by  Semler.  This  work  attracted 
great  notice,  and  the  author  of  it  was  severely 
persecuted.  He  did  not  deny  the  existence  of 
evil  spirits,  but  only  their  influence  upon  men, 
and,  of  course,  all  demoniacal  possessions,  even 
those  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  His 
opinions  met  with  great  approbation  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  eighteenth  century  in  England 
and  the  Netherlands,  and  were  adopted  and  ad- 
vocated by  Wetstein,  Le  Clerc,  and  many  other 
Arminian  theologians;  but  in  Germany  and 
Holland  these  opinions  were  uniformly  reject- 
ed by  the  protestant  theologians  during  the 
first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century;  nor  did 
even  Thomasius  agree  with  Becker  on  this  sub- 
ject. Semler  was  the  first  among  the  pro- 
testant theologians  of  Germany  who  adopted, 
with  some  modifications,  the  opinions  of  Becker, 
and  supposed  that  the  demoniacs  of  the  New 
Testament  were  people  afflicted  with  common 
and  natural  diseases.  He  first  published  an  es- 
say, De  daemoniacis  quorum  in  Nov.  Test,  fit 
mentio;  Halle,  1760;  and  afterwards  his  larger 
work,  Untersuchung  der  damonischen  Leute; 
Halle,  1762 ;  which  were  followed  by  still  other 
writings  on  the  same  subject.  This  opinion  at 
first  excited  great  attention,  and  had  to  encoun- 
ter strong  opposition,  but  it  gradually  gained 
ground,  until  it  has  now  become  almost  the 
prevailing  opinion  among  the  learned  theologians 
of  the  protestant  church.  Some,  however,  even 
of  modern  times,  have  declared  their  opinion  that 
the  question  is  not  altogether  settled,  and  that 
there  remains  something  to  be  said  upon  the 
other  side.  In  the  English  church  the  opinion 
of  Semler  has  found  many  advocates,  among 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


229 


whom  Hugo  Farmer,  the  author  of  an  Essay  on 
Demoniacs,  is  distinguished.  In  the  Romish 
church,  the  old  doctrine  that  the  so  called  de- 
moniacs of  the  New  Testament  were  really  pos- 
sessed of  devils,  and  that  these  possessions  were 
not  confined  to  that  particular  age,  remained  the 
common  and  professed  belief  during  the  greatest 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century.  But  during  the 
last  few  years,  many  of  the  theologians,  even 
of  this  church,  have  come  over  to  the  opinions 
prevailing  among  protestants.  The  interest  on 
this  subject  was  revived  in  the  protestant  and 
catholic  churches  in  Germany  by  the  practices 
of  the  celebrated  conjurers,  Schropferand  Gess- 
ner,  who  appeared  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  As  the  difference  of  opi- 
nion was  very  great,  (some  protestant  theolo- 
gians—e.  g.,  Crusius  and  Lavater,  maintaining 
not  only  that  there  might  possibly  be  posses- 
sions and  conjurations  at  the  present  day,  but 
that  such  were  sometimes  actually  known,) 
many  works  were  written  on  both  sides  of  the 
question.  The  result  of  this  discussion  in  the 
minds  of  the  more  unprejudiced  and  moderate 
was,  that  although  God,  for  particular  reasons, 
and  for  the  sake  of  certain  ends,  might  formerly 
have  permitted  demoniacal  possessions,  there  is 
no  proof  that  there  are  any  such  at  the  present 
day;  and  there  are  no  infallible  signs  by  which 
these  alleged  possessions  can  be  certainly  distin- 
guished at  the  present  day  from  diseases  merely 
natural. 

III.  Remarks  on  the  Possessions  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament. 

1.  The  common  opinion  at  the  present  time 
is,  that  all  these  disorders  are  to  be  explained  by 
merely  natural  causes  ;  and  that  when  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  attributed  them  to  the  influence  of 
evil  spirits,  they  spoke  in  accommodation  to  the 
prevailing  error  of  their  contemporaries.  The 
ancients,  it  is  said,  from  their  want  of  patholo- 
gical science,  referred  many  diseases  which  were 
purely  natural  to  demoniacal  influence ;  and  this 
was  the  case  with  regard  to  the  diseases  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament.  Christ  and  his 
apostles  did  not  appear  in  the  character  of  theo- 
retic physicians,  and  were  not  required  by  their 
calling  to  give  instruction  concerning  the  true 
causes  of  human  diseases.  Such  is  the  reason- 
ing often  employed  at  the  present  day  ;  and  in 
this  way  do  some  attempt  to  escape  from  diffi- 
culties, and  to  free  Christ  from  the  charge  of 
entertaining  the  superstitious  opinions  of  his 
countrymen ;  but,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  they 
thus  involve  themselves  in  greater  difficulties 
than  they  attempt  to  escape.  The  question  re- 
specting the  reality  of  the  possessions  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament  is  at  least  open  to  dis- 
cussion, and  cannot  be  decided  in  that  authori- 


tative and  peremptory  tone  which  has  of  late 
sometimes  been  assumed.  That  demoniaca* 
possessions  are  impossible  cannot  be  proved  ;  not 
can  it  be  shewn  from  the  fact  of  there  being  none 
at  the  present  time  that  there  never  were  any.  A 
disease — e.  g.,  epilepsy — which  may  be  owing 
at  one  time  to  a  natural  cause,  may  at  another 
be  produced  by  the  agency  of  an  evil  spirit;  nor 
can  the  opposite  of  this  be  proved.  It  is  also 
possible  that  Divine  Providence  may  have  suf- 
fered in  a  former  period,  for  the  attainment  of 
particular  ends,  what  it  no  longer  permits  now 
that  those  ends  are  obtained.  Vide  No.  3. 

2.  There  are,  indeed,  difficulties  attending  the 
doctrine  of  demoniacal  possessions,  and  many 
things  about  it  are  dark  and  inexplicable ;  but, 
great  as  these  difficulties  may  be,  those  which 
follow  from  rejecting  this  doctrine  are  still 
greater.  They  who  deny  the  reality  of  demoni- 
acal possessions  will  find  it  difficult  either  to 
maintain  the  authority  of  Christ  as  a  teacher, 
especially  as  a  divine  teacher,  and  the  highest 
ambassador  from  God  to  man,  (which  he  always 
affirmed  himself  to  be,)  or  even  to  vindicate  his 
moral  character.  This  subject  is  commonly 
treated  at  the  present  day  in  altogether  too  par- 
tial a  manner;  and  I  regard  it  as  the  duty  of  the 
Christian  theologian,  arising  especially  from  the 
wants  of  the  age  in  which  we  live,  boldly  to  re- 
sist all  such  partial  views  in  matters  of  religion, 
not  concerned  as  to  the  judgment  which  may  be 
formed  of  him  by  the  multitude,  if  he  can  but 
succeed  in  gaining  the  minds  of  the  more  candid 
and  enlightened,  which  he  may  depend  will, 
sooner  or  later,  be  found  on  the  side  of  truth. 
In  reference  to  this  subject,  two  things  are  per- 
fectly undeniable — viz.,  (a)  that  Jesus  himself 
spoke  of  these  diseases  as  effects  produced  by 
evil  spirits,  and  never  gave  the  remotest  occasion 
to  suppose  that  he  believed  they  were  anything 
else,  not  even  in  his  more  confidential  discourses 
with  his  disciples,  nor  in  those  cases  in  which 
he  would  have  found  it  necessary  to  contradict 
the  prevailing  opinion,  if  it  had  been  different 
from  his  own,  Matthew,  viii.  28 — 32 ;  xvii.  19 — 
21 ;  Luke,  x.  17—21 ;  Matt.  xii.  28,  29.  ' 

This  being  the  case  with  Christ,  it  will  not 
be  thought  strange,  (6)  that  his  apostles  and 
other  disciples  should  always  have  been  of  the 
same  mind ;  and  that  the  evangelists  did  regard 
these  sick  persons  as  true  demoniacs  is  obvious 
at  first  sight.  Cf.  Matt.  viii.  28,  seq.  If  Christ 
and  the  apostles  had  regarded  this  opinion  as 
erroneous  they  would  not  have  hesitated  to  de- 
clare it  so,  even  if  their  doing  this  had  been  at- 
tended with  danger  from  the  Jews;  for  where 
truth  was  concerned,  they  were  not  accustomed 
to  be  governed  by  regard  to  consequences.  They 
could  not,  however,  have  had  any  reason  to  ap- 
prehend serious  disadvantages  from  denying  the 
U 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


reality  of  demoniacal  possessions ;  for  this  was 
done  by  the  entire  sect  of  the  Sadducees,  among 
whom  most  of  the  rulers  and  great  men  in  Pa- 
lestine were  found,  and  who,  although  they 
went  so  far  as  to  deny  even  the  existence  of  good 
and  evil  spirits,  were  left  to  the  undisturbed  en- 
joyment of  their  belief.  That  accommodating 
policy  which  some  have  ascribed  to  Christ  and 
the  apostles  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  the 
principles  of  that  pure  morality  which  they 
themselves  taught,  and  according  to  which,  in 
other  cases  similar  to  those  now  under  consider- 
ation, they  themselves  unhesitatingly  and  inva- 
riably acted. 

The  whole  dispute  may  be  summed  up  in  the 
following  points — viz.,  (a)  Those  who  consider 
Christ  as  merely  a  human  teacher,  and  yet  one 
who  acted  on  the  highest  moral  principles,  must 
allow  that  he  at  least  sincerely  believed  what  he 
so  often  asserted  ;  and  in  no  other  way  can  his 
moral  character  be  vindicated.  Such  persons 
might  still  doubt,  notwithstanding  the  declara- 
tion of  Christ,  whether  this  doctrine  is  true, 
since  they  might  suppose  that  he,  like  other 
human  teachers,  might  err  from  the  imperfection 
of  his  knowledge,  and  thus  be  the  means  of 
leading  others  astray,  or  of  confirming  them  in 
their  errors,  (ft)  But  those  who  regard  Christ 
as  an  infallible  divine  teacher,  in  the  full  and 
proper  sense  of  the  word,  and  as  he  is  declared 
to  be  in  the  New  Testament,  must  assent  to  his 
decision  on  this,  as  on  every  other  subject,  and 
they  must  have  the  courage  to  profess  this, 
however  many  difficulties  they  may  find  in  the 
way,  and  although  philosophers  and  illuminati 
should  array  themselves  in  opposition,  and 
scoffers  should  treat  them  with  ridicule  and 
contempt,  (c)  In  order  to  avoid  the  pressure 
under  which  they  feel  themselves  placed  by  the 
above-mentioned  alternative,  many  will  say, 
that  while  they  would  not  deny  that  Jesus  was 
an  upright  man,  and  a  teacher  worthy  of  esteem, 
they  cannot  yet  receive  him  as  a  divine  teacher, 
in  such  a  sense  as  to  require  them  to  believe  a 
doctrine  like  this  on  his  mere  authority.  But  if 
they  will  be  consistent,  they  will  bring  them- 
selves in  this  way  into  great  straits.  For  Jesus 
declared  himself,  on  every  occasion,  and  in  the 
most  decisive  manner,  to  be  an  infallible  divine 
teacher,  whose  words  were  true,  and  must  be 
believed  on  his  mere  authority.  Now  if  Christ 
was  not  such  a  teacher  as  he  declared  himself 
to  be,  the  following  dilemma  arises;  either 
Christ  did  not  think  himself  such,  although  he 
expressly  affirmed  it,  and  then  he  forfeited  his 
•character  for  integrity;  or  he  only  imagined 
himself  to  be  such,  and  then,  though  a  good 
man,  he  must  have  been  a  weak  and  deluded 
enthusiast,  and  thus  he  forfeited  the  character 
•which  the  New  Testament  gave  him,  and  which 


he  claimed  for  himself,  of  a  sure  and  venerable 
teacher,  upon  whose  guidance  and  instruction 
men  might  safely  rely.  Everything,  therefore, 
depends  upon  the  belief  of  the  divine  mission  and 
authority  of  Christ ;  and  from  this  point,  there- 
fore, which  many  would  be  glad  to  evade,  the 
discussion  must  proceed. 

3.  The  following  are  the  views  and  principles 
respecting  demoniacal  possessions,  and  the  de- 
sign with  which  they  were  permitted,  which  are 
found,  without  intermixture  of  philosophy,  an- 
cient or  modern,  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
which  therefore  should  be  laid  before  his  hearers 
by  the  religious  teacher,  as  far  as  they  are  capa- 
ble of  being  understood,  (a)  Satan  and  other 
evil  spirits  feel  a  hatred  to  men,  which  is  mani- 
fested in  various  ways.  Vide  loc.  cit.  s.  64,  II. 
(6)  It  was  important  that  this  hostility  should 
be  rendered  very  clear  and  obvious  to  men,  and 
especially  at  the  time  of  Christ,  when  a  new  era 
commenced,  which  needed  to  be  strongly  dis- 
tinguished, at  its  very  introduction,  from  every 
other.  For  this  reason,  power  was  granted  to 
evil  spirits  to  possess  the  bodies  of  men,  or  to 
affect  them  with  dreadful  diseases — a  power 
which  they  had  not  possessed  before,  and  of 
which  they  have  since  been  deprived.  Vide 
Matt.  xii.  28;  Luke,  xiii.  16,  coll.  v.  11,  and  x. 
17—20;  John,  xvi.  11 ;  Acts,  x.  38,  seq.  (c) 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  power  was  granted  to 
Jesus  and  his  apostles  to  shew,  in  a  manner 
equally  clear  and  striking,  by  the  cure  of  the 
diseases  which  demons  inflicted,  that  the  object 
of  the  coming  of  Christ  was  to  destroy  the  power 
of  evil  spirits,  to  render  their  hostility  to  our  race 
harmless,  and  to  free  all  those  who  wished  to 
be  freed  from  the  evils  ascribed  to  demoniacal 
agency.  Cf.  loc.  supra  cit.  and  John,  xvi.  11 ; 
1  John,  iii.  8,  and  those  cited  s.  64.  The  per- 
mission of  these  possessions,  therefore,  secured 
an  important  moral  end,  which  could  not  be  as 
well  secured  in  any  other  way,  at  that  particu- 
lar age  of  the  world,  (rf)  In  no  other  way  could 
the  great  object  lor  which  Christ  came  into  the 
world,  and  to  which  he  so  often  alludes,  be 
so  strongly  represented,  or  so  deeply  impressed, 
as  by  these  facts  falling  under  the  cognizance 
of  the  senses.  The  mere  teaching  of  this  reli- 
gion, unaccompanied  by  any  such  facts,  would 
have  produced  on  hearers  like  his  a  feeble  im- 
pression, compared  with  that  made  by  those 
wonderful  works  which  proved  both  the  teacher 
and  his  doctrine  to  be  divine.  Facts  produce 
always  a  greater  effect  upon  men  than  abstract 
instruction;  and  hence  God  so  frequently  em- 
ploys them,  as  we  see  both  from  the  Bible  and 
from  experience,  in  the  instruction  which  he 
gives  to  men,  at  least  makes  use  of  them  to  ren- 
der the  instruction  he  has  otherwise  imparted 
more  impressive  and  certain. 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


SECTION  LXVI. 

OF    MAGIC    AXD   SPECTRES. 


I.  Of  Magic. 

1.  WE  shall  here  present  some  historical  ob- 
servations on  the  subject  of  magic,  and  then 
some  conclusions  drawn  from  them  ;  for  nothing 
more  is  necessary  for  the  refutation  of  magic 
than  that  it  be  exposed  to  the  light  of  history. 
The  existence  of  spiritual  agents,  either  friendly 
or  hostile  to  our  race,  is  here  presupposed  ;  and 
magic  is  founded  on  the  belief  of  their  influ- 
ence, and  secret  and  invisible  power.  Wherever 
this  secret,  invisible  power  of  superior  spirits 
is  granted  to  men,  there  is  a  foundation  for 
magic,  whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  the  spirits 
by  whom  it  is  granted,  whether  they  are  gods, 
or  angels,  or  demons,  or  of  some  other  denomi- 
nation. The  many  erroneous  conceptions  of 
ignorant  and  uncultivated  men  with  respect  to 
the  influence  of  these  spirits,  and  the  custom 
of  ascribing  to  their  agency  everything  which 
cannot  be  easily  explained  on  natural  princi- 
ples,— these,  with  other  things,  furnish  a  suf- 
ficient ground  for  the  propensity  to  magic  which 
is  seen  among  so  many  persons,  and  in  so  many 
nations.  This  superstition  has  indeed  appeared 
in  different  forms  among  different  people;  but 
as  they  all  proceed  from  the  same  general  ideas, 
they  bear  a  strong  resemblance  to  each  other  in 
all  their  diversities,  and  agree  in  the  means 
which  they  prescribe  to  propitiate  or  appease 
these  superior  spirits,  or  to  avert  the  threatened 
evil.  Magic,  in  its  largest  sense,  is  the  art  of 
performing  something  which  surpasses  the  na- 
tural powers  of  men,  by  the  aid  of  superior  spi- 
rits. And  the  less  general  cultivation  one  has, 
the  less  knowledge  he  possesses  of  the  powers 
of  nature  and  their  effects,  the  more  inclined 
will  he  be  to  magic,  and  to  all  kinds  of  super- 
stition which  relate  to  the  natural  world.  The 
question  has  sometimes  been  asked,  In  what  na- 
tion was  magic  first  practised  ?  and,  Who  was 
its  first  inventor  or  teacher?  And  in  answer  to 
these  questions,  the  Chaldeans  and  Persians 
have  been  mentioned.  Sine  dubio,  says  Pliny 
(xxx.  1),  orta  in  Perside  a  Zoroastre,  ut  inter 
auctores  constat.  But  this  inquiry  is  useless, 
since  magic  is  practised  by  all  savage  nations, 
and  they  would  be  led  to  it  naturally  by  the  su- 
perstitious ideas  above  mentioned,  and  need  not 
be  supposed  therefore  to  have  derived  it  from 
other  sources.  Vide  Tiedemann,  De  Magia; 
Marburg,  1787. 

When  rude  and  uncultivated  man  wishes  in 
any  way  to  better  his  condition,  or  to  accomplish 
what  appears  to  him  difficult  or  impossible,  he 
resorts  to  magic,  or  the  aid  of  spirits.  (0)  Those 
who  wished  to  be  rich,  or  prosperous,  to  live 
comfortably,  to  regain  their  own  health,  or  to 


procure  health  for  others,  were  accustomed  to 
resort  to  supernatural  assistance,  to  magic  medi- 
cines, cures  effected  by  incantation,  alchymy, 
philtres,  &c.  The  more  mysterious,  dark,  and 
enigmatical  the  means  prescribed  by  this  art,  the 
more  welcome  were  they,  and  the  more  effica- 
cious were  they  believed  to  be.  Even  the  ef- 
fects produced  by  the  natural  virtues  of  herbs, 
medicines,  &c.,  were  ascribed  by  some  to  the 
influence  of  spirits;  hence  Pliny  says  (xxx.  1), 
Nfitam  primum  (magiam)  e  medicina  nemo  du- 
bitat,  ac  specie  salutart  irrepsisse  velut  altiorem 
sanctioremque  medicinam.  (6)  Those  who 
wished  secretly  to  injure  others,  or  to  be  re- 
venged upon  them,  were  wont  to  employ  vari- 
ous herbs,  roots,  or  formulas  of  speech,  for  the 
purpose  of  bewitching  or  enchanting  the  objects 
of  their  dislike;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  resorted 
to  amulets,  charms,  &c.,  when  they  wished  to 
repel  the  injury  to  themselves  from  like  prac- 
tices in  others.  Real  injury  has  been  done  in 
magical  practices  by  the  use  of  actual  poisons, 
though  the  operation  even  of  these  is  ascribed 
by  many  to  spirits.  Hence,  veneficium  (<j>ofyia- 
jesta)  signifies  both  the  mingling  of  poison  and 
sorcery.  So  Pliny  (xxx.  2),  Habet  (magia) 
quasdam  vcritatis  umbras ;  sed  in  his  veneficise 
artes  pullent,  non  magicse.  (d)  Those  who 
wished  to  acquire  the  knowledge  of  things  un- 
known to  them,  (e.  g.,  who  their  enemies  were, 
who  stood  in  the  way  of  their  success,  who  had 
stolen  their  property,  &c.,)  or  who  wished  to 
learn  their  future  destiny,  supposed  that  by  con- 
sulting spirits  they  could  best  obtain  the  desired 
information.  Pliny,  in  the  passage  above  cited, 
says,  "Nullo  (homine)  non  avido  futura  de  se 
sciendi,  atque  de  ccelo  verissime  peti  credente." 
Hence  divination,  dreams,  and  apparitions,  have 
always  been  among  the  instruments  of  which 
the  magician  has  availed  himself. 

Among  men  entertaining  the  superstitious- 
opinions  here  described,  the  supposed  confidant 
of  superior  spirits  would  naturally  command  re- 
spect and  influence.  These  magicians  (for  so- 
those  were  called  who  were  supposed  to  possess 
familiar  spirits)  were  sometimes  impostors, 
sometimes  themselves  deluded,  sometimes  both 
at  once.  The  various  practices  to  which  they 
resorted  in  ancient  and  modern  times  may  be 
easily  explained  from  what  has  already  been 
said.  The  most  common  are  the  following — 
viz.,  fascination  by  evil  glances,  by  words,  pray- 
ers, incantations,  (carmina,  formulas  which 
were  sung,)  Eccl.  x.  11 ;  Ps.  Iviii.  5,  6;  Horn. 
Odys.  de  Circe;  Virgil,  Eel.  viii.  69,  seq. ; 
Mi\.  iv.  487,  seq.  Necromancy,  the  art  of  ob- 
taining the  secrets  of  the  future  by  conjuring 
up  the  dead ;  Homer,  Odys.  xi., — a  very  com- 
mon practice  in  the  East,  and  among  the  He- 
brews, who  were  addicted  to  idolatry.  A  male 
practitioner  of  this  art  among  the  Hebrews  was 


232 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


called  31N,  and  a  female,  (for  it  was  practised  by 
females,)  aiN-nSjja,  a  woman  who  has  a  spirit  of 
necromancy;  in  the  plural,  ni'aw,  sorceresses.  Lev. 
xx.  27;  Is.  xxix.  4.  Of  this  class  was  the 
witch  of  Endor,  whom  Saul  consulted,  1  Sa- 
muel, xxviii.  Cf.  Is.  viii.  19.  Enchantment  by 
magic  herbs,  ointments,  medicines,  and  different 
means  of  exciting  the  feelings  and  passions. 

But  the  belief  in  the  connexion  between 
wicked  men  and  evil  spirits  or  malignant  dei- 
ties, and  the  injury  to  others  which  wizards  of 
this  description  could  do  with  the  assistance 
afforded  them,  has  been  more  frightful  in  its 
consequences  than  any  other.  The  magical 
practices  of  such  men  were  called  by  the  Ara- 
bians the  black  art,  in  distinction  from  what  was 
done  by  those  who  had  connexion  with  good 
spirits,  which  was  called  by  them  white  magic, 
(magia  alba.)  This  form  of  magic  existed  also 
among  the  Hebrews,  who  were  addicted  to 
idolatry  ;  for  the  Canaanites,  and  other  heathen 
nations  with  whom  they  were  connected,  be- 
lieved in  black  deities,  atri  dii  —  i.  e.,  harmful 
gods,  the  authors  of  mischief,  not  morally  wicked, 
like  the  devils  of  the  Jews  after  the  captivity. 

'  •'  £ 

So  we  find  rj^a,  (from  the  Arab.  «    °"^\  obscu- 

ravit,  eclipsi  affecit  Deus  solem,  and  synonymous 


. 

with  U_AMO»,  caliginavit  oculos,)  magic,  black 

art;  and  1CJ3D,  a  magician,  practitioner  of  the. 
black  art.  Nah.  iii.  4;  Deut.  xviii.  10.  Great 
mischief  has  been  done  by  the  professors  of  the 
black  art,  who,  under  pretence  of  magical  prac- 
tices, have  not  unfrequently  committed  murder, 
or  administered  poison.  Hence  in  many  of  the 
ancient  languages,  the  practice  of  magic  and  the 
mingling  of  poison  were  denoted  by  the  same 
word  ;  in  Greek,  by  $op/xaxEta,  in  Latin,  by  ve- 
neficium,  venefaa,-  hence,  too,  the  operations  of 
poison  and  of  magic  are  confounded  by  savage 
people  —  e.  g.,  by  the  African  negroes.  Vide 
Oldendorp's  History  of  the  Mission  to  the  Ca- 
ribbean Islands,  where  the  terrible  consequences 
of  the  belief  in  magic  among  barbarous  men  are 
described.  The  practice  of  black  magic  was 
therefore  forbidden  by  many  of  the  ancient  legis- 
lators, and  especially  by  Moses,  Ex.  xxii.,  Lev. 
xx.,  Deut.  xviii.  The  latter  forbade  the  practice 
of  it  by  the  Jews,  partly  from  its  intimate  con- 
nexion with  idolatry,  and  partly  from  the  injury 
done  by  magicians,  as  real  murderers  and  poi- 
soners. Magic,  however,  remained  in  vogue 
among  the  Jews.  Before  the  exile,  they  sup- 
posed the  supernatural  power  of  magicians  was 
derived  from  the  heathen  idols;  but  after  the 
exile,  when  they  wholly  renounced  idolatry, 
they  supposed  that  black  magic  was  performed 
by  the  aid  of  evil  angels.  No  traces  of  this  opi- 
nion, however,  are  to  be  met  with  shortly  after 
the  exile;  but  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ 


believed  both  in  the  connexion  of  men  with  good 
spirits  and  in  their  fellowship  and  alliance  with 
devils;  and  of  this  the  Pharisees  accused  even 
Jesus,  Matt.  xii.  24. 

2.  The  source  of  modern  scientific  magic 
which  has  prevailed  so  extensively  even  among 
the  civilized  nations  of  Asia  and  Europe,  must 
be  sought  in  the  principles  of  the  New  Platonic 
philosophy,  which  first  flourished  in  Eygpt. 
The  enthusiastic  adherents  of  this  philosophy 
during  the  second  and  third  centuries  brought 
the  ancient  religion  of  the  Greeks  and  the  super- 
stitious opinions  which  prevailed  among  them 
into  a  scientific  -form,  and  gave  them  a  learned 
aspect.  Vide  Meiner,  Betrachtungen  iiber  die 
neuplatonische  Philosophic ;  Leipzig,  1782,  Svo. 
Eberhard,  Ueber  den  Ursprung  der  wissen- 
schaftlichen  Magie,  in  Num.  7  of  his  "  Neuen 
vermischten  Schriften;"  Halle,  1788.  They 
gave  out  their  own  notions  as  purely  Platonic, 
and  in  order  to  secure  them  a  more  favourable 
reception,  invested  them  with  the  Platonic  ideas 
respecting  demons,  purification  of  souls,  union 
with  the  Deity,  &c.  They  divided  magic  into 
two  parts  : — (a)  ©fovpyta,  Seovpyixq  tijcv^  ma- 
gia alba — i.  e.,  the  art  of  gaining  over  good  dei- 
ties or  good  demons,  and  of  procuring  their  as- 
sistance and  cooperation  by  means  of  appointed 
ceremonies,  fasts,  sacrifices,  &c.  This  art  was 
also  called  ^oyioyta,  (^eaycopta1?)  the  art  of  en- 
listing the  gods  on  one's  side;  ^torttia,  x.  t.  x. 
(6)  Toj^tfta  (from  yo^j,  incantator,praestigiator,) 
praestigix,  magia  atra,  witchcraft,  the  art  of  se- 
curing the  assistance  of  evil  spirits.  This  divi- 
sion was  made  by  Jamblicus,  Proclus,  Porphyry, 
and  other  New  Platonists. 

When  now  the  principles  of  the  New  Platonic 
philosophy  became  prevalent  among  Christian 
people,  theurgy  and  witchcraft  were  adopted 
among  other  doctrines,  though  in  a  form  some- 
what modified,  and  intermingled  with  Jewish 
and  Christian  ideas.  Vide  Lactantius,  Institt. 
Div.  ii.  14,  16.  The  spread  of  these  opinions 
was  also  promoted  by  the  enthusiastical  writ- 
ings which  were  published  in  the  fifth  century 
under  the  assumed  name  of  Dionysius  Areopa- 
gita.  It  was  the  almost  universal  opinion  of  the 
ecclesiastical  fathers  that  oracles,  auguries,  and 
the  whole  system  of  heathen  divination,  were 
to  be  ascribed  to  the  devil,  and  were  a  product 
of  this  their  so  called  yoprsta.  Vide  Lactan- 
tius, 1.  1.  Van  Dale,  De  Oraculis  vett.  ethni- 
corum;  Amsterdamiae,  1700.  Among  the  Jews, 
some  adopted  the  opinions  above  described, 
others  adhered  to  their  cabalistic  dreams,  and 
pretended  to  work  wonders  with  words  and 
phrases  taken  from  the  Bible,  with  the  name 
of  God  or  angels,  &c. ;  all  which  ran  into  the 
theurgy  just  noticed.  Among  the  Saracens, 
also,  theurgy  was  very  much  practised ;  and  es- 
pecially in  the  twelfth  century,  they  employed 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


233 


themselves  very  zealously  in  searching  for  the 
philosopher1  s  stone  by  the  practices  of  white  ma- 
gic; and  transmitted  their  results  to  the  Chris- 
tians both  of  Asia  and  Europe.  It  may  be  said 
in  general  of  Jewish  and  Christian  teachers, 
that  while  they  condemned  heathen  theurgy, 
they  did  not  do  this  on  account  of  its  being  a 
superstitious  practice,  but  because  of  the  homage 
rendered  by  it  to  strange  gods  ;  for  the  gods  and 
demons  of  the  heathen  were  regarded  by  Jews 
and  Christians  as  devils  or  fallen  angels.  But 
while  they  condemned  theurgy  as  involving 
this  homage,  they  retained  the  art  itself,  unal- 
tered except  in  its  name.  During  the  middle 
ages,  magic  was  indeed  in  many  places  ex- 
changed for  astrology,  in  consequence  of  the  in- 
troduction of  the  physics  of  Aristotle;  still 
magic  was  not  wholly  exterminated,  nor  were 
the  different  kinds  of  it  (^orpyi'a  and  yojym'a) 
ever  in  more  repute  in  the  west  than  during  the 
sixteenth  and  a  part  of  the  seventeenth  centuries, 
shortly  before  and  after  the  Reformation.  The 
heads  of  theologians,  civilians,  and  common 
people,  were  filled  with  the  notion  that  there 
were  in  reality  alliances  between  wicked  men 
and  wicked  spirits,  and  not  unfrequently,  even 
in  the  protestant  church,  have  persons  been  con- 
demned as  wizards  and  witches.  By  degrees, 
however,  the  notions  of  some  of  the  learned, 
especially  of  the  Cartesian  school,  became  more 
clear  on  this  subject ;  and  in  England  and  the 
Netherlands  some  ventured  openly  to  avow 
their  own  opinions,  and  publicly  to  express 
their  belief  in  the  unreasonableness  of  the  popu- 
lar superstitions.  Among  these  writers,  Becker 
was  foremost.  He  was  followed  in  England 
by  Webster  and  others,  and  in  protestant  Ger- 
many by  Christ.  Thomasius,  in  his  work 
"  Theses  de  crimine  magiae  ;"  Halee,  1701 ;  and 
in  other  works,  in  which  he  further  developed 
the  principles  expressed  in  his  Theses.  His 
opinions  excited  at  first  great  opposition,  which, 
however,  did  not  last  long,  so  ashamed  did  the 
princes,  theologians,  and  common  people  of  the 
protestant  church  become  of  this  superstition  ; 
the  trials  of  the  witches  were  abandoned,  and 
provision  was  made  for  the  better  instruction  of 
the  people  and  the  enlightening  of  the  public 
mind.  But,  after  all,  there  is  still  in  protestant 
countries  a  deep-rooted  belief  in  magic,  which 
is  likely  yet  to  continue.  How  many  people 
of  all  classes,  even  in  the  midst  of  enlightened 
Germany,  were  deceived  and  led  away  by  the 
conjurer  Schropfer,  and  afterwards  by  Cagli- 
ostro !  And  by  how  many  secret  societies  has 
the  belief  in  magic  been  industriously  propa- 
gated among  the  high  and  the  low !  Besides 
the  works  of  Becker,  Thomasius,  Semler, 
Tiedemann,  Meiner,  and  Eberhard,  which  have 
been  already  cited,  cf.  Hauber,  Bibliotheca  Ma- 
gica,  3  torn.;  Lemgov.  1735 — 41,8vo,  where  the 
30 


hurtfulness  of  these  magical  practices  is  shewn 
from  authority  and  history.  Hennings,  Das 
Grab  des  Aberglaubens,  4  Samml.;  Frankfurt, 
1777,  8vo.  Vide  Noesselt's  "  Biicherkennt- 
niss." 

Note  1. — The  act  of  producing  unusual  and 
striking  effects  by  means  of  the  known  powers 
of  nature,  is  called  magia  naturalis,  because 
these  effects,  however  marvellous  and  magical 
they  may  appear  to  the  ignorant,  are  yet  really 
produced  by  natural  means.  Such,  for  example, 
were  many  of  the  effects  produced  by  the  magi- 
cians of  Egypt;  Ex.  vii.  Vide  Wiegleb,  Na- 
tiirliche  Magie;  Berlin,  1779,  8vo;  continued 
afterwards  by  Rosenthal. 

Note  2. — The  philosophy  of  many  secret  or- 
ders, both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  relies 
upon  magic  for  the  attainment  of  its  object.  It 
is  built  on  the  cabalistic  theory,  that  man  in  his 
original  perfection  was  a  very  different  being 
from  man  in  his  present  state ;  that  he  possess- 
ed even  more  natural  powers  than  he  now  does ; 
in  short,  that  he  was  in  the  image  of  Mam  Kad- 
mow,  the  original  god-man,  the  first  and  purest 
effluence  of  all  the  divine  powers  and  attributes ; 
that  he  was  immortal,  the  friend  of  superior  spi- 
rits, lord  of  the  invisible  world,  and  master  of 
secret  sciences  and  arts.  To  restore  human  na- 
ture to  this  its  original  perfection  was  the  object 
of  philosophy;  and  the  mysterious  means  by 
which  this  end  could  be  accomplished,  (the  phi- 
losopher's stone,)  were  supposed  to  have  been 
communicated  to  Adam  by  superior  spirits,  and 
transmitted  by  tradition,  hieroglyphics,  and  va- 
rious secret  writings,  through  Seth,  Enoch, 
Noah,  Moses,  Solomon,  Hermes  Trismegistus, 
Zoroaster,  Orpheus,  and  others  of  the  initiated. 
This  order  was  accessible  to  men  of  all  reli- 
gions, and  among  its  members  we  find  the  Ara- 
bians Adfar  and  Avienna,  Artesius,  Rayrnund, 
Lullus,  Nic.  Flamel,  and  Basil.  Valentine. 
This  mystery  was  brought  from  the  East  into 
Europe  by  Christ.  Rosenkreutz,  who  lived  in  the 
fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries.  It  was  call- 
ed the  philosopher's  stone,  though  it  comprehend- 
ed more  than  mere  alchymy,  or  the  art  of  enno- 
bling metals,  and  the  secret  of  preserving  life 
a  thousand  years.  This  mystery  had  for  its 
higher  object  the  entire  elevation  of  man,  bodily 
and  spiritually;  and  this  object  it  sought  to  ef- 
fect by  means  of  magic,  or  a  mysterious  con- 
nexion with  good  spirits.  In  comparison  with 
this  object,  the  mere  making  of  gold  was  regard- 
ed as  a  very  petty  achievement  by  these  adepts, 
and  was  so  insignificant  in  their  view,  as  many 
of  them  assure  us,  that  rather  than  employ  them- 
selves about  it  they  would  always  remain  poor. 

II.  Of  Spectres. 

A  belief  in  spectres  was  formerly,  and  is  still, 
almost  universal,  and  this,  because  it  results 
u2 


234 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


immediately  from  certain  feelings  and  ideas 
which  are  widely  diffused  among  men.  Spec- 
tres are  called  by  the  Greeks,  stSwka,  apparitions, 
visions,  forms  which  can  be  seen,  shadow-shapes ; 
also  ^atf^afa  (from  <j>cu'r«)  and  fyavtaGpata 
(from  (fav-r'a^w,)  phantoms,  phantasms.  Vide 
Mark,  vi.  49.  They  are  called  by  the  Latins 
spectra,  (from  the  obsolete  specio,  cerno  ,•)  also 
inonstra. 

What  are  spectres  ?  According  to  the  concep- 
tions of  the  Greeks,  Latins,  Hebrews,  Oriental- 
ists, and  indeed  of  most  nations,  they  are  the 
souls  of  the  departed,  returned  again  to  the  earth, 
and  rendered  visible  to  men.  The  nations  now 
mentioned,  and  others  less  cultivated  than  these, 
supposed,  indeed,  that  departed  souls  (the  ghosts 
or  manes  of  the  dead)  immediately  after  death 
wandered  down  to  Hades  (Siw),  (vide  Homer, 
and  Isaiah,  xiv. ;)  and  that  they  had  definite 
places  appointed  them  there,  secluded  from  the 
upper  world,  to  which  they  were  not  allowed  to 
return  in  ordinary  cases.  Vide  2  Sam.  xii.  23  ; 
Job,  vii.  9,  10 ;  Luke,  xvi.  22,  23 ;  Isa.  xxxviii. 
10,  seq.  But  as  the  living  sometimes  saw  the 
deceased  in  their  dreams,  and  as  an  excited 
imagination  often  depicted  before  their  waking 
eyes  the  image  of  some  departed  friend,  so  that 
they  seemed  to  themselves  to  see  and  to  hear 
him,  they  naturally  fell  into  the  belief  that  the 
shades  sometimes  ascend  from  Hades,  and  be- 
come visible  to  men,  or  in  some  other  way 
(perhaps  by  knocking)  give  signals  of  their 
presence.  In  conformity  with  these  concep- 
tions, the  rich  man  in  Hades  is  said  in  the  pa- 
rable to  pray  that  one  of  the  dead  might  be  sent  to 
his  father's  house,  Luke,  xvi.  27,  30.  These 
ghosts  in  Hades  were  represented  as  beings 
possessing  fine,  aerial  bodies,  in  which,  though 
they  were  far  less  gross  and  palpable  than  the 
flesh  and  bones  of  our  earthly  bodies,  they  yet 
sometimes  rendered  themselves  visible  to  men. 
Vide  s.  59,  II.,  s.  150.  Traces  of  this  opinion 
are  found  among  the  Jews,  and  also  among  the 
Latins  and  Greeks;  thus  Homer  speaks  of  j3po- 
Twi'  £i3u>>.a  xa/Aovtav,  and  says  of  them, 

Ou  yap  cirl  oapxas  ri  KO.I  ourta  1vt$  l\owiiv. 

Cf.  Luke,  xxiv.  39,  jtvsvfta  adpxa  xai  oatsa  or* 
t^ft.  Vide  texts  from  various  writers  cited  by 
Wetstein  in  his  Com.  on  Luke,  xxiv.  37.  From 
these  prevailing  conceptions,  the  passages, 
Luke,  xxiv.  37,  and  Mark,  vi.  49,  50,  may  be 
explained,  and  upon  the  existence  of  such  su- 
perstitions the  delusions  of  the  ancient  necro- 
mancers were  founded — e.  g.,  of  the  witch  of 
Endor,  1  Samuel,  xxviii.  7,  seq.  It  was  with 
these  notions  in  his  mind  that  Thomas  took  the 
appearance  of  Jesus  to  be  the  apparition  of  a 
departed  spirit  in  a  shadowy  body,  (ftScoXov,) 
and  was  unwilling  to  believe  that  he  had  ap- 
peared to  the  other  disciples  in  the  true  body 


which  he  had  upon  the  earth,  John,  xx,  25>. 
John  relates  (chap,  xxi.)  that  Jesus  ate  with  his 
disciples  after  his  resurrection,  in  order,  it  weald 
seem,  to  discountenance  the  idea  that  he  appear- 
ed only  with  the  airy  body  of  a  spectre.  The 
common  opinion  or  this  subject  was  adopted  by 
Plato  in  his  Phaedon,  and  was  afterwards  fur- 
ther developed  and  remodelled  to  suit  themselves 
by  the  new  Platonists.  Vide  Scripta  Varii  ar- 
gumenti,  Num.  iii.,  Progr.  super  origine  opini- 
onis  de  immorta)itate  animorum;  Hallee,  1790. 
It  was  also  adopted  by  many  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian teachers;  it  is  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
Greek  and  Latin  fathers ;  and  was  turned  to 
good  account  by  the  Romanists  in  their  doctrine 
of  purgatory. 

It  would  naturally  occur  to  the  minds  of  Jews 
and  Christians  that  the  devil,  and  the  demons 
in  subjection  to  him,  might  have  some  hand  in 
these  apparitions.  Some  accordingly  maintained 
that  it  was  the  devil  who,  for  various  sinister 
purposes,  occasioned  the  return  and  appearance 
of  departed  spirits;  while  others  asserted  that 
spectres  were  only  illusions  practised  on  us  by 
Satan,  that  the  ghosts  of  the  departed  never  ap« 
peared,  and  that  there  were  no  other  than  devil-' 
ish  spectres.  Of  this  opinion  were  many  of  the 
philosophers  and  theologians  of  the  protestant 
church,  in  opposition  to  those  of  the  Romish. 
Nor  have  there  been  wanting  those  who  have 
attempted  to  explain  ghostly  appearances  from 
physical  causes.  Cardanus  and  Jul.  Caes.  Ba- 
nini  contended  that  spectres  were  exhalations 
from  the  wasting  corpse,  which,  becoming  con- 
densed during  the  more  damp  and  silent  air  of 
the  night,  assumed  at  length  the  external  form  of 
the  deceased.  Of  the  philosophers  who  divided 
man  into  three  parts — body,  soul,  and  spirit,  (s. 
51,  I.,)  some  have  supposed  that  it  is  the  spirit 
only  which  after  death  appears  as  a  spectre. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  Paracelsus,  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  and  in  this  he  was  followed  by 
many  theosophists  and  astrologers.  He  called 
this  spectral  spirit  astral,  because  he  supposed 
that  it  was  composed  of  the  two  upper  elements, 
air  and  fare,  and  was  therefore  longer  in  dissolv- 
ing after  death  than  the  material  body,  and 
could  float  about  in  the  atmosphere.  He  was 
followed  in  this  by  Jacob  Boehmen,  and  also 
by  Rob.  Fludd,  and  others  of  the  ancient  Rose- 
crucians. 

But  these  philosophers  would  have  been  bet- 
ter employed  in  inquiring,  in  the  first  place, 
whether  the  stories  of  ghostly  appearances 
which  they  undertook  to  explain  were  real  and 
well-established  facts.  This  inquiry,  however, 
they  rarely  made,  and  usually  took  for  granted 
the  truth  of  what  they  had  heard  on  this  subject. 
But  if  we  examine  impartially  the  various 
ghost-stories  which  are  told,  we  shall  be  brought 
to  the  conclusion  that  spectres  are  not,  for  the 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


235 


most  part,  real  beings,  but  creatures  of  the  ima- 
gination, which  often  exercises  so  irresistible  a 
control  over  men,  that  they  think  they  perceive 
with  their  external  senses  what  has  no  exist- 
ence, or  at  least  exists  in  an  entirely  different 
way  from  that  in  which  it  appears  to  them. 
And  in  these  cases  fear  and  terror  usually  pre- 
vent all  further  investigation.  Besides,  there 
are  some  persons  who  are  mischievous  and 
thoughtless  enough  to  work  upon  the  fear  and 
credulity  of  others,  and  who,  merely  for  their 
own  interest  or  amusement,  will  terrify  them 
with  frightful  appearances.  Again;  the  super- 
stitious notions  which  are  contracted  by  many 
in  early  life  become  so  deeply  and  firmly  rooted 
in  their  minds,  that  often  they  cannot  be  eradi- 
cated during  their  whole  lives;  and  this  fur- 
nishes a  psychological  explanation  of  the  fact, 
that  even  those  philosophers  who  believe  in  no- 
thing of  the  kind  are  often  not  less  agitated  than 
others  with  the  superstitious  fear  of  ghosts. 
Still,  however,  no  considerate  and  sober  philo- 
sopher would  allow  himself  to  decide  positively 
that  spectres  are  in  all  cases  unreal ;  for  no  one 
can  presume  to  maintain  that  the  appearance  of 
disembodied  spirits  among  the  living  is  wholly 
impossible,  and  can  never  take  place.  In  addi- 
tion to  the  works  cited  s.  65,  66,  cf.  Hennings, 
Von  Ahndungen  und  Visionen;  Leipzig,  1782, 
8vo ;  also  his  work,  "  Von  Geistern  und  Geister- 
sehern;"  Leipzig,  1780,  8vo.  Jung,  Geister- 
kunde;  Nurnberg,  1808,  8vo, — an  attempt  to 
furnish  a  scriptural  answer  to  the  question, 
How  far  we  are  to  believe  in  presentiments, 
visions,  dreams,  apparitions,  &c. ;  containing, 
however,  nothing  very  satisfactory,  though 
written  with  the  best  intentions. 


ARTICLE  VIII. 

OF  THE  DOCTRINE  RESPECTING  DIVINE 
PROVIDENCE. 


SECTION  LXVIL 

WHAT  IS  MEANT  BY  THE  PROVIDENCE  OF  GOD? 
AND  HISTORICAL  REMARKS  RESPECTING  THIS 
DOCTRINE. 

I.  Definition  of  Providence. 

PROVIDENCE,  defined  as  to  its  inherent  nature, 
is  the  power  which  God  exerts  without  interrup- 
tion in  and  upon  all  the  works  nf  his  hands.  The 
relation  in  which  all  things  stand  to  God,  and 
the  influences  which  he  exerts  upon  them,  are 
always  represented  in  the  Bible  as  depending 
upon  the  creation.  As  the  creator  of  all  things, 
God  possesses  the  power  and  the  right  to  use 
the:))  according  to  his  own  pleasure;  and  to 


cause  them,  and  all  which  is  done  by  them,  to 
promote  his  own  designs.  Hence  the  provi- 
dence of  God  is  justly  denominated  by  the 
schoolmen  the  second  creation.  Vide  s.  46. 
But,  defined  as  to  its  external  effect,  and  as  far 
as  it  is  visible  to  the  eyes  of  men,  providence 
may  be  said  to  be  the  government  and  preserva- 
tion of  all  things ;  or  the  constant  care  and  over- 
sight of  God  for  all  his  works  ;  and  this  defini- 
tion, which  is  the  one  that  Morus  gives,  is  the 
most  easy  and  intelligible.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  76, 
s.  1,  2. 

Note  1. — The  word  providence  (Germ,  vorse- 
hung)  is  derived  from  the  Latin  providentia,  and 
this  from  the  Greek  rrpovota,  which,  however, 
is  not  found  in  any  of  the  canonical  books, 
though  it  occurs  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  xiv. 
3 ;  xvii.  2.  The  words  xpovotiv  and  providere 
properly  signify  to  foresee,  futura  prospiccrc  ; 
and  Ttporoia  and  providentia,  accordingly  signify 
foresight.  But  providere  not  only  signifies  to 
foresee,  but  also  to  exercise  forecast,  praccavere, 
and  thus,  in  a  general  sense,  to  ivatch  over,  to 
care  for,  curare,  procurare.  In  this  sense  it  is 
employed  by  Cicero,  (Nat.  Deor.  ii.  65,)  Non 
universo  generi  hominum  solum,  sed  etiam  sin- 
gulis  a  deis  CONSULI  et  PROVIDERI  solet.  Corres- 
ponding with  providere  are  the  following  He- 
brew verbs — viz.,  jn%  nx%n,  and  the  other  verba 
videndi  et  adspiciendi,  as  B'3n,  Psalm  xxxiii.  13, 
(cf.  e>opav,  Homer,  Od.  xiii.  214  ;  opav,  II.  xxiv. 
291;  and  the  phrase,  Deus  contemplans  maria 
et  terras,  Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  i.  20;)  n:>T  -9", 
Psa.  viii.  5,  (cf.  arto/jLvaop.ai,  II.  xxiv.  428  ;) 
2ETi,  D'JD,  Nfrj,  Num.  vi.  20;  ici;  and  also  the 
following  Greek  verbs — viz.,  $povftv,  ^f'xxnv, 
(1  Pet.  v.  7;  1  Cor.  ix.  9,)  trtiaxtjttt&ai,  fibt- 
vai,  tjtiyivuaxfiv.  Corresponding  with  provi- 
dentia are  the  following  Hebrew  substantives — 
viz.,  Ti-n,  Crete,  nxj?,  rnurrrc,  man?,  nyv  vr>j?,  v'i ; 
and  the  following  Greek  substantives — viz., 
xpi/jLata,  i>8ot,  SiaT-oyier/iot,  x.  f.  7,. 

.Note  2. — The  doctrine  of  divine  providence 
is  of  the  very  first  importance,  and  contributes 
greatly  to  the  peace  and  happiness  of  human  life. 
Were  it  not  that  God  maintained  a  constant  and 
watchful  care  over  his  works,  all  piety  would 
immediately  cease.  A  god  who  did  not  concern 
himself  in  the  affairs  of  the  world,  and  especially 
in  the  actions  of  men,  would  be  to  UR  as  good 
as  none  at  all.  In  that  case,  should  men  live  in 
a  virtuous  and  pious  manner,  they  would  have  no 
approbation  to  expect  from  him  ;  should  they  be 
guilty  of  crimes,  they  would  have  no  punishment 
to  fear;  were  they  persecuted,  they  could  think 
of  God  only  as  the  idle  witness  of  their  wrongs ; 
were  they  in  circumstances  of  suffering  and  sor- 
row, they  could  find  no  consolation,  if  God  were 
unmindful  of  them.  But.  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
I  am  entitled  to  believe,  that  even  in  times  of 
the  greatest  adversity  God  careth  for  me  as  a 


23G 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


father,  and  will  overrule  all  events  for  my  great- 
est good,  I  may  then  be  composed  and  unshaken, 
and  may  rise  above  depression  and  despair. 

II.  History  of  Opinions  respecting  this  Doctrine. 

1.  Rude  and  uncultivated  nations  have  at  first 
no  idea  of  the  world  as  a  whole  ;  they  do  not 
once  think  of  its  origin,  of  its  internal  con- 
nexion, or  of  the  government  which  is  exercised 
over  it.  Vide  sec.  45,  Nos.  1,  2.  And  when 
by  degrees  they  have  attained  to  the  thought 
that  everything  which  exists  must  have  a  cause, 
they  unconsciously  adopt  the  notion,  that  chance 
or  necessity  is  the  cause  of  all  things  ;  and  with 
this  vague  and  indefinite  notion  remain  for  a 
long  time  satisfied.  Vide  Meiners,  Historia 
doctrinae  de  Deo  vero,  p.  1.  Respecting  the  re- 
lation which  exists  between  God  and  the  world  ; 
respecting  his  power,  and  the  influence  which 
he  exerts  upon  the  works  of  his  hands,  the  con- 
ceptions of  people  in  the  first  stages  of  improve- 
ment were  of  course  very  confined  and  imper- 
fect. Vide  s.  46,  II.  They  represented  the 
Deity  to  their  minds  as  resembling  themselves 
as  closely  as  possible;  they  compared  him  to 
earthly  princes  and  rulers,  possessing,  like  them, 
though  in  a  higher  degree,  power  and  influence ; 
they  considered  him  therefore  as  a  being  whose 
protection  was  to  be  sought,  and  whose  anger 
was  to  be  dreaded ;  but  at  the  same  time  they 
ascribed  to  him  many  human  weaknesses  and 
imperfections.  Of  many  of  his  attributes  they 
appear  to  have  had  very  elevated  and  worthy 
conceptions;  and  especially  of  his  power,  as  is 
evident  from  the  representation  of  Homer,  Zfi>j 
Svvarcu  artai'T'a'  and  yet  even  of  this  attribute 
their  views  were  in  some  respects  defective. 
For  as  an  earthly  monarch,  though  possessed 
of  the  greatest  power,  and  of  the  best  will,  is 
sometimes  prevented  from  acting  in  the  manner 
which  he  approves  and  desires,  by  the  occur- 
rence of  some  unforeseen  events,  or  by  the  con- 
trol of  necessity;  even  so,  they  supposed,  was 
God  himself,  though  possessed  of  a  vastly  supe- 
rior power,  and  acting  in  a  sphere  of  vastly 
greater  extent,  yet  equally  liable  to  be  hindered 
by  contingent  events,  and  equally  subject  to 
that  irresistible  necessity  (fatum,  ^otpa),  by 
which  gods  and  men  were  alike  controlled. 
And  not  only  in  the  respect  above  mentioned 
was  God  supposed  to  resemble  human  rulers, 
but  also  in  matt.ers  of  mere  propriety  ,•  and  as  it 
was  reputed  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  a 
ruler  to  concern  himself  in  all  the  petty  affairs 
of  his  subjects,  so  it  was  supposed,  a  minute 
inspection  and  particular  care  over  all  his  works 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  majesty  of  God. 
Such  were  the  popular  notions  respecting  the 
deities  which  prevailed  among  the  ancient 
Greeks,  and  which  are  expressed  in  Homer, 
Hesiod,  Pindnr.  and  nthpr  earlv  Grecian  poets. 


On  the  one  hand,  their  conceptions  of  the  pro- 
vidence of  God,  and  his  government  over  the 
world,  were  very  just  and  elevated  ;  they  consi- 
dered all  events  as  depending  upon  his  will  ; 

dXX"  J/roc  fuv  ravra  $Ea>t>  iv  yovvaai  Keiraif 

II.  xx.  435,  and  represented  him  as  the  witness 
and  judge  of  the  conduct  of  men  ; 

trrjtrioy,  5ore  Kal 


rvvrat,    ons 


i(popa, 


Od.  xiii.  213.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  these 
conceptions  were  mingled  with  others,  which 
appear  to  us  extremely  unworthy,  and  inconsist- 
ent with  the  divine  character. 

Among  the  ancient  nations,  the  Chaldeans 
were  distinguished  by  their  belief  in  the  doctrine 
of  fate,  which  they  associated  with  their  astro- 
logy ;  hence  the  name/atom  Chaldaicum,  or  as- 
trologicum;  though  this  doctrine  was  by  no 
means  confined  to  them.  Among  the  Greeks, 
the  philosophers  made  the  popular  notions  re- 
specting the  Deity  the  basis  of  their  philoso- 
phical reasonings.  From  the  belief  which  was 
almost  universally  entertained  of  two  original 
and  eternal  principles  —  God  and  matter,  neither 
of  which  was  the  author  of  the  other  (vide  s. 
46,  II.),  their  views  respecting  the  agency  of 
God  in  the  material  world,  and  of  his  power 
over  it,  and  consequently  respecting  his  provi- 
dence, must  have  been  extremely  defective  and 
erroneous.  The  first  among  the  Grecian  philo- 
sophers who  advocated  the  doctrine  of  fate,  from 
whose  control  not  even  the  Deity  was  excepted, 
was  Heraclitus.  It  was  afterwards  defended  by 
Parmenides,  Democritus,  and  others  ;  and  even 
by  Aristotle,  if  the  testimony  of  Cicero  (De 
Fato,  c.  17)  is  to  be  received,  which  is  somewhat 
doubtful.  But  as  this  doctrine  involvedinadequate 
conceptions  of  divine  providence,  and  infringed 
upon  the  freedom  of  God  and  of  other  rational 
beings,  it  was  remodelled  by  Plato,  and  so  ex- 
plained by  him  as  to  be  more  easily  reconciled 
with  other  established  truths;  though  he  does 
not  always  adhere  to  his  own  principles.  The 
stoics  are  known  as  strict  fatalists,  though  the 
precise  sense  in  which  they  held  this  doctrine 
is  a  subject  of  dispute  among  the  learned.  Lip- 
sius  maintained  that  the  fate  of  the  stoics  was 
nothing  more  than  the  so  called  rational  fate  — 
i.  e.,  the  order  established  by  God,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his  freedom  and  wisdom,  according  to 
which  certain  events  must  necessarily  take 
place.  In  the  stoical  fate,  however,  there 
was  always  involved  a  physical  necessity,  al- 
though they  represented  it  as  a  predetermina- 
tion which  did  not  exclude  the  freedom  of  the 
will,  and  which,  while  it  secured  the  certainty  of 
particular  events,  did  not  make  them  necessary. 
This  is  indeed  contradictory;  but  it  did  not  ap- 
pear so  to  them.  Vide  Tiedemann,  System  del 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


237 


stoischen  Philosophic,  th.  ii.  s.  129—142 ;  Leip- 
zig, 1776,  8vo.  According  to  the  doctrine  of 
Epicurus,  the  Deity  was  wholly  removed  from 
the  world.  In  his  system,  as  it  is  represented 
by  Diogenes,  Laertius,  and  Seneca,  the  notion 
of  providence  is  absolutely  denied.  He  supposed 
that  the  peace  of  the  blessed  gods  would  be  in- 
terrupted by  the  labours  and  cares  incident  to 
the  government  of  the  world. 

2.  This  doctrine  of  an  inevitable  necessity 
being  found  inconsistent  with  the  scriptural  re- 
presentations of  the  providence  of  God,  and  be- 
ing also  liable  to  the  greatest  objections  on  philo- 
sophical grounds,  has  been  justly  abandoned  and 
rejected  by  Christian  philosophers  and  theolo- 
gians. But  in  determining  the  manner  in  which 
God  governs  the  world,  they  have  shewn  a  great 
discrepancy  in  their  opinions,  and  on  account  of 
the  bearing  of  this  question  on  that  concerning 
the  origin  and  causes  of  sin,  have  made  it  the 
subject  of  great  controversy.  They  may  be 
ranked,  according  to  the  systems  which  they 
have  adopted,  in  three  classes,  each  of  which 
has  its  representatives  even  among  the  ancient 
schoolmen. 

(a)  The  Occasionalists,  who  adopted  the  sys- 
tem of  occasional  causes  (systema  causarum  oc- 
casionalium),  occasionalism.  They  maintained 
that  God  is  the  immediate  cause  of  the  actions 
of  his  creatures,  and  that  they  only  furnish  him 
an  occasion  for  what  he  does,  and  accordingly 
are  only  passive  instruments  by  which  he  abso- 
lutely and  irresistibly  accomplishes  his  own 
designs.  According  to  this  system,  what  are 
elsewhere  called  second  causes  are  only  occasiones 
agendi.  They  are  also  called  Praedeterminantes, 
because  they  supposed  a  prxdeierminatio,  or 
prsemotio  physica.  Of  this  class  were  many  of 
the  schoolmen,  particularly  the  Thomists  and 
Dominicans,  among  whom  Gabriel  Biel  distin- 
guished himself  as  an  advocate  of  this  theory, 
in  the  fifteenth  century.  The  same  notion  re- 
specting the  manner  of  God's  agency  in  the 
world  was  adopted  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
by  many  of  the  disciples  of  Des  Cartes ;  and 
indeed  his  principles  necessarily  involved  it. 
Among  theologians,  the  disciples  of  Cocceius, 
and  some  Arminians,  were  the  advocates  of  this 
system.  Its  most  zealous  and  acute  defenders, 
however,  were  Malebranche  and  Bayle,  though 
the  latter  dissented  in  many  particulars  from  the 
former.  The  names  of  Twiss,  Maccov,  and 
Turretin,  deserve  to  be  mentioned  in  this  class. 
In  the  Romish  church,  the  Dominicans  still  con- 
tinue the  advocates  of  this  theory.  With  regard 
to  this  theory  it  must  be  said,  that  it  is  hard  to 
see  its  consistency  with  the  freedom  of  the 
human  will;  nor,  indeed,  is  its  inconsistency 
denied  by  Bayle.  Man  is  thus  subjected  to  ne- 
cessity ;  his  good  and  bad  actions  are  not  im- 
putable  to  him,  but  to  God,  who  acts  through 


him,  as  a  mere  instrument.  But  the  law  of  ne- 
cessity, when  applied  to  moral  beings,  or  within 
the  world  of  spirits,  is  extended  beyond  its 
proper  sphere,  which  is  the  material  world. 
This  theory,  therefore,  which  involves  a  neces- 
sity of  acting,  is  utterly  inapplicable  to  moral 
beings,  whose  highest  law  of  acting  is  freedom. 
[Respecting  the  system  of  occasional  causes, 
the  student  may  consult  Hahn,  Lehrbuch  des 
christlichen  Glaubens,  s.  73,  s.  316,  320f  Bret- 
schneider,  Handbuch  der  Dogmatik,  b.  i.  s.  93,  s. 
610.  Tennemann,  Grundriss  der  Gesch.  der 
Philos.  s.  373,  378.— TR.] 

(6)  Perceiving  that  this  theory  was  untenable, 
and  injurious  in  its  influence  on  morality,  some 
adopted  one  exactly  opposite,  and  maintained 
that  the  creatures  of  God  acted  immediately  in 
and  through  themselves,  in  the  exercise  of  the 
powers  with  which  they  had  been  once  endowed 
by  the  Creator,  and  independently  of  his  assist- 
ance. They  compared  the  movements  and  al- 
terations which  appear  in  the  creation  to  those 
of  a  machine,  (e.  g.,  of  a  clock,)  which,  being 
once  made  and  wound  up,  goes  for  a  time  of 
itself,  without  the  further  assistance  of  the  artist, 
and  when  he  is  no  longer  present.  This  theory 
is  called  the  system  of  mechanism,  and  was 
proposed  by  Durandus,  in  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury, and  by  other  schoolmen.  Its  first  advocate 
was  Scotus,  and  it  has  been  adopted  by  many 
of  the  modern  mechanical  philosophers,  and 
even  by  Richard  Baxter.  Some  have  made 
use  of  Bonnet's  System  of  development,  in  or- 
der to  confirm  and  complete  this  theory.  But 
this  theory,  as  well  as  the  one  to  which  it  is 
opposed,  is  liable  to  great  objections.  It  ex- 
hibits God  in  a  light  which  is  inconsistent 
with  his  perfections.  It  represents  him  as  an 
artist  who  leaves  his  work,  when  he  has  com- 
pleted it,  or  idly  beholds  its  operations.  Nor 
does  this  theory,  less  than  the  former,  impinge 
upon  the  doctrine  of  freedom  and  accountability. 
If  it  is  consistently  carried  through,  it  removes 
many  of  the  most  important  motives  which 
ethics  or  religion  can  furnish  ;  for  practical  uses, 
therefore,  it  is  wholly  unfit.  Vide  Jerusalem, 
Betrachtungen,  th.  i.  s.  114.  Also  the  writings 
of  Kant,  which  contain  many  profound  discus- 
sions on  this  subject.  [Cf.  De  la  Mettrie, 
L'Homme  machine,  1748,  4to.  Coleridge,  Aids 
to  Reflection,  p.  243,  Amer.  Edition. — TR.] 

(c)  In  consequence  of  the  difficulties  and  ob- 
vious errors  attending  the  theories  above  men- 
tioned, many  of  the  schoolmen  were  led  to  adopt 
a  scheme  which  is  intermediate  between  these 
opposite  extremes.  They  maintained  that  God 
has  indeed  endowed  his  creatures  with  active 
powers;  but  that  still  his  own  concurrent  aid 
(concursus)  is  essential  to  their  exercise  ;  since 
without  it  neither  the  thing  itself  which  is  sup- 
posed to  act,  nor  its  power  of  action,  could  for  a 


238 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


moment  subsist ;  so  that,  in  all  the  actions  of  his 
creatures,  there  is  a  joint,  concurrent  agency  of 
God.  By  this  theory,  most  of  the  difficulties 
attending  this  subject  are  obviated;  it  is  also 
found  to  be  the  most  accordant  with  the  repre- 
sentations of  the  Bible,  and  to  commend  itself 
more  than  any  other  to  sound  reason.  It  has 
therefore  been  justly  adopted,  though  with  vari- 
ous modifications,  by  most  of  the  modern  philo- 
sophers and  theologians.  In  the  sequel  of  this 
Article  it  will  be  more  fully  developed.  [Of. 
Bretschneider,  Handbuch,  b.  i.  s.  92,  s.  605.] 

But  after  all  that  has  been  thought  and  writ- 
ten upon  this  subject,  it  still  remains  encom- 
passed with  difficulties;  and  this,  for  the  reason 
that  it  is  impossible  for  men  to  form  any  distinct 
conceptions  respecting  the  proper,  internal  man- 
ner of  the  divine  agency.  In  order  to  represent 
it  to  our  minds,  we  must  liken  it  to  the  manner 
in  which  men  act;  and  thus  our  whole  know- 
ledge of  the  subject  is,  from  the  necessity  of  the 
case,  symbolical,  and  greatly  deficient.  From 
this  historical  sketch,  however,  and  especially 
from  No.  1,  one  thing  is  clear — viz.,  that  the 
simple  theory  respecting  the  providence  of  God, 
which  is  now  almost  universally  received  as 
true,  owes  its  origin  neither  to  heathen  mytho- 
logy or  philosophy,  but  to  the  Bible,  where  it 
was  exhibited  before  it  ever  entered  the  mind 
of  any  philosopher.  Vide  Staiidlin,  Materialien 
zu  einer  Geschichte  der  Lehre  von  Gottes 
Fiirsehung,  in  his  "  Magazin  fur  Religions- 
geschichte,"  b.  iii.  st.  1,  s.  234,  ff;  Hanover, 
1804,  8vo. 

SECTION  LXVII. 

OF  THE  PROOF  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  DIVINE  PROVI- 
DENCE ;  AND  OF  THE  DIVISIONS  UNDER  WHICH 
IT  HAS  BEEN  TREATED. 

I.  Proof  of  this  Doctrine. 

1.  PROOF  from  reason.  This  proof  depends 
upon  the  truth  of  the  position  that  the  world  is 
not  self-existent,  but  was  created  by  God  ;  and 
this  proposition  is  proved  by  the  same  argu- 
ments by  which  the  divine  existence  is  proved. 
Vide  s.  15,  46.  Presuming  that  this  position 
may  now  be  considered  as  fully  established,  we 
derive  proof  of  the  providence  of  God  from  two 
sources — viz.,  from  his  own  nature,  and  from 
that  of  his  works. 

(a)  From  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God. 
That  God  is  not  only  able,  but  willing  to  take 
care  of  all  his  creatures,  is  demonstrable  from 
the  idea  of  the  most  perfect  being;  cf.  s.  15. 
That  he  is  able  to  do  this,  appears  from  his  om- 
niscience, by  which  he  knows  the  circumstances 
and  wants  of  all  his  creatures;  from  his  wis- 
dom, by  which  he  understands  in  what  manner 
and  by  what  means  the  world  may  be  sustained 


and  governed ;  and  from  his  omnipotence,  by 
which  he  can  accomplish  everything  which  he 
desires.  That  he  is  willing  to  do  this,  follows 
alike  from  his  wisdom  and  his  goodness.  Vide  s. 
24,  28.  If  it  is  the  design  of  God  to  advance 
his  creatures  to  that  degree  of  perfection  and 
well-being  of  which  they  are  susceptible,  it 
must  also  be  his  will  to  watch  over  them,  and 
to  exercise  towards  them  his  providential  care, 
to  sustain  them,  and  to  promote  their  welfare 
by  means  which  his  wisdom  approves  as  best. 
And  his  willing  to  do  this  is  his  actually  doing 
it;  for  to  suppose  God  to  will  anything,  the 
attainment  of  which  depends  upon  his  abso- 
lute power,  which  yet  he  does  not  execute, 
would  be  to  ascribe  to  him  weakness  and  im- 
perfection. This  metaphysical  proof,  however, 
when  stated  in  its  full  extent,  is  not  sufficiently 
intelligible  to  be  used  in  popular  instruction. 

(6)  From  the  nature  of  created  things.  For 
it  is  obvious  that  the  creatures  of  God  are  no 
more  able  to  perpetuate  their  being  than  they 
were  to  contribute  at  first  to  their  own  existence. 
To  sustain  and  perpetuate  existence  requires  no 
less  power  than  to  create.  Besides,  the  wise, 
orderly,  and  harmonious  movement  of  all  created 
things,  in  conformity  with  the  plan  on  which 
they  were  adjusted,  and  for  the  promotion  of  the 
ends  for  which  they  were  made,  which  is  every- 
where visible  in  the  universe,  sufficiently  evinces 
the  care  and  government  of  an  all-wise  and  al- 
mighty being.  Cf.  s.  69.  To  this  it  is  object- 
ed that  God  might  have  so  made  the  world  that 
it  would  preserve  itself,  and  stand  in  no  need 
of  the  providence  of  its  author;  but  from  this 
objection  the  system  of  mechanism  (noticed  s. 
67,  II.  6)  immediately  results;  and  this  system, 
as  was  remarked,  excludes  moral  freedom,  and 
subjects  everything  to  the  law  of  necessity. 
Cf.  s.  26. 

[Note. — Besides  these  proofs  of  the  provi- 
dence of  God,  the  theologians  of  the  school  of 
Kant  have  proposed  another,  similar  to  that  of 
the  divine  existence,  Art.  ii.  s.  15,  II.  It  is 
briefly  this :  we  cannot  recognise  the  law  of 
duty  written  upon  our  hearts  as  a  divine  com- 
mand, unless  we  believe  that  there  is  a  moral 
government  which  will,  in  the  end,  make  the 
happiness  which,  as  sensitive  beings,  we  natu- 
rally desire,  proportionate  to  the  morality  of  our 
actions;  we  cannot  derive  the  strength  which 
is  necessary  to  a  course  of  undeviating  virtue 
amidst  the  temptations  to  which  we  are  ex- 
posed, from  anything  but  a  faith  in  a  holy  go- 
vernor of  the  world,  and  disposer  of  the  destinies 
of  men.  And  hence — viz.,  from  the  necessity 
of  believing  in  providence  in  order  to  virtuous 
moral  action — they  argue  the  truth  of  this  doc- 
trine, and  call  it  a  postulate  of  our  practical  rea- 
son. There  is  still  another  proof  which  deserves 
a  distinct  mention — viz.,  that  which  may  be  de- 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


239 


rived  from  the  great  historic  events  which  have 
taken  place  in  the  world, — the  giving  and  trans- 
mission of  a  divine  revelation — the  founding  of 
religious  institutes,  as  the  Mosaic  and  the  Chris- 
tian— the  raising  up  of  prophets,  apostles,  and 
defenders  of  the  faith — the  ordering  of  particu- 
lar events,  such  as  the  Reformation — the  more 
remarkable  deliverances  noticed  in  the  lives  of 
those  devoted  to  the  good  of  the  world,  &c. — 
all  of  which  indicate  the  wise  and  benevolent 
care  of  God  over  the  human  family,  and  toge- 
ther constitute  what  may  be  called  the  historic 
proof  of  the  providence  of  God.  This  proof  is 
exhibited  in  an  interesting  manner  in  the  scrip- 
ture biography  of  Hess,  in  Niemeyer's  Charac- 
teristics of  the  Bible,  and  works  of  a  similar 
kind.—  TR.] 

2.  From  the  holy  scriptures.  Cf.  Morus,  p. 
76,  seq.  s.  3.  Many  of  the  texts  which  might 
be  cited  will  be  omitted  here,  and  introduced  in 
their  more  appropriate  places  in  the  sections 
which  follow.  Of  the  texts  which  treat  of  the 
general  subject  of  providence  more  at  large,  and 
which  exhibit  many  of  the  truths  connected  with 
this  doctrine,  the  following  are  the  most  import- 
ant:— Ps.  viii.  xix.  xc.  (s.  20,  III.)  xci.  civ. 
(vide  Article  on  the  Creation,)  and  cxxxix. 
(s.  22,  I. ;)  in  the  New  Testament,  Matt.  vi. 
25—32;  x.  29—31  ;  Acts,  xvii.  24—28. 

In  the  texts  above  cited  we  are  taught  the 
following  truths: — (a)  The  preservation  of  the 
existence  of  all  things  depends  on  God  alone. 
(6)  God  is  the  ruler  and  proprietor  of  the  uni- 
verse, his  title  in  it  being  founded  in  his  having 
created  it.  (c)  The  state  and  circumstances  of 
all  created  things  are  determined  by  God ;  he 
needs  nothing;  but  his  creatures  receive  from 
him  the  supply  of  all  their  wants,  (d}  No- 
thing is  so  insignificant  as  to  be  unworthy  of 
his  notice;  his  providence  extends  even  to  the 
smallest  objects,  (e)  Through  his  watchful 
care  all  his  creatures,  in  their  several  kinds,  en- 
joy as  much  good  as  from  their  nature  they  are 
susceptible  of.  (/)  But  his  providence  is  most 
conspicuous  in  reference 'to  the  human  race, 
both  as  a  whole  and  as  composed  of  individual 
men.  He  preserves  their  lives,  provides  them 
with  food,  clothing,  and  everything  which  they 
need.  Their  actions  and  their  destinies  are  un- 
der his  guidance  and  at  his  disposal ;  and  their 
race  is  preserved  from  generation  to  generation 
through  his  care.  The  whole  is  comprised  in 
the  words  of  Paul,  Acts,  xvii.  28,  iv  avr^  £(!>/ 
xai  xivovf.if^ta  xai  lofjulv. 

These  scriptural  representations  have  many 
practical  uses.  They  furnish  us  with  the  means 
of  forming  just  notions  of  God,  and  with  mo- 
tives to  induce  us  to  reverence  and  serve  him 
Acts,  xvii.  27.  These  considerations  are  cal 
culated  to  inspire  our  minds  with  confidence  in 
God,  and  to  teach  us  to  regard  him  as  a  kinc 


and  benevolent  father.  Cf.  the  texts  cited  from 
Vlatthew,  and  Is.  xl.,  ad  finem.  Indeed,  the 
whole  object  and  tendency  of  this  doctrine,  as 
exhibited  in  the  sacred  writings,  is  to  excite 
nd  cherish  pious  dispositions  in  our  minds, 
t  leads  us  to  think,  with  regard  to  every  passing 
event,  that  God  knows  it ,-  to  feel  that  it  is  ex- 
ctly  as  he  willed  it,  and  in  it  to  see  his  agency, 
if  we  were  duly  influenced  by  what  we  are 
taught  in  the  Bible  of  the  providence  of  Godr 
we  should  do  all  our  works  under  a  sense  of  his 
3resence,  ivuitiov  tov  ©«ov,  and  our  constant 
maxim  would  be  ov&ev  avtv  ®eoi>.  Vide  Matt, 
x.  29,  &c.  Morus,  p.  76,  s.  3,  p.  78,  Note. 
Such  exalted  and  worthy  conceptions  of  the 
srovidence  of  God  as  these,  which  occur  every- 
where in  the  Bible,  and  which  must  accord  with 
the  judgment  and  the  feelings  of  every  one  who 
s  not  wholly  perverted,  may  be  sought  in  vain 
in  the  writings  of  the  ancient  philosophers,  who 
were  unacquainted  with  the  Bible.  And  it  is 
to  the  Bible  alone  that  modern  philosophers  are 
indebted  for  the  more  correct  principles  which 
they  inculcate  upon  this  subject. 

Note. — The  work  of  providence  and  preserva- 
tion is  usually  ascribed  in  the  Bible  to. the 
Father ,  as  is  also  the  work  of  creation ;  and  it  is 
principally  as  the  creator  and  preserver  of  the 
world  that  he  is  called  Father.  Vide  s.  36. 
There  are,  however,  some  texts  in  the  New 
Testament,  in  which  both  the  creation  and  pre- 
servation of  the  world  are  ascribed  to  the  Son — 
e.  g.,  Heb.  i.  3,  $£ptov  rtdv-ta  ^r^a-tt  $vvd{j.eu>$ 
aoJT'ov,  and  Col.  i.  17,  la  rtdvta  sv  av-r^  ovvsotvixs, 
both  of  which  have  already  been  examined  in 
the  article  respecting  the  creation,  s.  47,  II.  2. 

II.  Scholastic  Divisions. 

1.  The  providence  of  God  is  divided,  in  rela- 
tion to  its  objects,  into  general  (generalis),  so  far 
as  it  extends  to  all  existing  things;  special 
(specialis),  so  far  as  it  relates  to  moral  beings — 
to  men  and  human  affairs ;  and  particular  (spe- 
cialissima),  so  far  as  it  extends  to  the  moral 
beings,  who  fulfil  the  ends  of  their  existence — 
the  pious  and  virtuous.  Vide  Morus,  p.  78r 
s.  4.  Strictly  speaking,  however,  God  cannot 
be  said  to  care  more  or  less  for  one  class  of  his 
creatures  than  for  another.  His  providence,  in 
itself  considered,  is  the  same  for  all;  but  all 
have  not  an  equal  capacity  to  receive  the  proofs 
and  benevolent  expressions  of  his  care :  an  irra- 
tional creature  is  not  susceptible  of  the  same 
kind  and  degree  of  perfection  and  welfare  as  a 
rational  being;  nor  a  vicious,  as  a  virtuous 
man.  Hence  it  seems  to  us  as  if  God  had  more 
care  for  the  animate  than  for  the  inanimate  crea- 
tion; for  men,  than  for  beasts;  for  the  pious, 
than  for  the  wicked ;  though  the  real  ground  of 
the  difference  in  their  condition  lies  in  their  own 
greater  or  less  capacity  for  the  divine  favour. 


240 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Now  the  universe,  so  far  as  we  know,  consists 
of  the  three  classes — inanimate  things,  crea- 
tures endowed  with  life  and  activity  but  pos- 
sessing no  rational  and  moral  powers,  and  mo- 
ral beings.  The  latter  are  by  far  the  most  ex- 
alted and  noble,  the  nearest  related,  so  to  speak, 
to  their  author,  and  those  in  whom  his  designs 
mostly  terminate.  They  are  not  placed,  like 
the  lower  orders  of  being,  under  the  law  of  ne- 
cessity, and  treated  like  machines;  which  would 
be  inconsistent  with  the  free  nature  which  has 
been  given  them.  The  highest  aim  which  God 
can  be  supposed  to  have  had  in  view  in  the 
creation  and  government  of  the  world,  is  a 
moral  end;  and  to  subserve  this  end,  to  which 
all  others  are  subordinate,  he  governs  not  only 
the  moral  kingdom,  but  the  whole  material  and 
animal  creation. 

2.  The  particular  manner  in  which  God  pre- 
serves and  governs  the  world  can  no  more  be 
understood  by  us  than  the  manner  in  which  he 
first  created  it.  Vide  s.  46.  But  in  order  to 
obtain  some  definite  conceptions  of  this  subject, 
we  compare  the  operations  of  God  to  those  of 
men;  though  in  doing  this  there  is  danger  of 
ascribing  to  God  the  imperfections  which  belong 
only  to  man.  Now  when  men  exercise  care 
over  anything,  there  are  two  things  which  may 
be  considered — the  care  itself,  as  exercised  by 
them,  and  the  effect  or  result  of  it. 

(a)  The  care  itself,  (actio  internal)  Since  a 
man,  when  he  exercises  care  over  others,  must 
have  the  knowledge  of  what  they  need,  and  un- 
derstand the  means  by  which  their  wants  can 
be  supplied  ;  must  then  come  to  a  determination 
to  make  use  of  the  means  approved  as  proper; 
and  lastly,  must  carry  his  determination  into 
effect ;  so  it  was  supposed  to  be  with  God,  in 
the  care  which  he  exercises  over  the  world  ;  and 
this  gave  rise  to  the  scholastic  division  of  the 
providence  of  God  into  three  acts — viz.,  Ttpo- 
yvcocrtj  (praescientia),  the  knowledge  of  God  of 
the  wants  of  his  creatures,  and  of  the  best 
means  of  supplying  them  ;  rtpc&£tfij  (decretum), 
his  determination  to  make  use  of  these  means ; 
and  8t,dxr]<3is  (executio,  administrate),  his  actual 
fulfilment  of  his  determination.  But  here  it 
must  be  remembered  that  this  can  be  said  only 
anthropopathically  of  God,  since  in  his  mind 
there  is  no  succession  of  acts. 

(6)  The  effect  of  this  care,  (actio  externa.') 
In  order  to  render  the  manner  of  this  external 
agency  of  God  in  his  providence  in  some  degree 
intelligible,  the  schoolmen  have  assumed  three 
external  acts  of  providence — viz.,  preservation 
(conservatio),  cooperation  (concursus),  and  go- 
vernment (gubernatio) ;  and  under  these  three 
heads  the  doctrine  of  divine  providence  is  usual- 
ly treated,  (a)  Preservation  (conservatio)  is 
that  mighty  and  efficient  agency  of  God  by 
which  created  things  continue  to  exist,  by  which 


the  identity  of  their  being  is  preserved  ;  efficien- 
tia  Dei,  qua  ipsae  substantiae  pergunt  esse.  It  ex- 
tends to  things  already  existing,  and  in  this  is 
distinguished  from  the  act  of  creation;  though, 
in  reality,  the  preservation  of  the  world  is 
only  a  continuation  of  the  act  of  creation,  and  is 
therefore  sometimes  properly  called,  creatio  con- 
tinuata.  (]3)  Cooperation  (concursus)  is  that 
act  of  God  by  which  he  preserves  the  powers 
originally  imparted  to  created  things,  qua  vires 
substantiarum  durant.  The  term  concursus,  as 
as  used  by  the  schoolmen,  is  synonymous  with 
auxilium;  but  it  is  a  very  inconvenient  term, 
and  leads  naturally  to  the  inquiry,  whether  God 
assists  men  and  cooperates  with  them  in  their 
wicked  actions  1  This  division  has  been  wholly 
omitted  by  some  modern  theologians  (e.  g.,  by 
Doederlein),  on  the  ground  that  the  preservation 
of  the  existence  of  a  thing  without  the  preserva- 
tion of  its  powers  cannot  be  conceived,  and  that 
this  division  is  therefore  necessarily  involved 
in  the  preceding;  which  is  indeed  true,  as  to 
fact,  though  the  preservation  of  the  simple  sub- 
stance of  a  thing,  and  the  preservation  of  its 
powers  of  acting,  may  be  made  the  subjects  of 
distinct  consideration  by  the  mind,  (y)  Go- 
vernment (gubernatio,  providentia  stricte  sic 
dicta)  is  that  act  of  God  by  which  he  so  orders 
all  the  changes  which  take  place  in  the  world, 
and  so  guides  all  the  actions  of  his  creatures, 
as  to  promote  the  highest  possible  good  of  the 
whole,  and  of  every  part.  According  to  the 
usual  method  of  theological  writers  we  shall 
proceed  to  treat  of  this  doctrine  under  the  three 
foregoing  heads ;  in  such  a  way,  however,  that 
what  is  said  respecting  the  first  two  divisions 
(preservation  and  cooperation)  will  be  con- 
nected together.  Respecting  the  division  of 
providence  into  ordinata  and  miraculosa,  vide  s. 
72,  II. 

Note. — Notice  of  some  of  the  principal  works 
on  the  providence  of  God.  The  ancient  heathen 
philosophers  said  much  on  this  subject  which 
was  just  and  practically  useful,  though  mingled 
with  much  that  was  erroneous.  Gf.  Xenophon's 
Memorabilia,  the  writings  of  Plato,  and  other 
disciples  of  Socrates.  Cf.  also  the  writings  of 
Marcus  Aurelius,  and  of  other  stoics.  The 
work  of  Cicero,  De  Natur.  Deor. ;  and  of  Se- 
neca, De  Providentia,  deserve  particular  men- 
tion. Some  of  the  early  ecclesiastical  fathers 
devoted  whole  works  to  this  subject.  Chry- 
sostom  wrote  a  book  on  providence.  Gregory 
of  Nazianzen  treated  of  it  in  his  discourses, 
particularly  the  sixteenth.  Theodoret  wrote 
"  Sermones  de  Providentia."  Salvianus  Mas- 
siliensis,  a  Latin  father  of  the  fifth  century, 
wrote  a  work  entitled  "  De  gubernatione  Dei." 
In  modern  times,  the  theory  of  this  subject  has 
been  ably  discussed  in  the  writings  of  Kant, 
and  other  works  on  the  philosophy  of  religion. 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


241 


Works  of  a  more  practical  and  popular  cast  are 
the  following: — Jacobi,  Betrachtungen  iiber  die 
weisen  Absichten  Gottes;  Hanover,  1765 — 66, 
8vo;  Jerusalem,  Betrachtungen  iiber  die  wicht- 
igsten  Wahrheiten  der  Religion ;  Sander,  Ueber 
die  Vorsehung;  Leipzig,  1780 — 81,  8vo;  also 
the  work  "  Fur  Anbeter  Gottes,  1780,  by  the 
same  author;  Zollikofer,  Betrachtungen  iiber 
das  Uebel  in  der  Welt;  Leipzig,  1777,  8vo; 
and  many  of  the  Sermons  of  this  author;  Jacob, 
Von  der  Religion;  Koppen,  Die  Bibel,  ein 
Werk  der  gottlichen,  Weisheit,  in  which  excel- 
lent work  there  are  many  fine  and  useful  remarks 
on  this  subject. 

SECTION  LXIX. 

OF  THE  PRESERVATION  OF  THE  EXISTENCE  AND 
OF  THE  POWERS  OF  CREATED  BEINGS  AND 
THINGS. 

I.  Preservation  of  Creatures  in  General. 
THE  great  end  which  God  has  in  view  in  his 
providence  over  the  world  is  the  welfare  of  his 
creatures.  On  him  does  their  existence  and 
well-being  every  moment  depend.  The  powers 
which  they  possess  from  the  beginnining  of 
their  existence,  and  the  laws  by  which  these 
powers  are  exercised,  have  their  only  ground  in 
the  divine  will.  This  will  of  God  is  the  effi- 
cient cause  of  the  existence  of  his  creatures, 
and  of  all  the  powers  which  they  possess ;  and 
not  only  so,  but  of  the  continuance  of  these 
creatures,  with  their  powers  and  laws.  These 
laws,  in  conformity  with  which  the  powers  of 
created  things  develop  themselves,  are  com- 
monly called  the  laws  of  nature.  These  pro- 
positions need  to  be  farther  illustrated  and  esta- 
blished. 

1.  The  proof  that  God  preserves  the  existence 
and  the  powers  of  all  created  things  is  drawn 
from  the  following  sources : — 

(a)  From  the  contingency  of  the  world.  The 
world  does  not  necessarily  exist;  it  has  not  the 
ground  of  its  existence  in  itself;  but  it  is  contin- 
gent, and  depends  upon  the  will  of  God.  Vide 
s.  15,  46.  It  must  therefore  continue  to  exist 
through  the  same  power  which  first  gave  it 
being.  The  purpose  of  God  to  create  the  world 
could  not  have  been  confined  to  the  first  instant 
of  its  creation,  but  must  have  comprised  its 
whole  future  being  and  permanent  existence. 
Now  this  purpose  of  God  is  unalterable,  and 
cannot  be  hindered  or  turned  aside  by  the  inter- 
vention of  any  object;  but  must  endure  while 
the  creation  continues.  The  continuance,  there- 
fore, of  the  creation,  through  every  moment  of 
its  existence,  is  so  intimately  connected  with  the 
purpose  of  God  respecting  its  first  existence,  that 
it  can  hardly  be  separated  from  it,  even  in 
thought.  Cf.  the  theory  of  the  divine  decrees, 
s.  32. 

31 


6)  From  experience  and  history.  That  God 
preserves  the  works  which  he  has  created  may 
3e  rendered  very  obvious  from  a  survey  of  the 
world  and  a  review  of  its  past  history.  Cf.  es- 
pecially the  work  of  Sander  above  mentioned, 
and  the  works  on  teleology  noticed  s.  15,  I.  2, 
ad  finem.  If  we  look  no  further  than  the  phy- 
sical world,  and  confine  our  attention  to  its  wise 
adaptation  to  the  ends  which  it  is  made  to  an- 
swer, we  shall  be  driven  to  the  conviction 
that  it  is  not  the  work  of  chance  or  blind  acci- 
dent, but  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  constituted 
by  an  intelligence  which,  though  invisible, 
guides  and  governs  all  things  with  infinite 
wisdom.  The  following  are  examples  of  innu- 
merable teleological  observations  which  might 
be  made.  No  single  species  of  animals  has  pe- 
rished, notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  done 
to  destroy  them,  and  all  the  dangers  to  which 
they  have  been  exposed  from  floods,  earthquakes, 
&c. ;  nor  has  any  species  undergone  essential 
alterations.  The  nature  and  qualities  of  the 
horse,  the  lion,  the  crocodile,  &c.,  are  still  the 
same  as  they  were  described  to  be  by  Moses, 
Homer,  Aristotle,  and  other  ancient  writers. 
Between  the  individuals  also  of  the  different 
species,  the  same  relations  and  proportions 
which  have  always  been  observed  still  exist. 
Wild  and  dangerous  animals  multiply  less  ra- 
pidly than  tame  and  domestic  ones.  The  short- 
lived animals,  and  particularly  insects,  propa- 
gate their  kind  in  great  numbers;  those  that 
live  longer  produce  fewer  young.  Were  the 
ephemeral  insects  no  more  prolific  than  the  lion 
and  the  elephant,  their  race  would  be  soon  ex- 
tinct; and  were  the  progeny  of  the  lion  and  ele- 
phant as  numerous  as  that  of  the  insect  tribes, 
the  earth  would  soon  be  insufficient  to  support, 
or  even  contain  them,  and  other  species  of  ani- 
mals would  be  driven  out  and  destroyed  before 
them.  In  the  material  world  there  is  a  constant 
ebb  and  flow;  on  the  one  hand,  decay,  death, 
and  destruction;  on  the  other,  life,  and  ever- 
renewed  activity  and  motion ;  in  short,  through- 
out the  world  there  are  conflicting  powers,  by 
which  the  things  that  belong  to  it  are  at  one 
time  wasted  and  destroyed,  at  another  revived 
and  animated;  but  yet,  after  all,  everything 
exists  in  the  most  just  proportion  and  perfect 
order ;  and  every  apparent  dissonance  is  resolved 
at  last  into  an  uninterrupted  harmony.  Every 
sensitive  being  stands  in  such  a  relation  to  the 
rest  of  the  world  that  it  finds  what  is  necessary 
for  its  support  and  welfare.  And  any  one  who 
will  consider  all  this  with  attention,  will  be  led 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  results  from  the  consti- 
tution of  a  Being  who  is  supremely  intelligent, 
and  who  guides  all  things  in  such  a  way  as  to 
promote  his  own  purposes.  What  is  so  suitably 
arranged,  so  wisely  and  accurately  adapted  to 
its  ends,  and  so  perfectly  adjusted  to  all  its  rela- 
X 


242 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


tions,  cannot  possibly  be  the  work  of  blind 
chance.  Against  such  a  supposition  the  reason 
of  man  instantly  revolts. 

[Note. — The  validity  of  this  proof  from  expe- 
rience is  denied  by  Staiidlin,  (Lehrb.  s.  273,) 
and  also  by  Bretschneider,  for  the  following  rea- 
sons : — (1 )  Our  experience  is  too  young  and  too 
limited  to  enable  us  to  derive  an  argument  from 
it  with  certainty.  (2)  From  experience  it  can 
not  be  shewn  that  everything  has  been  the  same 
from  the  beginning  of  the  creation  as  it  now  is. 
(3)  The  argument  from  experience  is  rendered 
uncertain  by  the  fact  that  several  species  of  ani- 
mals—e.  g.,  the  mammoth — are  wholly  extinct, 
and  other  facts  of  a  similar  nature.  They 
therefore  rest  the  proof  of  the  preservation  of 
the  world  by  the  agency  of  God,  solely  upon 
the  metaphysical  and  scriptural  arguments. — 
TB.] 

(c)  From  the  express  declarations  of  the  holy 
scriptures,  which  coincide  with  what  we  are 
taught  by  experience  and  history,  and  which 
indeed,  by  their  example,  lead  us  to  make  the 
observations  and  to  draw  the  conclusions  just 
stated.  Among  the  most  explicit  of  these  decla- 
rations are  those  contained  in  Psalm  civ.  8 — 16, 
27,  28,  and  particularly  ver.  29.  "Thou  takest 
away  their  breath,  they  die,  and  return  to  their 
dust.  Thou  sendest  forth  thy  spirit,  they  are 
created  :  and  thou  renewestthe  face  of  the  earth." 
Here  also  the  words  of  Christ,  which  are  so 
useful  as  examples  of  proper  instruction,  should 
be  particularly  mentioned,  Matt.  vi.  26,  seq. ; 
x.  29.  According  to  these  representations,  not 
a  hair  falls  from  the  head  of  man,  not  a  bird  falls 
to  the  ground,  not  a  flower  withers  in  the  field, 
without  the  notice  and  will  of  God.  Hence 
we,  who  were  made  for  such  higher  purposes, 
should  confidently  trust  in  God,  and  renounce  all 
painful  solicitude  and  despondency,  all  doubt 
and  despair.  For  if  God  takes  care  of  the  less, 
how  much  more  will  he  of  the  greater!  of  us, 
therefore,  whose  destination  is  so  much  more 
exalted  than  that  of  his  other  creatures.  Our  life, 
our  activity,  our  whole  existence,  proceeds  from 
him  ;  and  as  a  father,  he  constantly  cares  for  us, 
Acts,  xvii.  28. 

2.  In  considering  the  powers  which  God  im- 
parts to  his  creatures,  and  the  continuance  of 
which  he  secures,  two  things  need  especially  to 
be  noticed — viz.,  their  degree  and  their  use. 

(a)  The  degree  (modus)  of  these  powers. 
And  this  again  is  either  essential — i.  e.,  necessa- 
rily requisite  to  the  very  existence  of  the  thing, 
so  that,  in  defect  of  it,  it  would  cease  to  be  what 
it  is,  or  contingent,  accidental,  inasmuch  as  the 
proportion  of  powers  in  different  individuals  be- 
longing to  the  same  kind,  may  be,  and  actually 
is,  different.  These  contingent  powers  and  ca- 
pacities are  either  innate  or  acquired,  and  in- 
creased and  strengthened  by  discipline  and  ex- 


ercise. For  example  :  it  is  essential  to  the  ex- 
istence of  a  man  that  he  possess  reason,  memory, 
and  imagination;  these  are  vires  essentiales r  but 
one  man  surpasses  another  in  these  powers,  and 
this  is  what  is  contingent.  One  man  has  a  na- 
tural and  innate  taient  for  po«try,  music,  paint- 
ing, or  some  other  art  or  employment;  another 
acquires  skill  in  these  things  by  effort  and  dili- 
gence. Now  in  this  difference  of  degree  in  these 
powers,  and  in  the  wise  proportion  and  allotment 
of  them  to  animate  and  inanimate,  rational  and 
irrational  creatures,  the  wise  providence  of  God 
is  clearly  exhibited. 

(6)  The  use  of  these  powers  is  granted  to  the 
creatures  of  God  for  their  own  advantage  and 
the  good  of  the  whole.  This  is  very  obvious  in 
the  case  of  the  natural  instincts  imparted  to  ani- 
mals. Vide  Reimarus,  Von  den  Trieben,  beson- 
ders  den  Kunsttrieben  derThiere — an  excellent 
work.  In  this  respect  man  is  far  inferior  to  the 
lower  orders  of  creatures.  But  in  place  of  in- 
stinct he  has  reason  and  free  will,  by  which  he 
is  determined  to  action.  Vide  s.  26. 1.  And  in 
this  his  great  advantage  over  other  creatures  con- 
sists ;  by  this,  his  moral  nature,  he  resembles 
God,  and  is  more  nearly  related  to  him  than  other 
creatures  who  inhabit  the  earth.  And  God  has 
enabled  man  so  to  use  his  powers  that  the  free- 
dom of  the  human  will  shall  not  be  at  all  in- 
fringed. 

From  what  has  now  been  said  it  appears  (a) 
that  God  is  the  first  cause  of  all  the  powers 
which  his  creatures  possess.  (6)  That  Goo! 
may  be  said  in  a  certain  sense  to  cooperate 
(concurrere)  with  the  free  actions  of  men,  since 
he  grants  them  the  powers  necessary  to  action, 
even  to  free  action,  and  continually  preserves 
the  powers  which  he  has  given ;  and  moreover 
is  able  to  overrule  their  evil  actions  so  as  to 
make  them  promote  the  greatest  good.  But  (c) 
since  this  language  is  liable  to  misapprehension, 
and  might  be  understood  in  such  a  sense  as 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  freedom  of  the 
will,  and  would  represent  God  as  the  author  and 
promoter  of  sin,  it  is  better  to  make  an  accurate 
distinction  between  the  powers  themselves 
granted  to  moral  beings,  and  the  exercise  of 
these  powers  in  free  actions.  The  powers  of 
action  come  from  God ;  but  he  has  left  the  use 
and  exercise  of  these  powers  to  moral  beings. 
This  is  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  moral  being, 
which  would  cease  to  be  moral  if  it  were  sub- 
jected to  the  control  of  necessity,  and  not  suf- 
fered to  choose  and  to  do  what  it  saw  to  be  best, 
according  to  the  laws  of  freedom.  Vide  s.  26, 1. 
God  is  not,  therefore,  the  efficient  cause  of  the 
free  actions  of  moral  beings.  This  distinction 
s  thus  expressed  by  the  schoolmen:  Deum  con- 
currere AD  MATERIALS  actionis  liberx — i.  e.,  God 
jives  to  men  the  powers  of  action,  and  preserves 
hese  powers  every  moment,  but  not  AD  FORMALE 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


243 


aetionis  libcrse — i,  e.,  he  is  not  the  efficient  cause 
of  the  free  actions  themselves.  Thus,  for  ex- 
ample, when  a  man  opens  his  mouth  to  lie,  or 
to  forswear,  God  grants  him  the  power  at  that 
very  moment  to  open  his  mouth  and  to  speak 
(concurrit  ad  materiak  actionisj)  but  the  use  of 
this  power  (formale  actionis)  is  left  to  the  man 
himself,  and  he  might  open  his  mouth  to  speak 
the  truth,  and  to  glorify  God.  The  action, 
therefore,  whatever  it  is,  is  his  own,  and  for  it 
he  himself  is  accountable;  which  could  not  be 
the  case  if  the  action  proceeded  from  another. 

Note. — In  contemplating  the  preservation  of 
the  existence  and  of  the  powers  of  all  created 
beings,  we  find  great  occasion  to  recognise  and 
admire  the  divine  wisdom  and  goodness,  and  also 
a  powerful  motive  to  seek  for  true  holiness. 
This  is  the  application  which  the  sacred  writers 
made  of  this  doctrine;  and  hence  the  ample  in- 
struction on  this  subject  which  they  give  us  is 
so  eminently  calculated  to  produce  a  good  prac- 
tical effect.  Cf.  s.  24  and  s.  28,  II.  Also  Ci- 
cero, De  Natur.  Deor.  ii.  39,  seq.,  and  47. 

II.  Preservation  of  Men. 

1.  Men  are  the  only  creatures  of  God  upon  the 
earth  who  possess  a  moral  nature,  or  who  have 
reason  and  freedom  of  will;  and  as  possessing 
these,  they  are  capable  of  a  far  higher  degree  of 
perfection  and  happiness  than  the  lower  orders 
of  creation.     Hence  the  care  of  God  for  them  is 
more  apparent,  and  seems  to  be  more  active  and 
efficient,  than  for  his  other  creatures.    Matthew, 
vi.  26,  ov%  vp,£i$  P.O.'MMV  Siafytpftf  avtuv  ;  Acts, 
xvii.  26,  28,  ysvo$  &sov  eapiv.     Of  this  watchful 
care  of  God  for  the  preservation  of  men  we  have 
abundant  proof  in  the  history  of  our  race.     Vide 
Siissmilch,  Goettliche  Ordnung  in  den  Veran- 
derungen  des  mensclichen  Geschlechts ;  Berlin, 
1788,  8vo.     But  more  particularly — 

2.  The  life  and  all  the  powers  of  each  indivi- 
dual of  the  human  race  depend  upon  God.    Mo- 
rus,  p.  77,  n.  3. 

(a)  Our  life  depends  upon  God. 

(a)  As  to  its  origin ;  for  although  our  parents, 
as  the  instruments  of  God,  are  the  means  by 
which  we  come  into  the  world ;  yet  God  is  truly 
our  creator,  and  the  author  of  our  existence. 
We  are  taught  everywhere  in  the  holy  scriptures 
that  God  formed  us,  &c.;  Job,  x.  8,  11,  12; 
Acts,  xvii.  25,  27;  Ps.  cxxxix.  13 — 16;  and 
also  that  he  secures  the  continuance  of  the  life 
which  he  imparts,  orders  all  its  changes,  deter- 
mines the  time,  place,  circumstances,  and,  in 
short,  everything  respecting  it,  Psalm  xc.,  xci., 
cxxxix. ;  Acts,  xvii.  24 ;  Matthew,  vi.,  x.  The 
Hebrews  represented  this  truth  in  a  very  plain 
and  striking  manner,  by  supposing  God  to  keep 
a  book  of  fate  and  book  of  life,  in  which  every 
man  is  enrolled,  and  has,  as  it  were,  his  own 
portion  assigned  him,  Ps.  cxxxix.  16.  Hence 


to  be  blotted  out  from  the  book  of  life  is  the  same 
as  to  die,  Exod.  xxxii.  32 ;  Ps.  Ixix.  28.  The 
meaning  of  the  representation  is  this : — God  de- 
termines the  beginning  and  the  end  of  our  lives ; 
he  is  perfectly  acquainted  with  our  whole  des- 
tiny ;  everything  in  our  whole  existence  depends 
upon  him,  and  is  under  his  control  and  govern- 
ment. 

(|3)  As  to  its  termination.  However  contin- 
gent the  time  of  our  death  may  appear,  it  is  still 
at  the  disposal  of  God  ;  Job,  xiv.  5,  "Thou  hast 
appointed  his  bounds  which  he  cannot  pass." 
Ps.  xc.  3,  "Thou  turnest  man  to  destruction, 
and  sayest,  Return,  ye  children  of  men ;"  Psalm 
xxxi.  15;  xxxix.  4,  5.  These  texts,  however, 
and  others  of  a  similar  nature,  have  been  often 
erroneously  supposed  to  imply  an  unconditional 
decree  of  God  respecting  the  life  and  death  of 
every  man.  Against  this  erroneous  opinion  of 
an  unconditional  decree  of  God,  determining  ir- 
revocably the  bounds  of  the  life  of  man,  the 
Christian  teacher  should  carefully  guard  his 
hearers,  since  it  is  not  unfrequently  entertained 
even  by  those  who  are  cultivated  and  enlight- 
ened, as  well  as  by  those  who  are  ignorant.  It 
may  encourage  the  most  rash  and  foolhardy  un- 
dertakings; and  where  it  is  thoroughly  believed 
and  consistently  carried  out  into  action,  it  must 
lead  to  the  neglect  of  the  proper  means  of  reco- 
very from  sickness,  and  of  the  necessary  pre- 
cautions against  approaching  danger.  For  if  the 
fixed  period  of  my  life  is  now  arrived,  may  one 
say  who  is  of  this  opinion,  these  remedies  can 
be  of  no  service  to  me ;  if  it  is  not  yet  come,  they 
are  wholly  unnecessary.  This  error  has  been 
for  a  long  time  widely  diffused  over  the  East; 
and  Mahommed  himself  was  a  strict  fatalist  and 
predestinarian.  He  believed  that  every  event 
in  the  life  and  the  very  hour  of  the  death  of  every 
man  was  settled  by  an  unalterable  predetermi- 
nation. This  doctrine  has  received  the  name 
of  fatum  Turcicum  among  modern  European 
Christians,  because  among  all  the  Mahomme- 
dans  by  whom  it  is  professed,  the  Turks  are 
those  with  whom  the  Europeans  are  most  ac- 
quainted, and  in  whom  they  have  seen  the  evil 
influence  of  this  doctrine  most  clearly  displayed. 
It  would  be  more  properly  denominated  fatum 
Muhammedicum.  The  opinion  that  the  bound 
of  human  life  is  unalterably  determined  was  also 
adopted  by  those  ancient  philosophers  who  be- 
lieved in  the  doctrine  of  fate.  Vide  s.  67. 
Hence  the  stoical  dilemma  of  which  mention  is 
made  by  Cicero,  in  his  treatise,  "De  Fato;"  Si 
fatum  tibi  est,  ex  hoc  morbo  convalescere,  sive 
medicum  adhibueris,  sive  non,  convalesces;  [and 
the  saying,  Nisifatale  segro  mori,  facile  evadett 
cuifatale  mori,  velpediculi  morsu  conficeretur.^ 
On  this  principle  suicide  might  be  justified,  or 
at  least  palliated,  as  has  been  actually  done. 
God  does  indeed,  in  every  case,  foresee  and 


244 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


know  how  long-  a  man  will  live,  and  the  result 
will  perfectly  agree  with  this  foreknowledge, 
since  the  omniscient  God  cannot  be  mistaken  in 
what  he  knows.  But  to  stop  here  would  be  to 
take  only  a  partial  view  of  some  of  the  divine 
attributes,  which  would  lead  into  error.  God 
has  indeed  formed  a  purpose  respecting  the 
length  of  the  life  of  every  man ;  but  for  the  very 
reason  that  he  is  omniscient,  he  has  formed  this 
purpose  only  on  consideration  of  natural  and 
moral  causes ;  his  providence  therefore  does  not 
make  it  in  itself  unconditionally  necessary  that 
any  man  should  die  at  such  a  particular  time. 
The  purpose  of  God  is  a  conditional  one,  founded 
upon  a  knowledge  of  all  the  circumstances  into 
which  the  individual  who  is  the  object  of  it 
would  come,  and  also  upon  the  knowledge  of  all 
his  free  actions.  Vide  s.  32, 1.  ad  finem.  God 
foresees  how  the  body  of  every  man  will  be  con- 
stituted ;  in  what  situation  it  will  be  placed ;  of 
what  character  his  moral  actions  will  be,  and 
what  consequences  will  flow  from  them,  &c. 
And  from  his  foreknowledge  of  all  these  circum- 
stances respecting  him,  God  forms  his  purpose, 
fixing  the  termination  of  his  life.  The  bodily 
constitution  which  a  man  brings  with  him  into 
the  world,  and  which  is  afterwards  affected  by 
so  many  circumstances,  perfectly  known  to  God, 
and  under  his  control,  is  one  of  the  conditions 
upon  which  the  purpose  of  God  respecting  the 
end  of  human  life  is  founded  ;  and  this  period, 
so  far  as  it  depends  upon  our  bodily  constitution, 
cannot  be  passed  over.  When  the  clock  runs 
down,  it  stops;  when  the  flower  blossoms,  it 
fades  ;  and  man  cannot  give  himself  a  new  body, 
nor  can  God,  except  by  miracle.  This  period 
of  life,  depending  upon  the  natural  constitution 
of  the  body,  and  upon  other  natural  circum- 
stances, is  called  the  natural  bound  of  human 
life ;  and  this  cannot  be  prolonged  by  man  him- 
self. Now  if  a  man  dies  earlier  than  he  would 
naturally  have  done,  whether  from  his  own  fault 
or  that  of  others,  or  from  some  outward  accident, 
(the  cause,  however,  of  whatever  kind,  being 
known  to  God,  and  under  his  providence  and 
control,)  his  death  is  said  to  be  unnatural, 
extraordinary,  or  sometimes  consequens,  in  op- 
position to  the  other,  which  is  called  antece- 
dens.  The  eases  here  supposed  are  described 
in  the  Bible  by  the  phrases,  to  fulfil  one's  days, 
(vp^  ns  fc^D,)  or  not  to  fulfil  them,  Isa.  Ixv.  20. 
And  in  this  way  are  we  to  understand  those  pas- 
sages in  which  God  is  said  to  lengthen  out,  or  to 
abridge,  the  life  of  man.  The  meaning  of  these 
terms  is,  that  God  so  directs  the  course  of  nature 
that  a  particular  man  lives  longer  than  he  would 
naturally  have  lived,  or  than  he  was  expected  to 
live.  Hence  it  appears  that  man  can  do  nothing 
himself  to  prolong  his  life  beyond  the  natural 
limits  of  human  existence;  but  that  he  may  do 
much  to  shorten  it.  To  return  now  to  the  sto- 


ical dilemma.  When  a  man  is  sick,  he  must 
call  for  a  physician,  and  make  use  of  prescribed 
remedies,  because  he  cannot  be  certain  that  tho 
end  of  his  life  has  now  come.  The  purpose  of 
God  respecting  his  life  or  his  death  is  in  this 
case,  as  we  must  conceive  it,  merely  conditional. 
If  he  uses  the  proper  means,  he  will  recover;  if 
not,  he  will  die;  and  God,  as  he  is  omniscient, 
knows  which  of  these  courses  he  will  pursue, 
and  therefore  whether  he  will  die  or  live.  A 
vehement  controversy  arose  on  this  subject,  in 
the  seventeenth  century,  between  the  reformed 
philosophers  and  some  theologians  of  the  Ne- 
therlands, on  occasion  of  the  work  of  Beverovi- 
cius,  Quxstiones  Epistolicae  de  vitx  termino fatuli  ,- 
Dortrecht,  1634,  8vo;  and  enlarged,  Leiden, 
1636,  4to. 

(6)  Our  powers  depend  upon  God.  These 
powers  are  very  various  ;  but  they  may  be  class- 
ed under  two  general  divisions,  the  powers  of 
soul  and  of  body — spiritual  and  corporeal  powers. 
Now  as  man  did  not  give  himself  these  powers, 
so  neither  can  he  retain  possession  of  them  by 
his  own  strength  or  skill.  Hence  they  are 
justly  described  in  the  Bible  as  the  gift  of  God. 
Worldly  respectability,  mental  endowments, 
sound  judgment,  memory,  learning — all  are 
given  by  God ;  and  that  one  man  surpasses  an- 
other in  these  respects  is  owing  to  his  will  and 
his  wise  government,  Exod.  iv.  11;  James,  i. 
17;  1  Cor.  iv.  7.  Those  happy  combinations 
of  circumstances  by  which  we  are  sometimes 
enabled  to  accomplish  with  ease  the  enterprises 
with  regard  to  which  we  and  others -were  ready 
to  despair,  are  to  be  ascribed  to  God,  although 
we  are  often  disposed  to  consider  them  as  the 
effect  of  chance.  We  owe  the  success  of  all 
our  undertakings,  not  to  our  own  wisdom  and 
skill,  but  solely  to  the  wise  and  benevolent  pro- 
vidence of  God.  To  lead  men  to  feel  this,  is  a 
great  object  with  the  sacred  writers,  who  every- 
where recommend  to  them  the  exercise  of  these 
pious  and  humble  dispositions  by  which  they 
may  be  strengthened  in  their  faith  in  God,  and 
preserved  against  pride  and  selfish  blindness. 
Hence  they  always  ascribe  the  powers  of  man, 
and  his  success  in  exercising  them,  directly  to 
God,  as  the  first  cause ;  in  such  a  way,  however, 
that  second  causes,  which  also  depend  upon  him, 
are  not  excluded.  Morus,  p.  77,  n.  1,  2.  In 
this  connexion,  reference  should  be  made  to  Ps. 
cxxvii.,  where  we  are  taught  that  our  most 
strenuous  efforts  will  be  in  vain,  unless  God 
grants  us  success. 

Note. — Such  meditations  respecting  the  pre- 
servation of  our  existence,  powers,  and  the 
healthful  and  successful  employment  of  them, 
are  very  instructive  and  practical.  They  are 
calculated  to  fill  our  minds  with  peace  and  joy, 
and  to  excite  hearty  gratitude  to  God.  Christ 
makes  use  of  these  considerations  to  shew  us 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


245 


that  we  should  not  be  distrustful  of  God,  and 
should  not  trouble  ourselves  with  anxious  cares. 
Since  God  takes  so  much  care  of  the  various 
orders  of  being,  of  beasts,  and  even  of  inanimate 
things,  how  much  more  will  he  care  for  us,  to 
whom  he  has  given  a  destination  by  far  more 
noble  than  theirs !  Matt.  vi.  25,  seq.  He  espe- 
cially warns  us  against  anxious  cares  as  to  our 
bodily  support,  since  they  withdraw  us  from 
more  important  concerns,  and  render  us  disqua- 
lified for  religion,  and  divine  instruction.  Luke, 
viii.  14,  al  /if'pijuvcu  tov  jSt'ou  avprtviyovat,  Hov 
Jioyoj/,  the  cares  of  life  prevent  the  efficacy  of 
divine  truth  upon  our  hearts. 

SECTION  LXX. 

OF   THE    GOVERNMENT    OF    GOD. 

I.  Statement  of  this  Doctrine. 

FROM  what  has  already  been  said,  it  appears 
that  God  is  perfectly  acquainted  with  all  the 
efficient  causes  which  exist,  both  those  which 
are  free  in  their  agency  and  those  that  are  other- 
wise; that  he  knows  every  act  of  these  causes, 
and  all  the  effects  which  they  produce,  and  that 
he  guides  and  controls  them  all  at  his  pleasure, 
and  makes  them  subservient  to  his  own  designs. 
And  it  is  in  this  his  guiding  and  controlling  all 
the  changes  and  all  the  actions  of  his  creatures, 
so  as  to  promote  the  highest  good  of  the  whole, 
and  of  each  part,  that  the  government  of  God 
consists.  The  good  of  the  whole  involves  that 
of  all  the  parts  of  which  it  is  made  up,  and  one 
cannot  be  secured  exclusively  of  the  other.  The 
sum  of  the  good  of  all  the  individuals  under  the 
government  of  God  constitutes  the  good  of  the 
whole.  Hence  the  propriety  of  making  the 
good  of  each  part  an  object  of  the  government 
of  God. 

In  order  to  form  a  correct  judgment  respect- 
ing the  good  secured  in  the  world  under  the  go- 
vernment of  God — a  subject  on  which  mistakes 
are  very  common,  the  following  principles  should 
be  kept  in  mind. 

1.  The  degree  of  perfection  and  happiness 
attainable  by  different  beings  varies  according 
to  their  different  relations.  All  beings  are  not 
susceptible  of  an  equal  degree  of  good.  The 
beast,  for  example,  seeks  for  nothing  further 
than  the  satisfaction  of  his  hunger  and  thirst, 
and  the  gratification  of  his  other  natural  appe- 
tites. But  moral  beings  require  more  than  this 
for  their  happiness ;  they  have  a  higher  destina- 
tion, and  are  capable  of  a  higher  good.  And 
even  among  men  themselves,  the  external  good 
of  which  they  are  capable  is  different  according 
to  the  original  constitution,  the  abilities,  and 
even  the  age,  of  different  individuals.  The  good 
which  would  be  adapted  to  a  child  is  not  such 
as  would  satisfy  the  desires  of  a  man. 


2.  Such  is  the  constitution  which  God  has 
given  to  the  world,  that  the  happiness  of  one  is 
often  subordinate  and  must  be  sacrificed  to  the 
happiness  of  another.     This  is  clearly  taught 
by  experience;    though  doubtless  philosophers 
would   prove,  if  the  testimony  of  experience 
were  not  so  explicit,  that  this  could  not  be  so. 
We  find,  however,  that  many  animals  serve  for 
the  nourishment  of  others,  by  whom  they  are 
constantly  devoured.     And  how  many  of  them 
are  there  which  daily  suffer  from  the  free  ac- 
tions of  men  !    For  us,  with  all  our  short-sight- 
edness, to  call  in  question  the  wisdom  and  jus- 
tice of  what  God  thus  ordains,  or  permits,  and 
to  suppose  that  it  could  or  should  have  been 
otherwise,  is  unwarrantable  presumption.    It  is 
enough  for  us  to  know  that  such  is  the  divine 
plan,  which  we  are  unable  fully  to  comprehend, 
but  which,  for  the  very  reason  that  God  chose 
it,  is  the  wisest,  best,  and  most  adapted  to  its 
ends.    So  we  are  taught  by  the  holy  scriptures, 
and  further  than  this,  with  all  our  speculative 
philosophy,   we  cannot  go.     Vide  s.   48,   ad 
finem,  and  s.  71,  II. 

3.  Happiness  is  frequently  connected  with 
certain  conditions,  on  the  fulfilment  of  which 
our  enjoyment  of  it  depends.   For  example  :  the 
enjoyment  of  good  health  depends  in  a  great 
measure  upon  temperance.     If  any  one  fails  to 
comply  with  these  established  conditions,  the 
loss  of  the  good  which  he  had  hoped  for  is  to 
be  ascribed  to  himself,  and  not  to  God. 

These  considerations  are  overlooked  by  the 
great  body  of  mankind ;  and  hence  it  is,  that 
when  affairs  do  not  take  the  turn  which  they 
wish,  they  complain  and  murmur  respecting  the 
divine  government.  The  mistakes  most  fre- 
quent on  the  subject  of  divine  providence  are 
the  following — viz.,  (a)  Men  are  apt  to  consider 
their  whole  happiness  as  placed  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  a  certain  kind  of  advantages,  perhaps 
that  very  kind  of  which  they  are  deprived  ;  per- 
haps, too,  advantages  which  possess  no  intrin- 
sic value,  which  are  transient  and  uncertain, 
and  which,  if  obtained,  could  not  make  the  pos- 
sessor truly  happy.  The  poor  often  desire, 
most  of  all  things,  that  they  may  be  rich  ;  and 
the  sick,  that  they  may  enjoy  good  health.  But 
how  undesirable  is  it  often,  both  for  their  tem- 
poral and  eternal  welfare,  that  their  wishes 
should  be  gratified  !  (6)  Men  are  prone  to  for- 
get that  the  good  of  the  whole  is  to  be  consulted 
for,  and  that  individuals  must  often  sacrifice  to 
the  general  welfare  some  private  advantages, 
for  which,  however,  they  are  to  receive  an  equi- 
valent in  other  ways,  as  they  may  confidently 
expect,  from  the  goodness  of  God,  and  as  expe- 
rience even  in  the  present  world  has  often 
proved,  (c)  Men  are  prone  to  regard  dispro- 
portionately the  present  pain  and  unhappiness 
which  they  experience,  and  to  forget  that  under 


246 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


their  sufferings  and  deprivations  there  may  be 
concealed  the  germ  of  a  greater  temporal  and 
eternal  good.  (</)  Men  are  disposed  to  charge 
God  unjustly  with  denying  them,  or  depriving 
them  of  certain  advantages,  the  loss  of  which 
is  wholly  their  own  fault.  How  many  of  the 
sick  and  the  destitute  complain  of  God  as  the 
author  of  their  sufferings,  while  their  own  con- 
sciences must  assure  them  that  they  alone  are 
to  blame ! 

II.  Proof  of  this  Doctrine. 

1.  From  the  natural  constitution  of  the  world, 
(argumentum  physicum,)  it  is  impossible  for 
the  human  mind  to  conceive  how  the  admirable 
order  and  harmony  which  appear  in  the  uni- 
verse, where  all  things  are  so  intimately  con- 
nected, run  into,  and  depend  upon  one  another, 
like  the  links  of  a  chain,  should  exist  without 
the  superintendence  and  control  of  an  infinitely 
wise  and  almighty  Being.     Consider  here  the 
influence  of  the  atmosphere  upon  the  growth  of 
plants,  upon  the  life,  health,  and  support  of  ani- 
mate beings.     Reflect,  too,  that  one  country  has 
a  surplus  of  certain  useful  productions,  of  which 
another  country  is  wholly  destitute.   The  former 
cannot  use  its  surplus  productions,  the  latter  is 
compelled  to  seek  elsewhere  what  its  own  soil 
does  not  produce,  and  to  obtain  it  where  it  can 
be  found  in  the  greatest  abundance.     This  gives 
rise  to  trade,  activity,  enterprise ;  and  these  bring 
in  wealth,  &c. 

2.  From    experience,    (argumentum    histori- 
cum.)     This  may  be  either  personal  or  general, 
and  so  is  called  by  Morus  duplicem  providentise 
scholam,  p.  83,  s.  8.     This  proof,  when  rightly 
exhibited,  is  very  obvious  and  intelligible,  even 
to  the  unlearned.     In  the  events  which  take 
place  around  us,  let  the  attention  be  directed  to 
the  causes  by  which  they  are  effected — to  the 
time,  place,  and  other  circumstances  in  which 
these  causes  acted.     By  their  slow  and  often 
unnoticed  combination,  effects  are  produced  at 
which  every  one  is  astonished.     The  smallest 
occurrences  often  lead  to  the  greatest  revolu- 
tions; wicked  actions  are  made  the  means  of 
good,  and  result  in  the  advantage  of  those  whom 
they  were  designed  to  injure,  so  that  many  can 
say,  with  Joseph,  (Gen.  1.  20,)  "Ye  thought 
evil  against  me,  but  God  meant  it  for  good." 
Men  who  are  to  be  the  means  of  eminent  good 
to  the  world,  or  to  perform  some  distinguished 
service,  must  be  called  forth  upon  the  stage  of 
action  at  exactly  the  most  proper  time,  in  ex- 
actly the  most  suitable  place,  and  at  precisely 
the  most  favourable  juncture  of  other  circum- 
stances.    When  history  is  studied  with  these 
considerations  kept  in  mind,  (and  in  the  study 
of  history  they  should  never  be  omitted,  as  they 
are  now,  alas!  too  frequently,  by  those  who 


teach  this  branch  to  the  young,)  what  to  the 
ignorant  and  thoughtless  might  appear  to  be 
chance  or  accident,  exhibits  clear  marks  of  a 
guiding  Providence.  And  this  is  the  high  posi- 
tion, from  which  those  who  have  the  scriptures 
in  their  hand  can  survey  all  the  events  recorded 
in  the  history  of  the  world.  We  may  refer  to 
the  history  of  Joseph,  to  the  ancient  history  of 
the  Jews,  that  of  the  diffusion  of  Christianity, 
of  the  Reformation,  and  the  more  important 
events  of  our  own  times,  as  remarkable  exam- 
ples. Vide  Schroeckh,  Disp.  historia  provi- 
dentiam  divinam,  quando  et  quam  clare  loqua- 
tur;  Vitebergas,  1776.  J.  G.  Miiller,  Briefe 
iiber  das  Studium  der  Wissenschaften,  beson- 
ders  der  Geschichte;  Ziirch,  1798,8vo— a  work 
full  of  valuable  remarks  drawn  from  experience, 
which  deserve  to  be  considered,  especially 
by  the  teachers  of  religion,  and  to  be  carefully 
applied  by  them  to  practice.  But  we  ought  by 
no  means  to  confine  our  attention  to  the  great 
events  which  are  recorded  in  the  history  of  the 
world.  To  one  who  is  an  attentive  observer  of 
all  the  changes  through  which  he  himself  passes, 
his  own  life  will  furnish  abundant  materials  for 
the  most  interesting  and  useful  observations 
respecting  the  providence  of  God.  And  such 
observations  are  uncommonly  useful  in  popular 
instruction.  They  tend  to  awaken  and  cherish 
religious  dispositions.  If  men  suppose  that  God 
exercises  no  care  over  them,  they  have  no  ground 
or  motive  to  love  and  worship  him.  But  since 
holiness  is  the  true  end  for  which  we,  as  moral 
beings,  were  made,  and  since  our  capacity  for 
happiness  is  in  exact  proportion  to  our  holiness, 
we  ought  to  pay  particular  attention  to  those 
dealings  of  Divine  Providence  with  us  by  which 
this  great  end  is  promoted.  To  every  man 
whose  moral  character  is  in  any  considerable 
degree  improved  and  advanced,  whatever  he  has 
experienced  himself,  or  noticed  in  others,  tending 
to  the  promotion  of  holiness,  possesses  an  inex- 
pressible interest;  and  any  who  are  destitute  of 
feeling  on  this  point,  and  can  ridicule  the  spiri- 
tual experiences  of  pious  Christians,  and  what 
they  communicate  of  their  experiences  to  others, 
either  by  writing  or  by  oral  relation,  give  mourn- 
ful proof  that  they  themselves  are  as  yet  unre- 
formed,  and  are  turning  aside  from  the  true  end 
of  their  being.  One  who  is  taught  in  his  youth 
to  refer  everything  in  his  own  life  to  God,  and 
to  search  for  the  traces  of  divine  providence  in 
what  befals  himself,  will  learn  to  look  at  the 
lives  of  others  and  at  the  history  of  nations  in 
the  same  manner  and  with  the  same  interest, 
and  will  of  course  be  dissatisfied  when  he  sees 
that,  in  opposition  to  the  example  of  the  sacred 
writers,  God  is  wholly  left  out  of  the  account 
by  so  many  historians.  But,  on  the  contrary, 
he  who  himself  lives  in  the  world  without  God, 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


247 


may  be  content  with  a  history  in  which  the 
hand  of  God  is  unnoticed,  and  indeed  will  be 
displeased  with  any  other. 

3.  From  the  Bible.  Morns,  p.  79—81,  s.  6. 
That  God  is  the  creator,  proprietor,  and  governor 
of  the  world,  that  all  things,  even  the  small- 
est, depend  upon  him,  and  that  with  infinite 
wisdom  he  overrules  all  for  the  highest  good, 
are  principles  everywhere  assumed  in  the  Bible. 
The  texts  which  relate  to  providence,  in  the  more 
general  view  of  it,  were  cited  s.  68,  I.  2.  The 
texts  which  relate  more  particularly  to  the  divine 
government  may  be  divided  into  the  following 
classes : — (a)  Those  in  which  the  guidance  and 
direction  of  all  events,  both  small  and  great,  are 
expressly  ascribed  to  God,  Matt.  vi.  31 ;  Acts, 
xvii.  25,  26;  1  Chronicles,  xxix.  (al.  xxx.)  12. 
(6)  Those  in  which  particular  changes  and  oc- 
currences, past,  present,  and  to  come,  are  referred 
to  God  as  the  author;  Isa.  xliii.  12;  Acts,  iv. 
28  ;  Psa.  xc. ;  Prov.  xvi.  1,  33,  "The  lot  is  cast 
into  the  lap,  but  the  whole  disposing  thereof  is 
of  the  Lord."  (c)  Those  which  contain  divine 
promises  and  threatenings,  and  which  would  be 
without  meaning  on  any  supposition  but  that 
God  is  the  governor  of  the  world  and  the  dis- 
poser of  the  destinies  of  men;  Exodus,  xx.  12; 
Psa.  xc.,  xci.,  &c.  (d)  Those  in  which  God 
is  entreated  to  avert  calamities,  to  put  an  end 
to  distress,  to  bestow  blessings,  &c. ;  or  those 
in  which  the  granting  of  such  requests  is  pro- 
mised, Psalm  xxii.  5 ;  cxxviii. ;  Matt.  xxvi.  39 ; 
1  Thess.  iii.  10,  11.  In  order  that  this  may  be 
correctly  understood,  it  should  be  compared 
with  what  was  before  said  respecting  the  will 
and  the  purposes  of  God,  s.  20,  32. 

Note. — It  has  been  already  frequently  re- 
marked, that  according  to  a  mode  of  thinking 
and  speaking  common  among  the  ancients,  many 
things  were  represented  as  resulting  immediately 
from  the  agency  of  God,  though  they  were  in 
reality  effected  through  the  instrumentality  of 
second  causes,  which  perhaps  were  merely  not 
mentioned,  perhaps  were  overlooked,  or  possibly, 
at  that  early  period  of  the  world,  not  even  known. 
Vide  s.  58,  II.  The  mode  of  representation  here 
referred  to,  and  expressions  and  narrations 
founded  upon  it,  occur  frequently  in  the  Bible, 
in  Homer,  and  the  ancient  writers.  Thus,  for 
example,  when  we  should  say,  it  thunders,  it 
rains,  there  is  an  earthquake,  the  ancients  said, 
God  thunders,  &c.,  Psa.  xxix. ;  civ.  32.  Gen. 
xi.  7,  8 ;  xix.  24,  "  God  rained  upon  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  brimstone  and  fire  from  the  Lord  out 
of  heaven."  Many  events,  therefore,  which 
would  seem,  from  the  manner  in  which  they  are 
spoken  of,  to  be  the  results  of  the  immediate 
agency  of  God,  and  to  be  accomplished  in  an 
extraordinary  way,  were  really  effected  by  na- 
tural causes.  However,  since  these  natural 
causes  depend  upon  the  government  of  God,  this 


mode  of  speaking  is  in  itself  correct.  And  it  is 
because  we,  in  the  present  age,  have  so  little  of 
the  religious  feeling  of  the  ancient  world  that 
we  misunderstand  their  more  pious  and  religious 
mode  of  expressing  themselves,  and  even  feel  it 
to  be  offensive.  The  teacher  of  religion  should, 
however,  closely  follow  the  example  of  the  sa- 
cred writers  in  this  respect,  and  ever  imitate  and 
preserve  this  more  religious  phraseology  which 
they  employ,  and,  like  them,  refer  everything  to 
God.  And  if,  in  order  to  prevent  superstition, 
he  should  think  it  necessary  to  say  that  such  an 
event  took  place  naturally,  he  must  be  careful 
that  he  be  not  understood  to  mean  that  it  took 
place  without  God,  and  that  he  does  not  thus  be- 
come the  means  of  causing  his  hearers  to  forget 
God,  and  to  live  at  a  distance  from  him.  He 
ought,  on  the  contrary,  in  such  cases,  to  shew 
that  although  a  particular  event  may  have  been 
natural,  it  was  not  the  less  owing  to  the  agency 
of  God ;  that  nature  is  only  an  instrument  in  the 
hands  of  God  ;  and  that  nothing  therefore  takes 
place  which  is  not  according  to  his  will  and 
purpose. 

SECTION  LXXI. 

THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  GOD  IN  RELATION  TO  THE 
FREEDOM  OF  MAN,  AND  TO  THE  EVIL  EXISTING 
IN  THE  WORLD. 

I.  In  Relation  to  the  Freedom  of  Man. 

ON  the  one  hand,  the  freedom  of  the  human 
will  is  unimpaired  by  the  government  of  God ; 
and,  on  the  other,  the  government  of  God  is  un- 
obstructed and  undisturbed  by  the  free  actions 
of  men.  The  freedom  of  man  must  at  all  events 
be  maintained,  for  morality  and  accountability 
depend  upon  it.  If  he  is  not  free  to  choose  and 
to  act,  he  cannot  be  accountable  for  his  actions ; 
for  they  are  not  within  his  own  power.  We 
have  already  established  the  position  (s.  22, 1.), 
that  God  foresees  those  actions  which  result  from 
the  freedom  of  man,  and  the  consequences  of 
them,  as  well  as  those  which  are  necessary,  or 
less  contingent;  but  that  the  former  do  not  cease 
to  be  free  because  they  are  foreknown.  This 
principle  must  be  assumed  as  true  in  reasoning 
on  this  subject.  We  are  not  to  expect,  there- 
fore, that  the  government  of  God  over  moral 
beings  will  be  shewn  by  his  compelling  them  to 
perform  good  or  bad  actions.  That  men  are  free 
in  what  they  do  is  everywhere  assumed  in  the 
Bible,  and  must  be  presupposed  in  every  system 
of  morals.  Vide  Luke,  viii.  5 — 15 ;  xiii.  6 — 9 ; 
James,  i.  13—15. 

Still,  however,  the  free  actions  of  moral  beings 
are  under  the  most  minute  inspection  and  the 
most  perfect  control  of  God.  For  these  actions 
are  dependent  (a)  upon  the  powers  which  man 
possesses,  and  for  these  powers  he  is  indebted 


248 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


to  God  alone.  Vide  s.  69.  (6)  Upon  the  laws 
of  his  physical  and  moral  nature — i.  e.,  the  laws 
(in  one  case,  of  motion,  and  in  the  other,  of 
thought)  according  to  which  he  exercises  his 
peculiar  powers ;  and  these  laws  are  given  and 
established  by  God.  Vide  ubi  supra,  (c)  Upon 
external  circumstances — upon  things  without  the 
man  himself;  and  these  things,  as  all  others,  are 
under  the  control  of  God.  Man,  then,  as  a  mo- 
ral being,  is  free  to  will,  to  resolve,  and  to  act 
according  to  his  resolutions.  God  furnishes  him 
with  occasions  of  acting  in  the  external  objects 
around  him ;  he  also  gives  him  his  powers  of 
action,  and  preserves  to  him  their  exercise;  but 
then  permits  him,  though  under  his  own  guid- 
ance and  supervision,  to  exert  his  powers  ac- 
cording to  his  own  will,  and  to  perform  his 
actions  freely.  Vide  s.  69,  I.  ad  finem.  How 
this  can  be,  we  shall  find  it  difficult  to  under- 
stand, however  sagacious  and  fine-spun  our 
philosophical  theories  may  be ;  but  that  thus  it 
is,  that  notwithstanding  the  providence  of  God 
we  remain  free  in  our  actions,  must  be  firmly 
maintained  if  we  would  not  degrade  ourselves 
below  the  standard  of  moral  beings,  if  we  would 
not  falsify  the  dictates  of  that  moral  feeling  so 
deeply  implanted  by  the  Creator  himself  in  our 
hearts,  and  if  we  would  not  consequently  over- 
turn the  first  and  most  important  doctrines  of 
morality.  Every  man's  own  consciousness,  the 
clear  dictates  of  his  moral  nature,  convince  him 
that  he  is  free,  beyond  the  necessity,  or  even  the 
possibility,  of  a  further  demonstration.  Cf.  the 
writings  of  the  modern  philosophers  of  the  dif- 
ferent schools — Eberhard,  Ueber  die  Freyheit; 
and  Jacob's  clear  and  perspicuous  treatise  on  the 
same  subject,  according  to  the  principles  of  the 
Critical  philosophy,  contained  in  Kiesewetter's 
work,  "  Ueber  den  ersten  Grundsatz  der  Moral- 
philosophie ;"  Leipzig  und  Halle,  1788,  8vo. 
On  account  of  the  deficiencies  and  difficulties 
attending  metaphysical  demonstrations  of  free- 
dom, and  the  perplexed  and  endless  speculations 
by  which  both  sides  of  this  question  have  been 
argued,  Kant  rejected  them  all  as  insufficient, 
and  as  leading  into  error;  and  would  have  us 
depend  more  upon  experience,  and  believe  and 
hold  fast  the  doctrine  of  human  freedom,  because 
it  is  so  indispensable  in  morals  that  without  it 
morality  cannot  be  conceived  to  exist.  [This 
view  of  Kant,  implying  that  freedom,  while  it 
is  a  postulate  of  our  practical  reason,  (i.  e.,  ne- 
cessary to  be  assumed  in  order  to  moral  action,) 
is  yet  inconsistent  with  our  theoretical  reason, 
(i.  e.,  incapable  of  demonstration,  and  contrary 
to  the  conclusions  to  which  the  reflecting  mind 
arrives,)  is  now  very  generally  rejected.  We 
cannot  admit  a  twofold  and  contradictory  reason, 
nor  can  we  adopt  a  principle  for  practice  to 
which  our  speculative  reason  is  statedly  op- 
It  is  justly  remarked  by  Bockshammer, 


in  his  brief  but  comprehensive  treatise  on  the 
Will,  that  even  practical  freedom  cannot  be  ade- 
quately maintained,  if,  while  we  must  deem  our- 
selves free,  we  are  yet  left  to  suspect,  by  the 
decisions  of  our  speculative  reason,  that  in  real- 
ity we  act  from  some  concealed  necessity,  under 
the  laws  of  which  our  inmost  being  is  placed. 
Vide  Bockshammer,  Ueber  die  Freyheit  des 
mensch.  Willens,  s.  5,  f . ;  Stuttgart,  1821. — 
TR.]  The  more  full  investigation  of  the  whole 
subject  belongs  rather  to  the  department  of  mo- 
ral science  than  here. 

The  exhibition  of  this  subject  in  popular  in- 
struction should  be  kept  as  free  as  possible  from 
all  philosophical  subtleties ;  and  it  would  be 
well  if  the  teachers  of  religion,  from  regard  to 
their  own  peace  and  comfort,  as  well  as  that  of 
their  hearers,  would  abide  by  the  following 
simple  principles,  which  accord  alike  with  scrip- 
ture and  experience,  (a)  God,  with  a  view  to 
the  real  welfare  of  man,  gives  him  the  means 
and  opportunities  necessary  to  withhold  him  from 
the  choice  of  evil,  and  to  lead  him  to  what  is 
right.  (6)  For  many  of  our  free  actions,  he 
furnishes  us  with  inducement  and  encourage- 
ment in  the  external  circumstances  in  which  he 
has  placed  us;  and  he  so  orders  these  circum- 
stances as  to  promote  what  we  ourselves  under- 
take, and  to  give  it  a  happy  issue.  He  makes 
use  of  these  circumstances  also  as  a  warning  to 
us  and  others  to  abstain  from  such  actions  as 
we  find  attended  with  unhappy  consequences. 
These  encouragements  and  warnings  may  serve 
as  examples  to  shew  the  consistency  between 
the  divine  government  and  human  freedom  ;  for 
we  are  still  at  liberty,  and  have  it  still  within 
our  power,  to  do  that  to  which  we  are  encour- 
aged, and  to  abstain  from  that  from  which  we 
are  warned ;  and  in  both  cases  we  remain  the 
authors  of  our  own  free  actions,  (c)  God  re- 
wards men  for  their  good  actions,  and  punishes 
them  for  those  that  are  bad  ;  which  he  could  not 
do,  were  men  not  free  in  performing  them. 
Vide  s.  31.  (d)  God  frequently  prevents 
wicked  actions,  which  men  had  intended  and 
resolved  to  perform.  The  brethren  of  Joseph, 
for  example,  were  not  able  to  execute  their  de- 
signs against  his  life,  Gen.  xxxix.  God,  how- 
ever, does  not  always  do  this  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, sometimes  permits  the  wicked  actions  of 
men,  since  otherwise  he  would  destroy  their 
freedom.  But  then  these  wicked  actions  are 
overruled  by  him  to  be  the  means  of  good,  Gen. 
1.  20 ;  Acts,  ii.  36.  If  in  any  case,  however, 
they  are  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  wise  and 
benevolent  plan  of  his  government,  or,  which  is 
the  same  thing,  cannot  be  made  to  contribute  to 
the  general  good  which  he  seeks  to  promote,  he 
then  directly  prevents  them.  What  actions  and 
events  belong  to  this  class  it  is  impossible  for 
us  to  say,  and  can  be  known  only  to  the  omni- 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


249 


ecient  God.  (e)  The  result  and  issue  of  all  ac- 
tions, good  and  bad,  depend  solely  upon  God. 
Vide  s.  70.  Many  a  scheme,  which  appeared 
in  itself  to  be  a  masterpiece  of  human  wisdom 
and  prudence,  has  failed  of  success,  while  the 
most  foolish  and  inconsiderate  undertakings 
have  been  prospered.  Vide  Eccles.  ix.  11; 
Prov.  xvi.  1,  seq. ;  James,  iv.  13 — 15.  This 
would  be  seen  by  us  much  more  frequently  if 
we  were  not  accustomed  to  look  rather  at  the 
result  than  at  the  intention  and  plan.  If  the  re- 
sult is  favourable,  we  judge  favourably  of  the 
design  itself;  and  the  reverse.  Hence  it  is  that 
we  find  praise  and  blame  so  unjustly  awarded 
in  history.  When  we  think  to  benefit  ourselves 
or  others  by  a  particular  course  of  action,  we 
often  injure  both  ourselves  and  others ;  and  the 
reverse.  Hence  it  is  said,  that  while  the  free- 
dom of  men  and  other  moral  beings  is  not  de- 
stroyed by  the  divine  government,  it  is  yet  con- 
fined and  limited.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  81,  s.  3,  6, 
Notes.  [Also  Bretschneider,  Dogmatik,  b.  i. 
s.  644,  s.  98,  6.] 

II.  In  Relation  to  Evil. 

1.  The  many  evils  which  exist  in  the  world, 
and  the  calamities  which  befal  the  human  race, 
have  from  the  earliest  times  been  regarded  as  a 
standing  objection  against  the  providence  of 
God.  How  they  can  consist  with  his  wisdom 
and  goodness,  and  consequently  with  his  provi- 
dence, is  a  question  which  men  at  all  times  have 
found  it  difficult  to  answer.  These  evils  are 
either  physical  or  moral ;  and  the  permission  of 
either  of  them  has  appeared  to  be  subversive  of 
divine  providence.  The  existence  of  evil  was 
brought  forward  as  an  argument  against  provi- 
dence by  Epicurus.  Vide  Lucretius,  De  Rerum 
Natura,  1.  v. ;  Cicero,  De  Nat.  Deorum ;  Lac- 
tantius,  De  ira  Dei,  c.  13.  The^toics,  on  the 
other  hand,  undertook  to  answer  this  objection. 
Vide  Seneca,  De  Beneficiis,  iv.  4,  seq.  This 
objection  appeared  so  strong  to  Bayle,  that,  in 
the  article  on  Manicheism,  in  his  Dictionary,  he 
pronounces  it  unanswerable.  But  Leibnitz,  in 
his  "Theodicee,"  endeavoured  to  resolve  the 
doubts  of  Bayle,  and  to  establish  a  correct  phi- 
losophical theory  respecting  the  existence  of 
evil.*  An  argument  has  sometimes  been  drawn 
against  providence  from  the  complaints  of  the 
sacred  writers  respecting  the  evil  existing  in  the 
world,  and  the  unhappy  fate  of  man,  especially 
those  which  occur  in  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes. 


[*  Voltaire  also  opposed  the  doctrine  of  provi- 
dence in  a  poem  on  the  destruction  of  Lisbon ;  and 
when  this  doctrine  was  ably  defended  by  Rousseau, 
in  his  Letter  on  Optimism,  he  replied  by  a  philoso- 
phical romance  entitled  "  Candide,"  in  which  he 
presents  an  appalling  picture  of  the  disorders  of  the 
world,  from  which  he  takes  occasion  to  deride  the 
notion  of  an  overruling  providence. — TB.] 
32 


But  the  object  of  the  author  of  this  book  is  not 
so  much  to  arraign  the  providence  of  God,  as  to 
shew,  from  the  instability  of  fortune,  and  the 
uncertainty  of  human  schemes,  that  we  should 
learn  true  wisdom,  and  that  since  providence 
affords  us  a  sufficiency  of  good  things,  we  should 
study  the  art,  so  rarely  understood,  of  making  a 
wise  use  of  them,  by  which  alone  we  can  be 
contented  and  happy,  Eccles.  iii.  vii.  ix. 

In  reply  to  these  objections,  it  may  be  said, 
that  if  the  providence  of  God  can  be  proved 
from  other  arguments,  the  existence  of  evil  can 
afford  no  reason  to  doubt  or  deny  it.  On  the 
contrary,  we  must  conclude,  that  since  God  per- 
mits and  suffers  evil  in  the  world,  it  must  be 
according  to  his  wisdom,  and  be  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  his  providence,  although  we  may 
not  be  able  to  understand  how  it  can  be  so,  and 
why  he  did  not  constitute  a  different  order. 
Vide  Seneca,  De  providentia,  sive  quare  bonis 
viris  mala  accidant,  cum  sit  providentia.  The 
will  and  the  power  of  God  may  be  regarded 
either  as  exerted  unconditionally,  unconfined  by 
any  established  order,  or  as  exerted  in  conform- 
ity with  a  certain  established  order  of  things. 
In  the  exercise  of  his  absolute,  unconditional 
power,  God  could  remove  evil  out  of  the  way ; 
but  he  will  not  always  do  this,  because  it  is 
against  the  order  which  from  his  wisdom  he 
found  it  necessary  to  establish.  He  indeed 
foresaw  the  existence  of  evil,  and  permits  it, 
(cf.  Ps.  Ixxxi.  12,  13;  Acts,  xiv.  16;  Rom.  i. 
24 ;)  but  so  far  as  it  is  evil,  he  can  never  have 
pleasure  in  it,  or  himself  promote  or  favour  it; 
James,  i.  13 — 17.  He  has  admitted  it  into  his 
general  plan,  because  he  can  make  it,  in  its  con- 
nexion with  other  things,  the  means  of  a  good, 
which,  without  it,  either  could  not  be  effected 
at  all,  or  at  least  not  so  well,  as  by  its  being 
permitted.  What  Christ  said,  Matt.  xiii.  29,  is 
very  true,  that  if  the  tares  were  pulled  up  the 
wheat  would  be  pulled  up  with  them ;  and  that 
to  prevent  this,  the  tares  and  the  wheat  must  be 
suffered  to  grow  together.  We  are  acquainted 
with  only  a  small  part  of  what  is  embraced  in 
the  universe  of  God  ;  and  even  this  small  part  is 
understood  by  us  very  imperfectly ;  and  as  to 
the  true  internal  relation  of  things — the  ends 
for  which  they  exist,  and  the  consequences  by 
which  they  are  followed,  our  knowledge  is  ex- 
tremely defective;  we  are  therefore  unable  to 
form  a  right  judgment  respecting  the  relation  of 
evil  to  good,  and  of  the  amount  of  evil  to  the 
amount  of  good. 

Seneca  says,  Contro.  iv.  27,  "Necessitas 
magnum  humanae  felicitatis  patrocinium" — Ne- 
cessity is  a  great  consolation  in  the  sufferings  of 
men.  If  by  necessity  he  meant  that  blind,  in- 
evitable fate  to  which  the  gods  themselves  are 
subject,  then  is  it  a  poor  consolation  indeed ; 
for  what  comfort  would  it  be  to  a  malefactor, 


250 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


when  carried  towards  the  place  of  execution, 
to  be  continually  informed  that  he  must  die, 
and  there  is  no  escaping  it.  But  if  necessity 
may  be  understood  to  mean  the  order  of  things 
which  God  saw  it  necessary  to  constitute,  then 
the  maxim  above  stated  is  perfectly  true  ;  it  is 
accordant  with  the  Christian  spirit,  and  full  of 
consolation,  although  this  necessity  may  involve 
many  things  which  are  unintelligible  and  dis- 
agreeable to  us.  For  if  God,  who  is  infinitely 
wise  and  benevolent,  has  constituted  this  order, 
it  must  be  good,  and  adapted  to  the  end  which 
he  has  in  view,  however  otherwise  it  may  ap- 
pear to  us. 

Again;  men  who  are  dissatisfied  with  their 
lot  often  complain  that  certain  blessings  are 
denied  them,  without  inquiring  whether  they 
themselves  are  susceptible  of  these  blessings, 
and  without  remembering  the  many  blessings 
which  they  already  enjoy.  Besides,  the  opinions 
of  men  respecting  happiness  are  so  various, 
and  sometimes  so  foolish,  that  it  would  seem 
impossible  that  their  wishes  should  all  be  grati- 
fied. Things  sometimes  desired  as  the  greatest 
blessings  would  be,  if  possessed,  the  greatest 
injury  to  both  soul  and  body;  and  the  good- 
ness of  Providence  is  shewn  in  withholding 
them.  Cf.  Zollikoffer,  Betrachtungen  iiber  das 
Uebel  in  der  Welt.  Jacobi,  Ueber  die  Weisen 
Absichten  Gottes.  De  Maree,  Gottesverthei- 
digung  iiber  die  Zulassung  des  Bosen. 

2.  Another  argument  against  providence  is, 
that  the  ungodly  often  prosper  in  the  world, 
while  the  righteous  suffer  affliction.  This  is 
thought  to  be  indirectly  inconsistent  with  the 
wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  and  therefore  to 
disprove  a  superintending  providence.  The 
minds  of  reflecting  persons  have  from  the  earli- 
est times  been  disturbed  by  this  doubt;  and  the 
advocates  of  providence  have  endeavoured  in 
various  ways  to  solve  it.  It  is  frequently  men- 
tioned in  the  Old  Testament,  and  receives  various 
answers,  according  to  the  different  aspects  which 
the  subject  assumes — e.  g.,  Psalm  xxxvii.  xxxix. 
xlix.,  and  especially  Ixxiii. ;  Job,  xvi.  et  passim. 
Many  also  among  the  Grecian  philosophers  were 
very  much  perplexed  on  this  subject;  and  Di- 
ogenes the  Cynic  declared,  "  that  the  prosperity 
of  the  wicked  disproved  the  power  and  wisdom 
of  the  gods;"  Cicero,  De  Nat.  Deor.  iii.  34. 
Others,  however,  and  particularly  the  stoics, 
undertook  to  answer  this  objection ;  and  Seneca, 
in  his  book  "De  Providentia,"  investigates  the 
question  how  the  righteous  can  suffer,  if  there 
is  a  divine  providence  ?  According  to  the  opi- 
nion of  Bayle  this  objection  cannot  be  met  by 
any  satisfactory  answer.  But, 

(a)  This  objection  results  in  a  great  measure 
from  ignorance,  and  from  the  low  and  false  esti- 
mate put  upon  the  real  advantages  which  the 
godly  enjoy,  and  the  true  happiness  which  flows 


from  the  possession  of  them.  Most  of  those 
who  urge  the  objection,  that  the  righteous  suffer 
adversity,  while  the  wicked  prosper  in  the 
world,  place  happiness  in  external  things,  in  the 
possession  of  wealth,  or  in  sensual  indulgences ; 
and  of  course  regard  the  poor  man,  who  is  little 
thought  of  by  the  world,  as  unhappy.  But  in 
this  they  mistake,  overlooking  the  essential  dis- 
tinction between  true  and  only  apparent  good. 
True  advantages,  such  as  health  of  body,  know- 
ledge of  the  truth,  holiness  of  heart,  and  others, 
both  of  a  physical  and  moral  nature,  make  men 
happy  by  their  own  proper  tendency.  These 
are  the  true  spiritual  goods,  the  treasures  in  hea- 
ven, of  which  Christ  speaks  ;  by  the  possession 
of  which  alone  the  soul  is  prepared  for  the  true 
happiness  of  moral  beings.  But  besides  these, 
there  are  other  things,  such  as  riches,  the  enjoy- 
ments of  sense,  power,  and  honour,  which  may 
become  advantages  by  a  wise  and  rational  use 
of  them,  but  which  otherwise  are  injurious,  and 
the  occasions  of  unhappiness  to  men.  They 
are,  however,  regarded  by  many,  even  when 
unwisely  and  improperly  used,  as  real  blessings, 
because  they  excite  sensations  agreeable  to  the 
carnal  mind.  But  to  those  who  form  a  right 
judgment  respecting  them,  they  are,  when  im- 
properly used,  only  apparent  blessings,  because 
the  pleasure  which  they  produce  is  transient, 
and  turns  at  last  to  pain.  The  writer  of  Psalm 
xlix.  very  justly  decides,  therefore,  that  the  life 
of  the  profligate  is  only  outwardly  and  in  ap- 
pearance happy,  and  is  often,  in  reality,  only 
splendid  and  showy  misery,  to  envy  which 
would  be  extremely  foolish.  In  Psalm  Ixxiii., 
Asaph  points  to  the  end  of  the  wicked,  and 
shews  that  their  prosperity,  being  unsubstantial, 
is  suddenly  and  in  a  moment  lost.  We  cannot 
certainly  regard  that  as  a  good  in  reference  to 
another,  or  account  him  as  happy  for  the  pos- 
session of  anything  which  he  himself  does  not 
truly  enjoy.  But  it  is  not  unfrequently  the  case 
that  the  things  most  esteemed  by  the  world,  so 
far  from  making  the  possessor  happy,  are  the 
occasion  of  disquietude  and  misery.  And  so  it 
is  often  said  in  common  life,  that  the  fortune  of 
the  rich  and  powerful  is  only  shining  misery  ,- 
that  they  are  not  to  be  envied ;  that  we  would 
not  exchange  places  with  them,  &c. 

(6)  When  this  is  considered,  and  the  state 
of  the  virtuous  and  the  vicious  is  then  compared, 
that  of  the  former,  though  replete  with  external 
sufferings,  must  be  pronounced  to  be  more  hap- 
py than  that  of  the  latter.  For  although  the 
good  man  may  have  no  worldly  honour,  no 
earthly  riches,  no  superfluity  of  pleasures,  he 
has  true,  spiritual,  good  treasures  in  heaven, 
which  moth  and  rust  do  not  corrupt,  and  which 
are  secure  from  thieves,  (Matt.  vi.  19,  20;)  and 
although  he  were  bowed  down  under  external 
afflictions,  he  would  yet  maintain  his  integrity 


\YORKS  OF  GOD. 


251 


of  heart,  and  the  reward  which  the  favour  of 
God  secures — the  greatest  of  all  the  blessings 
which  men  can  enjoy.  Vide  Matt.  xvi.  25.  He 
lias  cheerfulness  and  tranquillity  of  soul;  while 
those  who  seek  their  good  in  external  things  are 
constantly  disquieted  by  passions,  cares,  and 
disappointments.  But  this  blessedness  which 
which  the  virtuous  man  enjoys  makes  but  little 
show  in  the  world,  and  is  hence  so  often  under- 
valued by  worldly  men.  They  find  it  impos- 
sible to  see  or  believe  that  there  can  be  any 
happiness  in  things  for  which  they  have  so  little 
taste.  This  train  of  thought  is  much  dwelt 
upon  by  the  stoical  philosophers,  and  by  the 
sacred  writers. 

(c)  It  is  a  mistake,  however,  to  suppose  that 
the  virtuous  always  endure  more  external  suf- 
ferings than  the  wicked ;  for  the  righteous  are 
frequently  prosperous,  even  in  their  worldly 
affairs ;  while  the  wicked  are  unsuccessful  in 
all  their  undertakings.  But  these  cases  are  less 
noticed,  because  they  seem  to  follow  in  the  na- 
tural course  of  things. 

(rf)  Even  good  men  often  bring  upon  them- 
selves the  sufferings  which  they  endure  by  their 
own  fault ;  they  do  not  in  all  cases  act  according 
to  the  law  of  duty  and  the  rules  of  prudence; 
and  in  such  cases  they  cannot  justly  ask  to  be 
excepted  from  the  common  lot  of  faulty  and  in- 
judicious men,  and  must  expect  to  endure  the 
unhappy  consequences  of  their  errors  and  follies. 
Christ  says,  Luke,  xvi.  8,  "  The  children  of  this 
world  are  wiser  in  their  generation  than  the 
children  of  light" — i.  e.,  those  whose  affections 
are  fixed  upon  the  world,  the  worldly-minded, 
are  often  more  wise  with  regard  to  the  things  of 
time  than  those  whose  affections  are  fixed  upon 
heaven  are  with  regard  to  their  heavenly  trea- 
sures. The  former  have  more  care  for  their 
welfare  in  the  present  life  than  the  latter  for 
their  blessedness  in  the  world  to  come.  Should 
pious  and  good  men  exhibit  the  same-zeal  and 
prudence  which  worldly  men  exhibit  in  ma- 
naging their  worldly  affairs,  how  much  would 
they  accomplish  for  their  own  advantage  and 
that  of  others  !  But  since  they  do  not  always 
come  up  to  this  standard,  they  must  suffer  the 
evil  consequences  of  their  delinquency. 

(e)  Nothing  is  more  common  than  for  us  to 
err  in  our  estimate  of  the  moral  state  and  cha- 
racter of  other  men.  All  are  not  pious  and  vir- 
tuous who  appear  to  be  such,  and  are  esteemed 
such  by  their  fellow  men.  And  it  is  equally 
true  that  all  who  are  accounted  ungodly  are  not 
the  gross  criminals  and  offenders  they  are  some- 
times supposed  to  be.  Vide  Luke,  xviii.  10, 
seq.  The  character  of  many  a  man  is  made 
out,  by  those  who  look  upon  him  with  hatred 
or  envy,  to  be  much  worse  than  it  really  is. 
One  man  commits  some  flagrant,  out-breaking 
crime,  which  brings  him  into  disgrace,  and 


draws  upon  him  the  contempt  of  the  world  ;  but 
he  may  be,  at  the  same  time,  of  a  better  dispo- 
sition, and  less  culpable  in  the  sight  of  God  than 
many  a  reputed  saint,  who  covers  over  his  real 
shame  with  the  hypocritical  pretence  of  virtue. 
Vide  John  viii.  3,  7,  10,  11.  And  since  this  is 
the  case,  and  it  is  always  difficult,  and  some- 
times impossible  for  us,  who  cannot  search  the 
heart,  to  determine  the  true  moral  character  of 
men,  and  of  their  actions,  we  ought  to  be  ex- 
tremely cautious  in  deciding,  whether  the  good 
or  evil  which  befalls  them  is  deserved  or  not. 
In  most  cases,  our  judgments  on  this  subject 
are  certainly  very  erroneous. 

(/)  The  afflictions  which  good  men  endure 
are  beneficial  to  them  and  to  others,  and  are  pro- 
motive  of  their  highest  welfare.  They  often 
prevent  a  greater  evil  which  was  threatening 
them  ;  exercise  and  strengthen  their  piety,  virtue, 
and  confidence  in  God ;  increase  their  zeal  in 
the  pursuit  of  holiness,  and  consequently  their 
true  happiness ;  and  thus  verify  the  declaration 
of  Paul,  Rom.  viii.  28,  "That  all  things  work 
together  for  the  good  of  those  who  are  friends 
of  God."  Cf.  Rom.  v.  3;  James,  i.  2;  Matt, 
v.  10;  Heb.  xii.  5— -13,  especially,  ver.  11, 
which  appears  to  be  copied  directly  from  the 
heart  of  an  afflicted  saint.  "  No  chastening  for 
the  present  seemeth  joyous,  but  grievous;  ne- 
vertheless, afterward  it  yieldeth  the  peaceable 
fruits  of  righteousness  to  them  who  are  exer- 
cised thereby."  Hence  the  sufferings  of  good 
men  are  sometimes  called  Ttftpa^ot,  because  by 
means  of  them  their  characters  are  proved  and 
their  faith  is  tried  and  strengthened. 

(g)  But  there  is  one  other  consideration, 
which  may  remove  all  our  doubts,  and  make  us 
contented  when  we  see  the  innocent  oppressed 
and  suffering,  and  the  wicked,  who  forget  God, 
in  a  prosperous  condition — viz.,  that  the  present 
life  is  only  the  first,  imperfect  stage  of  our  exist- 
ence— a  state  of  probation,  in  which  we  are  to 
prepare  for  another  and  more  perfect  state.  This 
consoling  doctrine  respecting  the  future  life  and 
retribution  beyond  the  grave,  is  one  of  the  chief 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  from  which  everything 
proceeds,  and  to  which  everything  is  referred; 
and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  con- 
stantly make  use  of  it,  and  seek  to  comfort  the 
pious  by  the  truth  that  divine  justice  will  not 
be  fully  exhibited  until  the  future  state  shall 
commence,  and  that  then  the  righteous  shall  be 
richly  recompensed,  by  the  exceeding  greatness 
of  their  future  reward,  foi;  all  the  evil  they  have 
suffered.  Vide  Rom.  viii.  17 ;  1  Peter,  iv. 
12—14;  2  Cor.  iv.  17,  18,  and  the  parable  of 
Lazarus,  Luke,  xvi.,  especially  ver.  25.  But 
of  those  who  act  here  upon  the  earth  from  im- 
proper motives,  even  if  they  perform  actions 
which  in  themselves  are  good  and  praiseworthy, 
Christ  says,  they  have  their  reward — i.  e.,  they 


252 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


may  indeed  obtain  temporal  advantages,  but 
God  will  not  reward  them  with  the  treasures  of 
the  future  world,  Matt.  vi.  2,  5,  16. 

SECTION  LXXII. 

»        OF  THE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  DIVINE 
PROVIDENCE. 

I.  It  is  Universal. 

IT  extends  to  every  creature  and  to  every  event 
in  the  universe — to  the  small  and  insignificant, 
as  well  as  to  the  great  and  important.  The 
Bible  everywhere  teaches,  that  the  purpose  of 
God  extends  not  merely  to  the  whole,  and  to  the 
connexion  of  all  its  parts,  but  to  each  and  every 
part,  their  relations  and  their  alterations.  His 
knowledge  must  accordingly  comprehend  the 
smallest  and  most  apparently  insignificant  cir- 
cumstances. This  follows  even  from  the  scrip- 
tural idea  of  creation.  Vide  s.  46.  Cf.  Ps. 
cxiii.  5,  6,  "  He  dwelleth  on  high,  and  humbleth 
himself  to  behold  the  things  in  heaven  and 
in  the  earth."  Ps.  cxxxviii.  6,  "Though  the 
Lord  be  high,  yet  hath  he  respect  unto  the 
lowly."  Ps.  xxxvi.  6;  cxlviii.  Matt.  X.  29, 
30,  "  Not  a  sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  without 
his  notice;  he  numbers  the  hairs  of  our  heads." 
The  doctrine,  that  the  providence  of  God  ex- 
tends even  to  the  minutest  things,  (providentia 
circa  minima,)  leads  us,  when  it  is  properly  con- 
sidered, to  entertain  a  very  exalted  idea  of  God 
and  his  attributes,  in  that  he  thinks  and  cares 
for  every  creature  which  he  has  made  during 
every  moment  of  its  existence,  and  in  every  situ- 
ation in  which  it  is  placed.  But  because  the 
manner  in  which  the  providence  of  God  can  ex- 
tend to  all  individuals  is  incomprehensible  by 
the  human  understanding,  and  because  men  are 
prone  to  compare  God  with  themselves,  this 
doctrine  has  been  often  either  wholly  misunder- 
stood or  directly  denied.  Since  it  is  supposed 
inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  princes  and  the 
great  of  the  earth  to  concern  themselves  with 
small  affairs,  the  case  is  thought  to  be  the  same 
with  God  ;  and  his  honour,  it  is  imagined,  is  as- 
serted, by  denying  that  he  cares  for  what  is 
small  and  insignificant.  This  doctrine  was  ac- 
cordingly either  doubted  or  denied  by  most  even 
of  the  Grecian  philosophers ;  and  indeed  it  could 
not  appear  to  them  with  that  degree  of  clearness 
in  which  it  appears  to  us,  considering  that  their 
ideas  respecting  matter  and  the  creation  of  the 
world,  and  the  relations  in  which  matter  and  the 
world  stand  to  God,  were  so  imperfect,  and  so 
wholly  unlike  those  which  we  have  derived  from 
the  Bible.  Vide  s.  45,  46.  Aristotle  main- 
tained that  the  providence  of  God  extends  to 
heavenly  things,  but  not  to  things  on  the  earth 
(according  to  Diogenes  and  Plutarch.)  The 
stoics,  on  the  contrary,  believed  in  a  providence 


extending  to  individual  things,  in  a  sense,  how 
ever,  somewhat  different  from  that  common  with 
us.  Vide  Seneca,  De  Providentia,  and  Cicero, 
De  Nat.  Deor.  ii.  65,  66;  also  Plato,  De  Rep. 
x.,  where  this  doctrine  is  ably  defended.  The 
views  entertained  by  some  even  of  the  Christian 
fathers  on  this  subject  were  extremely  erroneous. 
Such  are  those  expressed  by  Hieronymus,  in 
his  Commentary  on  Hab.,  where  he  says,  "The 
divine  majesty  cannot  stoop  so  low  as  to  interest 
itself  to  know  how  many  vermin  are  each  mo- 
ment produced  on  the  earth,  and  how  many  pe- 
rish ;  how  many  flies,  fleas,  and  gnats  there  are ; 
how  many  fishes  the  sea  contains ;"  &c.  His 
opinions,  however,  were  opposed  by  Gregory  of 
Nazianzen,  Orat.  xvi.,  and  by  Chrysostom,  in 
his  book  "De  Providentia;"  and  very  rational 
and  scriptural  opinions  on  this  subject  were 
expressed  by  many  other  of  the  ecclesiastical 
fathers.  In  modern  times,  the  Socinians  have 
been  accused  of  denying  that  providence  extend  s 
to  small  things ;  at  least  such  was  said  to  be  the 
opinion  expressed  in  the  writings  of  some  of 
the  leaders  of  this  sect;  but  from  the  obscurity 
of  their  language,  the  truth  of  the  accusation 
remains  doubtful.  Many  of  the  modern  scep- 
tics and  free-thinkers  in  England,  the  Nether- 
lands, France,  and  Germany,  haveeitherdoubted 
and  denied  the  providence  of  God  altogether,  or 
at  least  providentia  circa  minima.  So  Bayle, 
De  la  Mettrie,  Voltaire,  the  author  of  the  Sys- 
teme  de  la  Nature,  and  Frederic  II.,  in  the 
works  of  the  philosopher  of  Sans  souci,  Letter 
Seventh. 

The  doctrine  that  the  providence  of  God  is 
universal,  and  extends  to  every  individual  crea- 
ture, may  be  confirmed  and  illustrated  by  the 
following  observations : — 

1.  The  division  of  the  creatures  of  God  into 
classes  and  kinds  answers  no  other  purpose  than 
to  assist  the  feebleness  of  the  human  understand- 
ing, which  cannot  at  once  survey  all  things  in 
their  true  connexion.  We  are  therefore  com- 
pelled to  begin  with  particulars,  and  then  pro- 
ceed to  what  is  general ;  to  begin  with  what  is 
more  easy,  and  proceed  to  what  is  more  diffi- 
cult, in  order  to  render  the  connexion  of  the 
whole  in  some  measure  comprehensible  to  our 
minds.  But  God  knows  all  things  immediately 
and  at  once;  there  is  no  succession  in  his 
knowledge.  Vide  s.  22,  II.  This  his  know- 
ledge can  occasion  him,  therefore,  no  trouble  or 
expense  of  time,  in  which,  as  is  the  case  with 
us,  more  important  concerns  must  be  neglected 
or  deferred.  Employment  about  small  things 
is  made  an  objection  to  men,  because  they  are 
prone  to  regard  trifles  as  important,  (which  can 
never  be  said  of  God,)  and  because,  on  account 
of  them,  they  are  prone  to  neglect  what  is  of 
more  value.  This  danger  has  been  transferred 
very  inconsiderately  to  God.  But  as  nothing 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


253 


is  too  great  for  him,  so  nothing1  is  too  small. 
He  cannot  therefore  be  distracted,  as  Frederic 
II.  supposed,  by  being  employed  about  small 
concerns. 

2.  The  divine  purpose  must  necessarily  ex- 
tend to  particular  things;  since  otherwise  his 
knowledge  must  be  as  imperfect  and  fragmentary 
as  our  own.     From   the   theory  of  the  omni- 
science and  the  decrees  of  God  stated  in  s.  22, 
32,  and  there  proved  to  be  according  to  scripture 
and  reason,  it  appears,  that  when  God  thinks 
of  men  he  does  not  think  of  them  in  general,  but 
in  particular — of  all  men  individually,  and  in 
all  the  various  circumstances  and  conditions  in 
which  they  exist  every  moment.     In  this  way 
does  he  think  of  the  whole  world,  and  of  all  its 
separate  parts,  from   eternity ;   and  similar  to 
this  is  his  decree  respecting  the  universe,  and 
all  its  parts.     No  alteration,  therefore,  can  be 
made  in  the  smallest  portion  of  the  world,  which 
he  did  not  consider  and  embrace  in  his  eternal 
decree. 

3.  That  a  human  ruler  cannot  devote  equal 
attention  to  all  the  objects  which  are  under  his 
inspection,  and  that  he  is  compelled  to  set  some 
of  them  aside  as  comparatively  unimportant,  and 
to  give  himself  little  or  no  concern  about  them, 
is  the  consequence  of  human  imperfection.    The 
greater  the  powers  of  his  mind  are,  the  more  will 
he  be  able  to  occupy  himself  with  particular  ob- 
jects, and  those  of  minor  consequence;  and  the 
more  he  does  this,  the  more  just  and  impartial 
an  estimate  will  he  be  able  to  form  of  the  whole, 
and  consequently  the  more  wisely  and  prosper- 
ously will  he  be  able  to  administer  his  govern- 
ment.   Hence  Plato  justly  remarked,  that  a  per- 
fect ruler  must  have  an  equal  care  for  all  his 
subjects,  and  all  the  offices  of  state,  and  allow 
none  of  them  to  pass  unregarded,  lest  the  whole 
should  suffer  injury  from  his  neglect  of  a  part. 
Vide  Cicero,  De  Officiis,  i.  25.     It  is  this  rest- 
less activity,  which  seizes  upon  everything,  even 
things  which  would  appear  insignificant  to  men 
of  common  minds,  and  turns  them  to  its  own  ac- 
count, which  is  so  universally  admired  and  ap- 
plauded in  Cassar,  Frederic  II.,  and  other  distin- 
guished rulers  of  ancient  and  modern  times.   If 
this  is  true  with  regard  to  human  rulers,  how 
much  more  so  with  regard  to  God  in  administer- 
ing his  government;  since  he  is  not  wanting 
either  in  the  knowledge,  power,  or  will,  requisite 
to  the  most  particular  providence.     If  God  did 
not  exercise  a  watchful  care  over  particular  per- 
sons and  things,  how  would  he  be  able  to  secure 
the  good  of  the  whole,  which  is  composed  of  so 
many  parts,   all   intimately  connected  1     The 
whole  is  only  the  aggregate  of  many  small 
portions;   and  the  smallest  is   as  inseparably 
connected  with  the  largest,  as  the  links  are  in  a 
•chain,  or  the  wheels  in  a  clock.     The  greatest 
revolutions  which  have  taken    place    in  the 


world — wars,  &c.,  have  often  proceeded  from 
the  smallest  causes;  from  a  small  spark,  great 
conflagrations,  which  have  occasioned  a  wide- 
spread misery  and  destruction.  In  these  cases, 
what  is  small  is  inseparably  connected  with 
what  is  great.  The  providence  of  God,  there- 
fore, either  extends  to  all  things,  even  to  those 
which  we  denominate  small,  or  there  is  no  di- 
vine providence.  From  this  alternative  there  is 
no  escape. 

4.  Men  are  accustomed  to  regard  many  things 
as  small,  insignificant,  useless,  and  even  injuri- 
ous, because  they  are  unable  to  see  their  use 
and  importance  in  the  connexion  of  things. 
This  is  therefore  a  proof  of  the  weakness  of  the 
human  understanding,  and  of  the  great  imper- 
fection of  human  knowledge.  But  as  God 
created  all  these  things,  and  continually  prolongs 
their  existence,  he  must  regard  them  as  useful 
and  necessary,  and  adapted  to  promote  his  ends, 
in  their  connexion  with  the  whole.  How  then 
can  it  be  inconsistent  with  his  dignity  to  watch 
over  them,  and  to  preserve  them !  If  it  was 
not  dishonourable  for  God  to  give  them  exist- 
ence, it  cannot  be  dishonourable  for  him  to  pre- 
serve to  them  the  existence  he  has  given.  And 
indeed  his  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness,  are 
at  least  as  evident,  and  often  more  so,  in  his 
least,  as  in  his  greatest  works.  Cf.  Plato,  De 
Repub.  x. 

II.  It  is  Benevolent,  Wise,  Unsearchable. 

This  follows  incontrovertibly  from  what  has 
already  been  said,  and  is  perfectly  accordant 
with  the  instructions  of  the  Bible.  Vide  Ps. 
Ixxiii.  16,  civ.  24  ;  Job,  xxxvi.  xxxvii.,  and  espe- 
cially xxxviii. ;  Eccl.  iii.  11,  viii.  17,  xi.  5; 
Rom.  xi.  33,  34 ;  in  which  passages  the  wisdom 
and  unsearchableness  of  God  are  particularly 
noticed.  This  benevolent  and  wise  government 
of  God  is  administered  in  such  a  way  as  to 
promote  the  highest,  which  is  a  moral  good, 
among  all  moral  beings,  in  order  to  prepare 
them  to  partake  of  that  true  and  abiding  happi- 
ness which  can  be  attained  only  by  holiness ; 
since  it  is  principally  for  moral  beings,  who  are 
more  nearly  related  to  God  than  any  other,  that 
he  has  created,  preserves,  and  governs  all 
things. 

We  must  here  attend  to  the  question,  In  what 
relation  the  miracles  so  often  mentioned  in  the  holy 
scriptures  stand  to  the  government  of  God  ?  We 
must  here  presuppose  what  has  already  been  said 
respecting  miracles,  s.  7,  III. ;  and  proceed  there- 
fore directly  to  consider  the  philosopho-theolo- 
gical  theory  respecting  miracles,  and  to  shew  in 
what  manner  the  objections  urged  against  it  may 
be  answered. 

1.  The  changes  in  the  world  ordinarily  take 
place  under  the  divine  government,  according  to 
the  laws  or  the  course  of  nature,  since  they  are 
Y 


254 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


effected  through  the  powers  which  God  has  given 
to  his  creatures,  though  not  without  his  concur- 
rence, but,  on  the  contrary,  under  his  constant 
guidance  and  inspection.  Now  if  anything  takes 
place  which  cannot  be  explained  by  these  laws, 
or  which  transcends  them,  it  is  extraordinary, 
and  is  regarded  as  an  immediate  production  of 
God,  (in  distinction  from  what  takes  place  ac- 
cording to  the  course  of  nature,  which  is  said 
to  be  a  mediate  production  of  God,)  and  is  com- 
monly called  a  miracle.  Since  now  both  of 
these  effects  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  providence 
of  God,  it  is  divided  into  ordinary  and  extraor- 
dinary ;  and  because  these  extraordinary  effects 
are  produced  both  on  the  body  and  on  the  mind, 
miracles  are  divided  into  those  which  take 
place  in  the  material  world,  and  in  the  spiritual 
world. 

Note. — Many  things  produced  by  the  mediate 
agency  of  God  are  ascribed  to  his  immediate 
agency,  from  ignorance  of  the  second  causes  by 
which  his  agency  is  exerted.  Hence  ignorant 
and  inexperienced  men  are  accustomed  to  see 
more  miracles,  and  to  believe  in  them  more  rea- 
dily, than  learned  men,  who  are  better  able  to 
observe  the  natural  causes  by  which  these  effects 
are  produced.  And  this  it  is  which  renders 
learned  and  scientific  men  often  incredulous  and 
sceptical  upon  the  subject  of  miracles.  But  they 
are  apt  to  presume  too  much  on  their  own  know- 
ledge, and  to  think  they  can  explain  many  things 
which  they  really  do  not  understand.  It  is 
also  a  great  fault,  though  a  very  common  one, 
to  draw  a  general  principle  from  what  often 
occurs,  and  to  apply  it  to  all  cases.  Because 
many  pretended  miracles  have  been  proved  false, 
Hume  declares  that  all  miracles,  those  of  the 
the  Bible  not  excepted,  are  such,  and  thus  re- 
jects the  most  credible  testimony. 

2.  Thepossibility  of  such  extraordinary  effects 
produced  by  God  is  proved  in  the  following 
manner — viz.,  (a)  They  are  naturally  possible — 
i.  e.,  God  has  power  to  produce  such  effects. 
He  is  indeed  himself  the  author  of  the  laws  of 
nature,  but  he  is  not  bound  by  them — i.  e.,  he 
is  not  so  bound  by  them  that  he  must  necessa- 
rily act  in  every  case  in  accordance  with  them ; 
he  can  alter  them,  suspend  them,  or  depart  from 
them;  which,  indeed,  follows  as  a  just  conse- 
quence from  his  omnipotence.  (6)  They  are 
also  morally  possible — i.  e.,  they  are  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  divine  wisdom,  provided  they 
tend  to  promote  some  important  end,  which 
could  not,  or  at  least  could  not  so  well,  be  se- 
cured in  any  other  way ;  nor  can  it  be  shewn, 
a  priori,  that  such  cases  may  not  occur.  Mira- 
cles cannot,  then,  be  shewn  to  be  either  morally 
or  physically  impossible,  and  to  attempt  to  do 
this  is,  as  Kant,  Fichte,  and  other  modern  phi- 
losophers have  allowed,  most  unpardonable  pre- 


sumption.    Cf.   the  similar  reasoning  of  the 
stoics,  in  Cicero,  De  divin.  i.  52,  seq. 

3.  The  proof  of  the  reality  of  miracles  depends 
upon  credible  testimony.     We,  as  Christians, 
regard  the  testimony  of  the  holy  scriptures  as 
credible,  the  historical  truth  of  the  events  related 
in  them  being  supposed  already  established,  for 
which  cf.  s.  7,  III.    The  miracles  mentioned  in 
the  scriptures  are  all  of  such  a  nature  as  to  prove 
the  divinity  of  the  truths  and  doctrines  which 
are  taught  in  them,  to  seal  the  divine  mission  of 
the  teacher,  in  short,  to  promote  various  import- 
ant ends,  especially  those  of  a  moral  kind.     At 
the  time  when  these  miracles  were  performed, 
when  men  would  believe  nothing  without  signs 
and  wonders,  they  were  doubtless  of  special  ser- 
vice, but  their  utility  is  by  no  means  confined  to 
those  particular  times,  but  they  must  answer  the 
same  great  ends  with  all  who  are  convinced  of 
their  historical  truth.     For  if  miracles  are  true, 
God  proved  by  them  his  unlimited  dominion 
over  the  powers  of  nature ;  and  to  a  being  who 
proves  this  we  are  bound  to  yield  assent  and 
render  obedience. 

4.  Tindal,   Hume,    Morgan,   Voltaire,  and 
others,  who  contend  against  miracles,  bring  for- 
ward the  a  priori  objection  that  miracles  would 
presuppose  an  imperfection  in  the  original  plan 
of  God.    It  would  be,  they  say,  very  unphiloso- 
phical  to  represent  God  as  a  workman  who  had 
not  properly  planned  or  executed  his  work,  and 
who  is  obliged,  when  the  wheels  of  the  machine- 
ry stop,  or  the  house  is  ready  to  fall,  himself  to 
interpose,  and  regulate  and  rectify  what  is  wrong. 
Such  ideas,  they  think,  would  suit  well  with 
that  early  state  of  society  in  which  Jupiter  was 
supposed  to  examine  the  vault  of  heaven,  to  see 
if  it  were  rent,  but  are  entirely  unsuited  to  our 
enlightened  and  philosophical  age.     To  this  it 
may  be  answered, 

(a)  That  miracles,  like  everything  else  in  the 
world,  formed  a  part  of  the  original  plan  of  God, 
and  were  embraced  in  his  eternal  purpose  re- 
specting the  world  and  all  its  changes.  Vide  s. 
32.  In  this  purpose,  it  must  have  been  deter- 
mined that  in  the  course  of  ordinary  events,  in 
particular  places,  and  at  certain  times,  miracles 
should  take  place ;  for  God  must  have  foreseen 
that  some  of  his  plans  would  either  wholly  fail, 
or  could  not  be  so  well  accomplished  by  the 
ordinary  course  of  events,  as  by  his  special  in- 
terference. This  answer  was  given  by  Leibnitz 
and  Wolf. 

(6)  The  contradiction  which  the  human  under- 
standing appears  to  find  in  miracles  is  owing  to 
the  fact  that  men,  from  the  very  constitution  of 
their  minds,  connect  together  the  causes  and  ef- 
fects of  the  material  world  by  the  idea  of  neces- 
sity, and  cannot  do  otherwise.  But  in  the  view 
of  God,  who  sees  all  things  as  they  really  are, 


WORKS  OF  GOD. 


255 


there  are  no  necessary  effects,  even  in  the  mate- 
rial world  ;  hut  his  will  is  in  all  things  free,  and 
upon  his  will  alone  therefore  does  it  depend  to 
produce  any  effect  which  may  be  conducive  to 
his  designs.  A  miracle  now  is  a  new  effect 
aside  from  the  usual  chain  of  events,  which  can- 
not therefore,  like  ordinary  effects,  be  connected 
with  what  has  preceded  and  with  what  follows 
by  the  law  of  a  sufficient  reason,  and  which  we 
are  therefore  led  irresistibly  to  ascribe  to  a  power 
which  has  unlimited  control  over  the  material 
world,  and  thus  arises  the  idea  of  a  miracle. 
But  still  there  is  no  real  change  in  things  them- 
selves, and  as  soon  as  the  miracle  ceases  they 
proceed  as  they  did  before,  and  are  still  connect- 
ed together  by  the  rules  of  the  maxim  of  a  suf- 
ficient reason.  Thus  we  see  that  miracles  are 
possible,  but  we  are  unable  to  comprehend  how 
they  can  be  performed  ;  just  as  we  are  unable  to 
understand  how  God  could  create  a  world  from 
nothing. 

5.  From  these  principles  it  also  follows  that 
no  miracles  are  wrought,  in  cases  in  which  the 
designs  of  God  can  be  fully  and  in  their  whole 
extent  attained  by  natural  means.     And  hence 
we  may  conclude,  that  miracles  are  of  unfrequent 
occurrence,  and  that  their  reality  must  be  attested 
by  witnesses  who  cannot  be  justly  suspected 
either  of  intentional  fraud,  or  of  enthusiasm, 
credulity,  or  any  unintentional  self-deception, 
before  we  can  be  justified  in  believing  them.    It 
cannot  be  said  that  God  is  more  glorified  by 
miracles  than  by  the  common  course  of  nature. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  is  equally  glorified,  to  say 
the  least,  by  the  common  course  of  nature,  as  by 
miracles.    In  miracles  his  bare  omnipotence  be- 
comes more  conspicuous,  but  in  the  course  of  na- 
ture, his  infinite  wisdom  and  power  are  alike 
evidenced.     The  opinion  here  opposed  arises 
from  the  puerile  notion,  that  it  must  be  more 
difficult  and  laborious  for  God  to  perform  a  mi- 
racle than  to  produce,  in  the  ordinary  way,  the 
natural  changes  which  take  place  in  the  world, 
and  that  the  former  therefore  is  more  to  his  glory. 
But  to  God  nothing  is  difficult,  and  nothing 
causes  him  labour.     The  production  of  the  na- 
tural world,  the  constitution  of  its  laws,  and  the 
regulation  of  its  changes,  require,  in  themselves 
considered,  as  great  an  exertion  of  power  as  the 
working  of  miracles. 

6.  But  although  the  remarks  here  made  are 
true,  they  by  no  means  justify  those  interpreters 
who  endeavour  to  explain  by  natural  principles 
events  expressly  said  in  the  scriptures  to  be 
miraculous,  performed  for  the  attainment  of  im- 
portant moral  ends  not  otherwise  attainable. 
For  such  an  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with 
the  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  indeed,  is  a  di- 
rect impeachment  of  its  truth,  and  goes  to  prove 
that  the  sacred  writers,  or  those  who  performed 
the  pretended  miracles,  were  either  impostors, 


or  themselves  deluded  fanatics.  The  doctrine 
of  Christ  and  the  apostles  is  only  so  far  esta- 
blished, as  they  appeal  to  miracles.  For  they 
gave  themselves  out  as  extraordinary  and  imme- 
diate ambassadors  of  God.  But  this  claim  could 
not  be  proved  merely  by  the  internal  excellence 
of  the  doctrines  which  they  taught,  and  they 
could  expect  to  be  credited  only  when  their  ex- 
traordinary claims  were  supported  by  extraordi- 
nary facts.  And  it  is  on  account  of  this  intimate 
connexion  between  the  truth  of  their  miracles 
and  their  character  as  extraordinary  teachers, 
that  many  who  are  unwilling  to  concede  the 
latter  are  disposed  to  dispute  the  former.  If 
the  proof  from  miracles  be  once  allowed,  it 
follows  directly  that  those  who  performed  them 
were  extraordinary  and  immediate  messengers 
from  God.  Vide  s.  7,  and  Introduction,  s.  7,  8. 
7.  The  question  is  asked,  Whether  miracles 
occur  at  the  present  time,  and  whether  we,  in 
accordance  with  the  promises  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, may  expect  to  perform  miraculous  cures, 
and  hope  to  possess  the  gifts  of  inspiration,  di- 
vination, &c.  1  This  has  been  believed  by  pre- 
tended thaumaturgists,  prophets,  and  enthusiasts 
of  every  kind,  ancient  and  modern.  And  many 
also,  who  cannot  be  accused  of  enthusiasm,  have 
assented  to  this  opinion.  Grotius,  for  example, 
believed  that  Christian  missionaries  might  hope 
to  perform  miracles,  and  Lavater  supposed,  that 
any  Christian  who  could  firmly  believe  that  God 
would  work  miracles  through  him,  would  be 
able  to  do  what  he  believed.  But  if  history  and 
experience  are  consulted,  we  shall  soon  know 
what  to  think  of  the  pretended  wonder-workers 
since  the  times  of  the  apostles,  and  be  able  to 
put  them  down  either  as  impostors  or  as  deluded 
fanatics.  But  does  not  the  New  Testament 
afford  reason  to  hope  that  miraculous  powers 
may  be  continued  in  the  Christian  church  ?  No ! 
For  (a)  these  miraculous  gifts  were  by  no  means 
promised  by  Christ  to  all  his  followers,  at  alt 
times,  but  only  to  the  apostles  and  first  teachera 
of  Christianity,  to  be  used  by  them  in  proclaim- 
ing Christian  truth,  and  in  establishing  the 
Christian  church,  Mark,  xvi.  17,  18,  coll.  ver. 
15,  16,  20;  John,  xiv.  12,  coll.  ver.  11,  13,  14. 
(6)  In  Eph.  iv.  13,  seq.,  Paul  teaches  what  is 
well  worthy  of  notice,  that  these  gifts  were  in- 
tended only  for  the  first  age  of  the  church,  and 
would  cease  when  the  church  had  become  tho- 
roughly established,  when  more  clear  knowledge 
of  the  truth  had  been  diffused,  and  the  contro- 
versies between  Jewish  and  heathen  Christians 
were  ended.  The  same  truth  is  taught  in  I 
Cor.  xiii.  8 ;  the  gift  of  tongues,  &c.,  it  is  there 
said,  will  hereafter  cease,  (with  some  reference 
to  the  present  world,  though  principally  to  the 
world  to  come,  where  these  gifts  will  be  wholly 
useless,)  but  faith,  hope,  and  charity  will  abide 
(and  that  in  the  present  world  as  well  as  in  the 


256 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


future)  as  long  as  the  church  shall  continue, 
(c)  Add  to  these  the  consideration,  that  it  can- 
not be  proved  that  the  power  of  conferring  these 
gifts  was  granted  to  any  besides  the  apostles, 
(cf.  Acts,  viii.  14 — 17,)  and  that  after  the  death 
of  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  successors 
in  the  Christian  church,  these  gifts  would  there- 
fore cease,  as  a  matter  of  course. 

On  this  subject,  cf.  Toellner,  Vermishchte 
Aufsatze,  th.  ii.  Abhandl.  2,  Warum  Gott  nicht 
iibernatiirlich  thut,  was  natiirlich  geschehen 
kann.  Ammon,  De  notione  miraculi ;  Gottingae, 
1795,  4to.  Also  the  work  entitled,  Betracht- 
ungen  iiber  den  Endzweck  der  Wunderwerke, 
und  die  Kraft  des  Wunderglaubens  in  unsern 
Tagen  ;  Berlin,  1777,  8vo;  and  the  works  occa- 
sioned by  the  opinion  of  Lavater  and  others ; 
Middleton's  Essay  on  Miraculous  Gifts  after 
the  Death  of  the  Apostles ;  F.  T.  Riihl,  Werth 
der  Behauptungen  Jesu,  und  seiner  Apostel ; 
Leipzig,  1791,  8vo;  Koppen,  Die  Bibel  ein 
Werk  der  gottlichen  Weisheit.  One  of  the  latest 
works  in  opposition  to  miracles  is  entitled,  De 
miraculis  enchiridion,  a  philosopho  Theologis 
exhibitum;  Zwickau,  1805,  8vo, — a  prejudiced 
and  partial  work.  Vide  the  Review  in  the  Jen. 
Lit.  Zeit.  for  1806,  No.  168. 

Note. — In  respect  to  its  practical  influence, 
the  doctrine  of  the  providence  of  God  is  one  of 
the  first  importance.  In  addition  to  the  parti- 
culars enumerated  s.  67,  I.,  Note  2,  the  religious 
teacher,  in  his  practical  instructions,  should  in- 
sist upon  the  following  points,  which  are  made 
prominent  in  the  holy  scriptures,  where  we  may 
see  an  example  of  the  proper  mode  of  exhibit- 
ing them. 

(a)  He  should  shew,  that  we  ought  never  to 
stop  with  the  second  causes  through  which  our 
blessings  come  to  us,  or  by  which  the  effects 
which  we  witness  are  accomplished,  but  should 
always  go  back  to  GOD  as  the  first  cause,  and 
sincerely  love  and  honour  him,  as  the  author  of 
every  good  gift.  Vide  James,  i.  17 ;  iv.  13, 15. 
Instead  of  dwelling  upon  the  second  causes  by 
which  events  are  brought  about,  and  wholly 
overlooking  the  agency  of  God,  (the  common 
method  of  modern  historians,)  the  sacred  his- 
torians refer  everything  to  God,  and  hence  they 
so  frequently  clash  with  the  views  and  feelings 
of  those  who  look  upon  the  world  from  a  dif- 
ferent and  lower  point  of  view.  Vide  s.  70, 
II.  2. 

(6)  If  we  would  enjoy  the  blessings,  whether 
temporal  or  spiritual,  which  are  designed  for  us, 
and  promised  to  us  by  God,  we  must,  on  our 
part,  fulfil  the  conditions  to  the  performance  of 
which  he  has  annexed  this  enjoyment.  Cf.  s. 
71,  II.  Moms,  p.  83,  s.  8. 

(c)  Natural  evils  and  calamities  are  under  the 


control  of  an  all-wise  and  benevolent  Being,  and 
are  intended  to  lead  us  to  repent  of  our  sins,  and 
lead  holy  lives,  or  to  confirm  and  strengthen  us 
in  holiness,  and  in  every  way  to  contribute  to 
our  advantage.  Cf.  s.  71,  II.  2. 

(d)  We  should  feel  especially  indebted  to 
God  for  any  holiness  or  moral  rectitude  whicli 
we  may  perceive  in  ourselves.     By  cherishing 
the  feeling  that  whatever  is  good  in  us  is  the 
gift  of  God,  we  shall  be  kept  from  that  selfish 
blindness  and  pride  which  would  spring  from 
the  thought  that  we  ourselves  were  the  authors 
of  it.     God  gave  us  our  moral  nature,  and  to 
him  we  owe  all  the  powers  which  we  possess, 
and  all  the  means,  in  the  use  of  which  we  attain 
to  holiness.     Our  faults  and  crimes,  on  the  con- 
trary, we  must  charge  wholly  to  ourselves,  and 
never  to  God.     Cf.  James,  i.  13 — 15 ;  1  Cor. 
iv.  7;  2  Cor.  ix.  11 ;  Phil.  ii.  13. 

(e)  God  employs  all  his  creatures  as  instru- 
ments for  the  promotion  of  his  own  purposes, 
and  hence  they  are  called  (e.  g.,  Ps.  ciii.)  his 
servants,  his  messengers,  who  do  his  will.    But 
to  none  of  the  creatures  who  inhabit  his  foot- 
stool, has  God  assigned  so  large  a  sphere  of 
action,  and  none  does  he  so  much  employ  in  the 
accomplishment  of  his  most  important  purposes, 
as  man,  and  man  is  what  he  is  through  the 
moral  nature  which  God  has  given  him,  and 
which  he  constantly  preserves  in  exercise.     In 
this  his  moral  nature  man  resembles  God,  and 
can  continually  become  more  and  more  like  him, 
yea,  in  this  he  is  related  to  him,  and  partakes 
of  the  divine  nature.     Every  man,  in  every  sta- 
tion and  calling  in  life,  is  employed  by  God  as 
an  instrument  for  the  attainment  of  important 
ends.     The  more  faithfully  a  man  performs  all 
the  duties  of  his  station,  however  inferior  it  may 
be,  and  especially  the  more  he  labours  after  true 
holiness,  the  more  will  his  life  be  conformed  to 
the  divine  will,  and  answer  the  ends  for  which 
he  is  employed.     And  one  who  fails  to  dis- 
charge these  duties,  and  is  unprofitable  in  the 
service  of  God,  proves  that  he  mistakes  his  own 
true  worth   and  dignity.     It  is  therefore  our 
highest  duty  to  exert  ourselves,  to  the  utmost 
of  our  powers,  to  do  good  in  all  the  relations  in 
which  we  stand  under  the  government  of  God, 
and  especially  to  promote  holiness  in  ourselves 
and  others.     Cf.  s.  69,  ad  finem,  and  s.  70,  II. 
2.     Morus,  p.  78,  s.  4. 

As  Christians,  however,  we  should  exercise 
these  feelings,  and  yield  this  obedience,  not  to 
God  only,  but  also  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God.  He  counsels  and  guides  all  who  believe 
in  him ;  they  ought  therefore  to  imitate  and  fol- 
low him.  It  is  the  peculiarity  of  the  Christian 
system  to  require  of  us  that  we  should  do  every- 
thing Iv  ovofjiatt 


BOOK    II. 


DOCTRINE     OF     MAN 


33 


Y2 


(257) 


ON  THE  PLAN,  ORDER,  AND  SUCCESSION  OF  TOPICS 
IN  THE  SECOND  BOOK. 


THIS  Book  is  properly  denominated,  theological  Anthropology,  because  it  contains  the 
doctrine  respecting  man,  and  his  relation  to  God.  In  respect  to  the  order  and  succession 
in  which  the  various  topics  belonging  to  this  doctrine  are  treated,  there  is  a  great 
diversity  in  the  systems  of  theology,  both  ancient  and  modern.  The  particular  order  in 
which  doctrines  are  treated  is,  indeed,  of  no  great  importance,  provided  only  that  those 
doctrines  are  placed  first  which  constitute  the  basis  of  those  which  follow,  or  which 
contribute  essentially  to  the  illustration  of  them.  To  place  the  doctrine  respecting 
Christ — e.  g.  respecting  his  person,  the  redemption  effected  through  him,  &c. — at  the 
very  introduction  of  the  system,  (as  some  have  done,)  is  certainly  very  preposterous, 
since  a  great  deal  in  these  doctrines  cannot  be  placed  in  the  proper  light  until  the 
scriptural  doctrines  of  the  depravity  of  man,  of  sin,  and  the  punishment  ^of  sin,  have 
been  previously  illustrated.  The  plan  adopted  by  Morus,  of  placing  the  latter  doctrines 
first,  has  therefore  greatly  the  advantage  over  the  other.  Still,  on  any  method  which 
may  be  adopted,  there  will  always  be  found  difficulties  and  imperfections.  Some  have 
made  a  merit  of  deviating  from  the  method  generally  pursued  in  systems  of  theology, 
of  inventing  a  method  wholly  new,  and  especially  of  giving  new  titles  to  the  various 
divisions  of  the  subject.  But  no  new  land  is  won  for  the  science  itself  by  means  of 
these  innovations;  and,  on  the  contrary,  the  study  of  it  is  rendered  very  perplexed  to 
beginners,  and  they  are  compelled,  whenever  they  take  a  new  system  in  hand,  to  begin 
as  it  were  anew,  and  to  learn  a  new  language. 

We  adopt  the  following  order — viz.,  (a)  Man  may  be  considered  in  his  former  or 
original  condition — the  state  of  innocence,  and  of  this  an  account  has  already  been  given 
in  Book  I.  s.  53 — 57.  Further,  man  may  be  considered  (i)  in  his  present  state — that 
in  which  he  is,  since  the  state  of  innocence  has  ceased.  In  this  connexion  belong  the 
doctrines  respecting  sin,  its  origin,  the  various  kinds  of  sin,  and  its  consequences  ;  Art. 
ix.  s.  73 — 87,  inclusive.  Finally,  man  may  be  considered  (c)  in  that  better  state  to 
which  he  is  restored.  Here  the  whole  doctrine  respecting  the  redemption  of  the  human 
race  belongs.  (1)  De  gratia  Dei  salutari, — the  gracious  institutes  which  God  has 
established  to  promote  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  men, — especially  those  established 
in  and  through  Christ, — the  different  states  of  Christ, — his  person,  his  work,  and  the 
salutary  consequences  of  it  to  the  human  race;  Art.  x.  s.  88 — 120,  inclusive.  (2)  On 
the  conditions  (repentance  and  faith)  on  which  we  can  obtain  the  blessedness  promised 
to  Christians  by  God;  Art.  xi.  s.  121 — 128,  inclusive.  (3)  On  the  manner  in  which 
God  aids  those  who  believe  in  Christ,  and  enables  them  to  fulfil  the  prescribed  condi- 
tions, or,  respecting  divine  influences  and  the  means  of  grace;  Art.  xii.  s.  129 — 133, 
inclusive.  (4)  On  the  Christian  community,  or  the  church;  Art.  xiii.  s.  134 — 136. 

(5)  On  Baptism  and  the  Lord's   Supper,  or  the  sacraments;  Art.  xiv.  s.  137 — 146. 

(6)  On  the  passage  of  man  to  another  world,  and  his  state  in  it, — of  death,  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  the  day  of  judgment,  the  end  of  the 
world,  and  future  happiness  and  misery;  Art.  xv.  s.  147 — 160. 


(258) 


BOOK  II. 


DOCTRINE    OF    MAN. 


PART  I.-STATE  INTO   WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT 
BY  THE  FALL. 


ARTICLE  IX. 

OF  SIN,  AND  THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  SIN. 

SECTION  LXXIII. 

WHAT  IS  MEANT  BY  SIN;  THE  DIFFERENT  WORDS 
USED  IN  THE  BIBLE  TO  DENOTE  SIN,  AND  THE 
MEANING  OF  THEM. 

I.  Definition  of  Sin. 

IN,  understood  objectively, 
and  taken  in  its  wider  sense, 
is,  any  deviation  from  the  law 
of  God,  or,  what  is  not  right, 
according  to  the  divine  law; 
what  is  opposed  to  the  law. 
In  the  language  of  jurists,  a 
deviation  from  the  law  is  called  a 
crime,  (Germ.  Verbrechen,  crimen;} 
in  theology,  and  when  the  concerns 
of  religion  are  made  the  topics  of  dis- 
course— that  is,  when  men  are  consi- 
dered in  their  relation  to  God,  it  is 
called  sin,-  and  it  is  an  advantage  which  the 
German  language  [and  also  the  English]  pos- 
sesses, that  it  is  able  to  designate  this  particu- 
lar form  of  transgression  by  an  appropriate 
word.  Sin,  therefore,  properly  speaking,  is  a 
deviation  from  the  divine  law,  or,  according  to 
the  scripture  phraseology,  what  is  not  xata  to 
^'to^a  tov  ©fov.  This  word  is  always  used 
with  reference  to  God,  as  Legislator;  and  be- 
cause the  Bible,  in  entire  conformity  with  ex- 
perience, regards  all  men  in  their  present  condi- 
tion as  transgressors  of  the  divine  law,  it  calls 
them  sinners,  Rom.  iii.  9,  23,  24. 

But  would  we  define  subjectively  that  act  by 
which  one  becomes  a  sinner,  or  punishable,  we 
might  say,  sin  is  a  free  act,  which  is  opposed  to 


the  divine  law,  or  which  deviates  from  it.  Here 
it  must  be  remarked, 

(a)  That  in  order  for  an  action  to  be  imputed 
to  any  one  as  sinful,  it  must  be  a  free  action ; 
for  whenever  a  man  acts  by  compulsion,  and  it 
does  not  depend  upon  himself  either  to  perform 
or  omit  the  action,  it  cannot  be  imputed  to  him 
as  sin ;  the  consideration  of  which  will  be  re- 
sumed in  s.  81. 

(6)  Properly  speaking,  it  is  the  law  which 
makes  sin  what  it  is.  All  morality  proceeds 
from  the  law;  and  where  there  is  no  divine 
law,  there  is  no  sin.  This  is  taught  by  Paul, 
Rom.  iv.  15,  ov  ovx  ttfT't  voy,o$,  ov8s  7tapaj3ac?is 
(ecrft).  Were  there  no  law  given,  the  actions 
now  denominated  sins  (e.  g.,  licentiousness, 
theft,  murder,)  while  they  must  still  be  regarded 
as  foolish  and  injurious,  and  be  called  evils, 
(Germ.  Uebcl,")  could  no  longer  be  denominated 
sins.  Wild  beasts  often  despoil  and  destroy 
other  beasts  and  human  beings.  This  is  an 
evil,  and  has  injurious  consequences,  even  for 
the  beasts  themselves;  they  are  ensnared,  and 
hunted  down.  But  what  they  do  is  not  sin, 
because  they  have  no  law  given  them;  and  no 
reasonable  man  would  call  such  things  in  brutes 
sins,  or  seriously  affirm  that  a  beast  had  sinned. 
Nor  is  even  the  word  crime  applied  to  their  out- 
rages, because  they  are  exempt  alike  from  hu- 
man and  divine  laws. 

By  law  is  meant,  the  precept  of  a  ruler,  accom- 
panied with  comminutions ;  and  by  a  ruler  is 
meant  one  who  has  the  right  to  prescribe  rules 
of  acting  to  others,  and  to  connect  these  rules 
with  threatenings.  Commands  and  laws  are  two 
different  things.  In  every  law  there  is  a  com- 
mand, but  every  command  is  not  a  law.  A 
command  must  be  rightful  in  order  to  be  a  law ; 
the  preceptor  must  be  entitled  to  give  commands, 
and  those  to  whom  they  are  given  must  be 
bound  to  obey ;  and  on  these  conditions  only 


260 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


does  a  command  become  a  law.  Hence  the  de- 
mand of  the  robber  to  give  him  our  property, 
with  the  threat  which  he  annexes,  that  he  will 
murder  us  if  we  refuse,  is  no  law.  The  laws 
of  God  are  made  known  to  us  partly  through 
nature,  and  partly  by  immediate  revelation 
through  the  holy  scriptures.  The  latter  are  de- 
signed to  renew,  impress,  confirm,  illustrate, 
and  enlarge  or  complete  the  law  of  nature.  God 
has  thus,  both  by  the  works  of  nature  and  by 
the  doctrines  contained  in  the  holy  scriptures, 
given  us  information  respecting  his  designs,  as 
his  will  respecting  men  and  a  rule  for  them,  to 
which  they  should  continually  have  regard,  and 
according  to  which  they  should  regulate  their 
conduct.  Morus,  p.  106,  n.  3,  4. 

II.  Scriptural  Terms  for  Sin. 

1.  The  most  common  word  for  sin  is  the  He- 
brew nston,  generally  rendered  by  the  Grecian 
Jews  apaptia..  Both  of  these  words  are  used 
in  various  senses. 

(a)  The  Hebrew  vssn  signifies  literally  to  de- 
viate from  one's  way,  to  slip  aside  —  a  meaning 
which  it  has  among  the  Arabians.  Hence  to 
fail  of  one's  end,  to  see  his  design  frustrated,  Job, 
v.  24  ;  Proverbs,  x.  2.  In  the  same  way  are 
the  words  apap-tavfiv  and  d^uaprta  employed  by 
the  Greeks  in  reference  to  those  whose  expecta- 
tion is  disappointed,  who  lose,  or  are  deprived 
of  something,  who  miss  their  aim,  and  come 
short.  Thus,  e.  g.,  Xenophon  speaks  of  those 
apaptwovtss  fjjfj  J3ovX7?<jfwj,  whose  counsel  was 
frustrated  ;  and  even  in  Homer  we  find  the 
phrase  djwapi'rjcrac&at  tvj$  ortcort^j,  to  be  deprived 
of  sight.  In  the  Iliad  (xxiv.  68)  he  says,  with 
regard  to  Hector,  that  he  never  suffered  the  gods 
to  want  for  offerings  worthy  of  their  accept- 


ance — 


oiire  <f>i\wv  ftpdprave  tiwpwv. 


Hence  (6)  these  words  are  used  figuratively, 
and  are  transferred  to  the  soul,  and  denote  the 
faults  and  defects  of  the  understanding  and  of 
the  will,  and  also  of  the  actions  ;  of  the  latter 
more  frequently,  though  sometimes  of  the  for- 
mer —  e.  g.,  John,  viii.  46,  EXfy^ttv  jtspi  d/iop- 
tft'aj,  erroris  convincere,  and  John,  xvi.  8,  9,  where 
d/tapr't/'a  signifies,  delusion,  blindness  of  the  under- 
standing. More  commonly,  however,  it  is  used 
with  reference  to  the  will  and  the  actions,  and 
denotes  every  deviation  from  the  divine  law  in 
willing  and  acting.  'H  apaptia,  therefore,  often 
signifies,  sometimes  every  transgression  of  a 
grave  character,  and  sometimes,  in  general,  im- 
piety, profanitas,  irreligion.  Thus  the  heathen 
were  denominated  by  the  Jews,  d/iapfcoW, 
O'son,  in  opposition  to  themselves,  the  gens 
sancta.  In  Heb.  x.  26,  afiaptavstv  signifies  to 
apostatize  from  the  Christian  faith.  In  Romans, 
vii.  9,  Paul  uses  djuopT'/a  to  denote  the  propen- 


sity to  sin  (Germ.  Hang  zur  Siinde)  which  is 
everywhere  observed  in  man,  and  which  is  na- 
tural to  him.  [Cf.  Usteri,  Entwickelung  des 
Paulinischen  LehrbegrifFs,  Zweiter  und  Dritter 
Theil.— TR.] 

(c)  This,  and  all  the  words  which  signify 
sin,  are  often  used  by  the  Hebrews  and  Hellen- 
ists to  denote  the  punishment  of  sin — e.  g., 
Isaiah,  liii. ;  2  Kings,  vii.  9,  seq. 

(d)  They  also  signify  a  sin-offering — e.  g., 
Ps.  xl.  7;  2  Cor.  v.  21,  $vaia  rtspi  d^uapT/aj. 

2.  Besides  this  word,  there  are  many  others 
by  which  the  idea  of  sin  is  expressed  by  the 
Hebrews  and  Greeks.  Among  these  are, 

(a)  In  Hebrew,  ]-\y,  guilt  (raz/ws),  sin,  Psalm 
lix.  5 ;  frequently  rendered  in  the  Septuagint 
aSixtjpa,  or  afitxia.  j?tte,  strictly,  apostasy  from 
the  true  God,  or  rebellion  against  him.  [The 
word  mo,  from  "no,  has  the  same  signification. — 
TR.]  Forsaking  the  worship  of  Jehovah  for 
that  of  idols,  and  every  deliberate  transgression 
of  the  divine  law,  were  justly  regarded  as  rebel- 
lion against  God,  and  so  called  by  this  name, 
2  Kings,  viii.  10;  Jer.  iii.  13.  yvfa  is  therefore 
a  stronger  word  than  nwsn.  j?ch  is  used  to  de- 
note the  injustice  of  judges,  when  they  lose  sight 
of  what  is  just  (pi*),  and  decide  unjustly  and 
partially,  Job,  ix.  24 ;  Ezek.  vii.  11 ;  hence  ap- 
plied to  any  misdeed  or  wickedness,  by  which 
the  desert  of  punishment  is  incurred,  Psa.  v.  5. 
Hence  jr»?n  signifies,  one  guilty,  (reus,  damna- 
tus,}  sensuforensi.  pen  is  rendered  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint by  the  words  afiixia,  aatpeia,  x.  *.  A. 
Diw,  guilt,  guiltiness,  r\nv,  or  nx-or,  error,  mis- 
take,- transgression,  Psa.  xix.  13.  Sept.  jta- 
pdrtfu/jin.  Classical  Greek,  Tthdvq. 

(6)  In  the  New  Testament,  the  words  which 
denote  sin  are  mostly  taken  from  the  Septua- 
gint, where  they  are  used  interchangeably  the 
one  for  the  other.  Among  these  are  xapaxor;, 
Hebrews,  ii.  2; — 7topaj3a/n$,  Romans,  iv.  15; — 
aSixia  and  aSixyfjia,  (like  d^tapr'i/'ci  and  d^apT'^ta,) 
Romans,  i.  18;  vi.  13; — 6<j>£ a^a,  Matt.  vi.  12. 
(The  Hebrews  often  represent  sins  under  the 
image  of  debts,  which  must  either  be  remitted  or 
paid.)  ItapartT'cofia,  Matt.  vi.  14,  also  used  to 
signify  apostasy  from  religion,  Rom.  xi.  12; 
dyi/o^a,  a  sin  committed  through  ignorance,  er- 
ratum, Heb.  ix.  7.  (So  Aquila  renders  pj?,  Lev. 
xxvi.  39,  by  dyvota'  so  also  rt^avjy.  'Avo^ta, 
illegality,  transgression  of  the  law,  or  sin,  Matt. 
vii.  23.  It  is  also  sometimes  used  in  the  sense 
of  irreligion,  heathenism,  since  VO/AO$  often  sig- 
nifies the  religion  revealed  by  God.  Hence  the 
heathen  are  called  di/o^uot,  Rom.  ii.  12;  vi.  19. 
Cf.  dcrt/Sfta,  dtfcjSjjs.  In  the  text,  1  John,  iii.  4, 
YI  d/uapT'ict  sti-tw  %  dvo/ua,  it  is  not  the  intention 
of  the  writer  to  give  a  logical  definition  of  sin,  but 
rather  to  oppose  those  deceivers  who  maintained 
that  a  sinful  life  was  allowable.  The  meaning 
of  the  text  is  as  follows :  "  Whoever  leads  a 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


261 


sinful  life,  acts  in  opposition  to  the  precepts  of 
the  divine  law ;  for  every  sin  is  against  the  di- 
vine law,  (which  commands  us  to  live  holy  and 
without  sin.  Vide  ver.  3.)" 

In  the  discussion  here  following  of  the  doc- 
trine respecting  sin,  this  order  will  be  observed 
—viz.,  (1)  The  origin  of  sin  among  men,  or  the 
sin  of  our  first  parents,  and  the  moral  corruption 
of  human  nature,  derived,  according  to  the 
scriptures,  from  them,  will  be  first  considered, 
s.  74 — 80.  (2)  The  origin  and  nature  of  the 
particular  sinful  actions  of  men,  which  have 
their  ground  in  that  moral  depravity,  together 
with  the  different  kinds  and  divisions  of  these 
actions,  s.  81 — 85.  (3)  The  punishment  of  sin, 
as  learned  from  reason  and  revelation,  s.  86,  87. 


SECTION  LXXIV. 

WHAT  DOES  REASON,  WITHOUT  THE  USE  OF  THE 
BIBLE,  TEACH  US  RESPECTING  THE  SINFUL 
STATE  OF  MAN,  AND  THE  ORIGIN  OF  IT  1  AND 
HOW  FAR  DO  THE  RESULTS  OF  REASON  ON  THIS 
SUBJECT  AGREE  WITH  THE  BIBLE  1 

,     I.  Opinions  of  Heathen  Philosophers. 

THE  fact  that  human  nature  is  imperfect,  and 
has  a  morally  defective  constitution,  shewing 
itself  in  the  earliest  youth,  was  observed  and 
conceded  by  most  of  the  ancient  heathen  philo- 
sophers; and  the  fact  is  so  obvious,  and  so  con- 
formed to  experience,  that  it  could  hardly  have 
been  otherwise.  It  was  formerly  observed,  as 
it  is  now,  that  man  has  more  inclination  to  im- 
morality and  sin  than  to  innocence,  holiness, 
and  moral  purity.  A  perpetual  conflict  was 
seen  to  exist  in  man,  from  hrs  youth  up,  between 
reason  and  sense — a  contest  in  which  man 
oftener  sided  with  the  latter  than  with  the 
former,  and  thus  made  himself  unhappy.  It 
was  seen  that  man,  even  when  enjoying  the  best 
moral  instruction,  and  when  possessed  of  a  full 
conviction  of  the  justice  of  the  requisitions  of 
the  moral  law,  still  often  acted  immorally ;  and 
this,  even  when  perfectly  convinced  that  in  so 
doing  he  did  wrong;  and  that  he  was  thus  in  a 
state  extremely  wretched.  Vide  Morus,  p.  109, 
s.  3.  Now,  if  it  was  with  man  as  it  should  be, 
he  would  suffer  his  will  to  be  at  once  determined 
by  what  his  understanding  perceived  to  be  true 
and  good,  and  would  regulate  his  conduct  ac- 
cordingly. That  this  is  not  so,  experience  suf- 
ficiently teaches.  It  is  false,  therefore,  to  assert 
that  everything  depends  upon  instruction,  and 
that  if  the  mind  were  only  enlightened  with  re- 
gard to  duty,  the  will  would  soon  follow.  So 
it  should  be,  but  so  it  is  not;  and  it  is  the  great- 
est of  all  moral  problems,  how  to  render  the  will 
obedient  to  the  dictates  of  the  understanding. 

These  things  having  been  observed  in  ancient 
times,  the  writings  of  the  pagan  philosophers  are 


full  of  complaints  over  the  moral  corruption  of 
man.  Socrates  is  said  by  Plato  (De  Repub.)  to 
have  complained  that  all  nations,  even  the  most 
cultivated,  and  those  advanced  farthest  in  intel- 
ligence and  knowledge,  were  yet  so  depraved 
that  no  human  discovery  or  art  sufficed  to  remove 
the  disorder.  The  writings  of  Plato,  Aristotle, 
and  Cicero,  are  full  of  expressions  of  the  same 
kind.  Aristotle  called  this  evil  ffuyym j,  Ethic, 
ad  Nicom.  iii.  15.  Plato  says  in  his  Meno,  that 
children  by  nature  (<j>v<5ft)  are  not  good ;  for  in 
that  case,  says  he,  ironically,  it  would  only  be 
necessary  to  shut  them  up,  in  order  to  keep  them 
good.  He  saw  that  it  was  a  mistake  to  suppose 
that  man  is  made  wicked  merely  by  education, 
or  that  he  becomes  so  merely  by  the  imitation 
of  bad  examples.  Cicero  says,  in  his  Tusculan 
Questions  (iii.  1),  Simulac  editi  in  lucem  et  sus- 
cepti  sumus,  in  omni  continuo  pravitate,  et  in 
summa  opinionum  perversitate,  versamur:  ut 
pcene  cum  lade,  nutricis  errorem  suxisse  vide- 
amur.  De  Amicit.  (c.  24,)  Multis  signis  natura 
declarat  quid  velit:  obsurdescimus  tamen  nescio 
quomodo  ;  nee  ea  quse  ab  ea  monemur,  audimus — 
our  will  does  not  follow  what  our  understanding 
approves  as  right  and  good.  In  this  connexion 
we  may  cite  the  common  declaration,  Nitimur 
in  vetitum  semper,  cupimusque  negata ,-  and  that 
of  Ovid,  (Metam.  vii.  18,  seq.) 

Si  possem,  sanior  essem. 
Sed  trahit  invitum  nova  vis ;  aliudque  cupido, 
Mens  aliud  suadet.     Video  meliora  proboque, 
Deteriora  sequor. 

[Very  remarkable  are  the  words  of  Seneca,  in 
his  work  De  dementia,  1.  i.  c.  6 : — "  Quotus 
quisque  ex  qusestoribus  est,  qui  non  ea  ipsa  lege 
teneatur,  qua  quant1?  Quotus  quisque  accusa- 
tor,  vacat  culpa  1  Et  nescio,  an  nemo  ad  dandam 
veniam  difficilior  sit,  quam  qui  illam  petere  sse- 
pius  meruit.  Peccavimus  omnes,  alii  gravia, 
alii  leviora ;  alii  ex  destinato,  alii  forte  impulsi, 
aut  aliena  nequitia  ablati;  alii  in  bonis  consiliis 
parum  fortiter  stetimus,  et  innocentiam  invite  ac  s 
renitentes  perdidimus.  Nee  delinquimus  tan- 
turn,  sed  usque  ad  extremum  aevi  delinquemus." 
Compare  with  this  what  he  says  in  his  Treatise 
De  Ira,  (ii.  8,)  «'  Omnia  sceleribus  ac  vitiis  plena 
sunt.  Plus  committitur  quam  quod  possit  coer- 
citione  sanari.  Certatur  ingenti  quodam  nequi- 
tiae  certamine.  Major  quotidie  peccandi  cupi- 
ditas,  minor  verecundia  est.  Nee  furtiva  jam 
scelera  sunt;  preeter  oculos  eunt;  adeoque  in 
publicum  missa  nequitia  est,  et  in  omnium  pec- 
toribus  evaluit,  ut  innocentia  non  rara,  sed  nulla 
sit."  Cf.  also  the  declaration  of  Sopater, 
ov/Afyvtov  dv^pwTtotj  7*6  aftaptavf iv.  For  numer- 
ous other  passages  of  similar  import,  the  student 
may  consult  Tholuck,  Lehre  von  der  Siinde,  s. 
48,  49 ;  72,  73 ;  and  the  works  commended  by 
Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  359.  For  the  opinions  of 


262 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


the  later  Jews,  vide  Eisenmenger,  Entdecktes 
Judenthum,  theil.  ii.  s.  80,  f.—  TR.] 

All  this  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  de- 
clarations of  the  sacred  writers,  and  especially 
with  that  of  Paul,  Rom.  vii.  15,  •«  For  that  which 
I  do,  I  allow  not;  for  what  I  would,  that  I  do 
not  ;  but  what  I  hate,  that  do  I."  It  is  also  in 
accordance  with  the  experience  of  every  indivi- 
dual. And  yet  there  have  been  philosophers, 
especially  in  modern  times,  who  have  denied 
the  truth  of  such  representations,  and  have  at- 
tempted to  demonstrate  the  contrary,  and  who 
have  sought  to  found  new  systems  of  education 
upon  their  peculiar  views  respecting  the  charac- 
ter of  man. 

As  to  the  real  causes  of  this  depravity,  which 
was  so  universally  seen  and  acknowledged,  the 
opinions  were  very  various. 

(1)  Men  in  the  earliest  times,  and  among  the 
rude  heathen  nations,  being  left  to  themselves, 
either  neglected  all  reflection  upon  this  subject, 
or  invented  various  philosophemes  or  narrations, 
in  order  to  facilitate  to  themselves  the  under- 
standing of  the  origin  and  diffusion  of  this  evil. 
In  all  of  them,  however,  it  was  assumed  that  the 
human  race  was  originally  better  than  after- 
wards, and  that  either  by  slow  degrees,  or  sud- 
denly and  at  once,  it  became  corrupt.     As  soon 
as  men  begin  to  reflect  upon  God  and  them- 
selves, they  exhibit  almost  universally  the  feel- 
ing, that  it  is  necessary  to  suppose  that  mankind 
was  originally  in  a  better  condition  ;  nor  can  this 
feeling  be  obliterated  by  any  subtle  reasoning. 
Cf.  s.  56. 

(2)  The  ancient  Grecian  philosophers  adopted 
in  part  the  fables  and  narratives  which  they 
found  already  existing;  but  they  also  undertook 
to  investigate  the  first  origin  of  evil  more  parti- 
cularly.    In  doing  this,  they  soon  came  to  the 
result,  (which  indeed  had  been  already  observed 
by  the  authors  of  those  narratives,)  that  the  de- 
fective constitution  of  man  consisted  in  the  un- 
due power  of  sense  (Sinnh'chkeir),  and  that  this 
had  its  seat  in  the  body.     Paul  distinguishes  in 
man  the  vo^o^  tv  *oi$  ptteaiv  (i.  e.,  iv  uopact,  ver. 
18),  and  the  VOIJLOS  *ov  vooj.     The  former,  he 
says,  avtivtpatsvftcu,  1^0/49  vooj,  xai  •igpcdUHfe^M 
fjts  *(?  f6«9  trt$  cumpT'ia*,  Rom.  vii.  23.     We 
have  thus  a  dictamen  sensuum,  and  a  dictamen 
rationis.   So  Araspas  in  Xenophon  distinguishes 
in  every  man  an  dyo^  and  a  ytovr^a,  tyvzrt,  Cyrop. 
vi.  21  ;  and  Plato  makes  mention  of  the  xoyi<m- 


These  Grecian  philosophers  proceeded 
on  the  supposition,  that  there  are  two  equally 
eternal  and  original  principles,  God  and  matter. 
The  former  they  supposed  to  be  the  rational, 
thinking  principle,  and  the  origin  of  all  good, 
physical  and  moral;  the  latter,  the  irrational 
principle,  and  the  cause  of  all  evil.  Vide  s.  46, 
II.  To  the  former  principle  they  supposed  the 


rational  soul  of  man  belongs,  and  his  body  to 
the  second;  and  as  his  body  consists  of  matter, 
so  his  soul  is  a  part  of  the  divine  nature,  and  a 
pure  effluence  from  the  same. 

They  were  too  prone,  under  the  influence  of 
these  views,  to  overlook  the  advantages  which 
the  human  soul  derives  from  its  connexion  with 
the  body  —  advantages  which  could  not  otherwise 
exist,  and  to  regard  the  body  too  much  as  a  pri- 
son, in  which  the  soul  is  impaled.  So  taught 
the  Persians,  and  most  of  the  oriental  philoso- 
phers, [vide  Neander's  account  of  the  Gnostic 
Systems;]  so  Pythagoras  and  Plato,  especially 
in  Timaeus  ;  so  Aristotle,  the  stoics,  and  their 
followers.  In  conformity  with  these  views, 
Socrates  and  Plato  always  gave  the  advice, 


They  believed,  however,  that  after  death  the 
soul  would  be  reunited  with  God,  after  having 
undergone  various  degrees  of  cleansing  and  pu- 
rification from  the  matter  cleaving  to  it;  re- 
specting which,  vide  s.  150,  II.  [This  purifi- 
cation was  the  intent  of  the  transmigration  of 
souls  (metempsychosis)  —  a  doctrine  held  in  all 
the  religions  of  the  East,  and  in  that  also  of  an- 
cient Egypt.  The  soul,  it  was  supposed,  would 
be  purified  by  the  sufferings  endured  in  wander- 
ing through  uncongenial  matter,  and  be  at  length 
prepared  to  merge  into  the  pure  fountain  from 
which  it  originally  emanated.  For  some  valu- 
able remarks  on  this,  and  other  religious  ideas 
and  observances  in  the  East,  vide  Schlegel, 
Philosophic  der  Geschichte.  —  TR.] 

(3)  The  account  which  the  holy  scriptures 
give  of  the  origin  of  sin  is  as  follows  :  —  "  God 
made  man,  not  only  as  to  his  soul,  but  his  body 
also;  and  both  pure  and  without  sin;  by  a 
daring  transgression,  however,  the  nature  of 
man  is  changed,  and  from  being  pure  and  im- 
mortal, has  become  defective  and  mortal.  This, 
however,  is  overruled  by  God,  for  our  good,  by 
means  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Restorer  of  the 
human  race." 

[Note.  —  The  traditions  of  many  of  the  Ori- 
ental nations  correspond  remarkably  with  the 
narrative  in  Genesis,  and  confirm  its  truth. 
This  is  the  case,  especially,  with  the  doctrine 
of  Zoroaster,  which  so  strikingly  agrees  with 
that  of  Moses  as  to  indicate  a  common  source 
in  the  historic  fact  of  an  original  temptation  and 
fall.  According  to  Zoroaster,  the  first  human 
pair  were  offered  heaven  on  condition  of  virtue, 
and  of  refraining  from  homage  to  the  Dews  —  the 
demons  of  the  Persian  mythology.  For  some 
time  they  complied  with  these  conditions  ;  but 
at  length  Ahriman  (Satan)  caused  the  thought 
to  be  infused  into  their  minds  by  a  Dew,  that  he 
was  the  creator  of  the  world.  They  believed 
this  lie,  and  so  became,  like  Ahriman,  evil  and 
unhappy.  On  one  occasion  they  went  out  upon 
a  hunting  excursion,  and  found  a  wild  goat,  and 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


263 


tasted  its  milk,  which  was  sweet  to  their  taste, 
and  reviving1,  but  injurious  to  their  body.  The 
Dew  then  offered  them  fruit,  which  they  ate, 
and  in  consequence  were  still  more  injured,  and 
stripped  of  their  remaining  blessings.  Vide 
Kleuker,  Zend-Avesta,  3  thl.  s.  84,  if.  Cf. 
Schlegel,  Philos.  der  Geschichte,  b.  i.— TR.] 

II.  Results  of  independent  Reason  and  Observation. 
If,  in  investigating  the  origin  and  causes  of 
this  evil,  we  disregard  all  authority,  even  that 
of  the  holy  scriptures,  and  proceed  solely  from 
those  considerations  to  which  experience  con- 
ducts us,  we  arrive  at  the  following  results, 
which  are  not  indeed  entirely  satisfactory,  but 
which  yet  somewhat  illustrate  this  subject,  and 
therefore  may  be  useful  to  those  to  whom  the 
instruction  of  the  young  is  committed. 

It  may  be  remarked  in  general,  that  the  phi- 
losopher, as  such,  can  assign  no  other  ground 
than  that  man  is  a  limited  being,  and  conse- 
quently can  err.  The  nature  of  this  limitation 
and  liability  to  sin  is  now  to  be  more  closely 
examined.  Man  has  a  twofold  nature,  one  part 
of  which  is  rational  and  moral,  (wiij,)  by  means 
of  which  he  can  act  with  reference  to  ends,  and 
possesses  understanding  and  free-will ;  the  other 
part  of  which  is  sensuous,  (sinnlich,}  and  con- 
sists of  desires  and  appetites,  (4-t^.)  By  the 
former,  he  belongs  to  the  world  of  spirit;  by  the 
latter,  to  that  of  sense.  He  is  therefore  to  be 
regarded  as  a  being  compounded  of  reason  and 
sense,  (Germ.vernunftig-sinnliches  Wesen.)  In 
this  way,  man  is  distinguished  from  the  brute, 
which  has  indeed  sense,  but  no  rational  or  moral 
nature.  This  in  man  should  be  the  ruling  power, 
the  other  subject  to  this;  and  then  only  is  man 
free  when  he  acts  independently  of  the  impulses 
of  his  lower  nature,  and  obeys  the  voice  of  the 
moral  law,  uttered  so  imperatively  within  him. 
But  in  man  in  his  present  state  we  notice  a  con 
tinual  conflict  between  these  two  natures — a 
conflict  which  cannot  be  explained  away  by  any 
subtleties.  This  conflict  rests  upon  the  dis- 
tinction between  these  two  dissimilar  natures 
in  man,  and  is  the  immediate  result  of  their 
connexion  in  human  beings,  according  to  their 
present  constitution. 

Beyond  this,  the  essential  nature  of  man,  the 
mere  philosopher  cannot  go,  in  his  inquiries 
after  the  causes  of  sin ;  and  the  fact  of  a  parti- 
cular corruption  of  our  nature,  or  of  the  invisible 
agency  of  evil  spirits,  cannot  be  resorted  to  by 
him  to  account  for  the  existing  evil.  In  short 
the  mere  philosopher  who  is  unacquainted  with 
what  the  scriptures  have  taught  on  this  subject 
or  who  will  make  no  use  of  their  instructions 
cannot  proceed  from  facts,  because  these  are 
either  unknown  to  him,  or  doubtful  and  uncer 
tain.  Hence  the  truth  of  what  many  of  the  ol( 
theologians  have  said,  that  the  fact  of  a  bette 


tate  of  human  nature  depends  for  its  proof  upon 
he  holy  scriptures ;  and  that  neither  that  state, 
lor  the  fall  which  succeeded  it,  can  be  demon- 
itrated  from  mere  reason.  But  we  are  now  ex- 
libiting  those  results  only  to  which  unassisted 
eason  would  arrive. 

In  noticing   the   defects   and    imperfections 
vhich  result  from  the  connexion  of  these  two 
natures  in  man,  the  many  advantages  which 
,lso  spring  from  it  ought  not  to  be  overlooked, 
t  should  be  remembered  that  man  could  never 
lave  been  what  he  is,  if  this  constitution  were 
different.     Many  possesses  various  faculties, 
which  have  their  ground  in  this  constitution, 
which  may  indeed,  and  actually  do,  mislead 
im  into  many  faults  and  errors,  but  which  are 
n  themselves  good,  and,  when  rightly  culti- 
vated and  employed,  bring  him  great  advantage. 
Such  are  self-love,  so  deeply  implanted  in  the 
human  breast,  (hence  the  instinct  for  self-pre- 
servation and  for  personal  improvement,)  the 
love  of  honour,  the  tendency  to  imitate,  and  others, 
which  are  in  themselves  good,  and  only  need  to 
be  kept  under  the  control  of  reason,  and  pro- 
perly directed  to  the  ends  for  which  they  were 
given. 

After  these  remarks,  we  come  now  to  inquire 
after  the  more  immediate  causes,  from  which 
the  prevailing  power  of  sense,  and  the  inability 
of  reason  to  control  it,  are  to  be  explained.  We 
design  in  this  place  to  give  only  the  result  of 
human  observation  and  experience,  which  will 
be  very  inadequate  to  the  full  explanation  of  this 
subject.  We  shall  afterwards  exhibit  the  doc- 
trine of  the  scriptures,  and  inquire  how  far  it 
agrees  with  these  results.  These  causes  are  to 
be  found  partly  in  the  strength  of  the  feelings 
belonging  to  human  nature,  partly  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  powers  of  the  human  soul  de- 
velop themselves,  and  partly  in  the  external  cir- 
cumstances in  which  this  development  proceeds. 

(1)  The  feelings  of  man  are  much  stronger 
than  those  ideas  of  his  mind  which  have  their 
foundation  in  his  reason ;  and  the  mere  philo- 
sopher, who  receives  no  light  from  revelation, 
cannot  tell  that  this  has  not  always  been  the 
fact  with  man.  For  he  cannot  conclude  with 
any  certainty,  from  his  mere  reason,  that  human 
nature  was  originally  in  a  better  state  than  that 
in  which  he  now  finds  it;  he  must  take  man  as 
he  finds  him,  and  on  the  supposition,  which  he 
has  no  means  of  refuting,  that  he  was  always 
the  same.  In  general,  the  end  of  this  constitu- 
tion of  our  nature  would  seem  to  be,  to  guard 
against  insensibility  and  inactivity.  For  the 
mere  motives  of  reason  would  act  far  too  feebly 
and  slowly;  and  except  for  this  influence  of  the 
feelings,  many  actions  which  are  useful  and  ne- 
cessary for  our  own  good  and  that  of  others 
would  remain  undone.  And  so  it  is  found,  that 
men  of  a  cold  and  phlegmatic  temperament, 


264 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


who  have  but  little  feeling  and  excitability, 
though  they  may  have  good  heads  and  benevo- 
lent hearts,  are  generally  indolent,  irresolute, 
and  inactive,  and  accomplish  very  little.  It  is 
often  the  case,  indeed,  that  a  man  suffers  him- 
self to  be  carried  away  by  his  feelings,  and  re- 
solves and  acts  without  regard  to  consequences. 
The  advantages  of  this  constitution  must,  how- 
ever, be  greater  than  the  disadvantages,  because 
it  is  so  established  by  God.  But  on  this  sub- 
ject much  may  be  said,  without  leading  to  any 
satisfactory  conclusion.  This  visible  inordi- 
nateness  of  one  portion  of  our  nature  can  hardly 
be  made  to  harmonize  with  our  conceptions  of 
the  divine  attributes.  But  beyond  this  the  phi- 
losopher as  such  cannot  go. 

(2)  In  the  earlier  years  of  our  life,  before  we 
can  rightly  use  our  reason,  we  have  no  other 
rule  for  desiring  or  avoiding  anything  than  our 
feelings.  And  on  this  account,  that  they  have 
no  maturity  of  reason,  children  and  minors  can- 
not be  left  to  themselves,  but  need  to  be  guided 
and  governed  by  others.  We  thus  become  ac- 
customed from  our  youth  up  to  desire  those 
things  which  excite  agreeable  sensations  in  us, 
and  to  shun  those  things  which  have  an  oppo- 
site effect.  Now  the  kind  of  agreeable  sensa- 
tions with  which  man  is  earliest  acquainted  is 
that  which  arises  from  the  gratification  of  his 
animal  desires.  For  in  the  earliest  years  of  his 
life,  man,  having  not  yet  attained  the  full  use 
of  his  rational  faculties,  has  no  taste  for  the 
more  pure  and  spiritual  joys,  which  are  above 
sense,  and  which  are  attendant  only  on  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  holiness  of  heart 
and  life.  When  now,  after  a  long  time,  and  by 
slow  degrees,  man  has  attained  to  the  full  use 
and  the  maturity  of  his  rational  faculties,  he  has 
for  a  long  time  been  habituated,  even  from  his 
youth,  to  will  and  act  according  to  his  feelings 
and  the  impulses  of  sense,  without  duly  consult- 
ing reason,  and  carefully  weighing  everything 
by  his  understanding.  This  long  practice  has 
produced  in  him  a  habit,  and  it  is  now  hard  for 
him  to  break  this  habit,  and  to  acquire,  in  place 
of  it,  the  habit  of  rational  consideration  before 
action.  Quo  semel  est  imbuta  recens  servabit 
odorem  testa  diu.  Very  true,  therefore,  is  the 
remark  of  Tacitus  (Vita  Agricol.  c.  iii.),  "that 
human  weakness  is  of  such  a  nature,  that  the 
remedies  do  not  act  as  efficiently  as  the  dis- 
ease." 

From  these  remarks  we  draw  the  following 
important  inference :  that  we  should  endeavour, 
as  early  as  possible,  to  awaken,  cherish,  and 
develop  the  moral  sense  in  the  youthful  heart. 
And  there  is  no  way  for  us  to  do  this  so  suc- 
cessfully as  by  means  of  religion.  Vide  Intro- 
duction, s.  2.  It  is  therefore  one  of  the  most 
perverse  and  injurious  maxims  to  say  that  young 
children  should  not  have  religion  taught  them. 


The  evil  effects  resulting  from  this  maxim  have 
been  deeply  felt  in  our  age. 

(3)  The  first  knowledge  of  man  is  derived 
from  his  senses ;  at  first,  he  can  acquire  infor- 
mation in  no  other  way  than  from  sensible  ob- 
jects.    The  senses  must,  in  all  cases,  serve  as 
the  vehicle  of  knowledge ;  and  they  are  often 
misemployed.     Since  now,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  man  must,  from  his  earliest  youth,  be 
so  familiar  with  visible  and  sensible  objects,  it 
is  not  strange  that  he  should  be  too  little  affected 
by  the  instructions  given  him  respecting  objects 
not  cognizable  by  the  senses,  and  especially  re- 
specting God,  the  Invisible;  and  that  he  should 
be  so  indifferent  to  the  motives  to  love  him,  and 
from  love  to  obey  him.     The  remark,  1  John, 
iv.  20,  "  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother,  whom 
he  hath  seen,  how  can  he  love  God,  whom  he 
hath  not  seen,"   is  therefore  psychologically 
true.     If  we  see  a  man  who  has  no  true  love 
to  his  neighbour  whom  he  hath  seen,  we  may 
safely  conclude  that  he  has  no  love  for  the 
invisible   God.     Hence  we   may  explain  the 
natural  coldness  of  the  carnal  mind  to  God, 
and   everything  which   belongs  to  the   moral 
and  spiritual  world ;  and  hence  too  we  may  de- 
rive the  duty  of  opposing  this  at  the  very  ear- 
liest periods  of  life ;  for  the  longer  a  man  lives, 
the  more  fixed  and  habitual  does  it  become,  and 
the  harder  to  be  removed. 

(4)  Man  brings  with  him  into  the  world  va- 
rious powers  and  faculties ;  but,  according  to  the 
plan  of  God,  these  can  be  developed  and  brought 
to  a  good  end  only  by  instruction  and  a  wise 
education.     Man  does  not  come  into  the  world 
with  any  inborn  habits  of  action,  or  with  any- 
thing which  answers  to  the  instincts  of  brutes, 
the  place  of  which  must  be  supplied  by  instruc- 
tion.  But  this  instruction  in  religion,  morality, 
and  other  useful  things,  which  is  so  necessary 
to  the  proper  development  of  our  powers,  is  en- 
joyed by  very  few,  and  some  are  wholly  desti- 
tute of  it.     And  the  instruction  given  on  these 
subjects  is  often  defective,  and  calculated  to 
mislead.     It  allows  men  to  be  satisfied  with  a 
merely  formal  worship,  in  which  the  heart  re- 
mains cold  and   unimproved;   it  is   generally 
above  the  capacities  of  the  young,  and  by  taxing 
the  memory  more  than  affecting  the  heart,  it 
often    produces    aversion    and    disgust.     The 
whole  moral  education,  especially  in  the  so 
called  higher  circles  of  life,  is  often  extremely 
deficient;  so  that  frequently  the  rude  children 
of  nature,  left  to  grow  up  by  themselves,  are  in 
a  better  condition  than  those  who  have  been 
reared  in  the  midst  of  refinement  and  cultiva- 
tion.    At  least,  they  are  not  so  perverted  and 
corrupted,  although  they  may  be  wanting  in 
some  of  the  artificial  accomplishments  which 
the  latter  possess. 

Evil  example,  too,  has  an  indescribable  effect 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


265 


upon  children  and  youth,  and  brings  them  to  an 
earlier  acquaintance  with  vice  than  with  virtue. 
It  should  be  remarked  that  the  outbreakings  of 
many  perverse  inclinations  and  dispositions 
which  are  perceived  in  children  are  the  signs 
and  the  consequences  of  some  endowments  of 
human  nature  in  themselves  good.  The  exhi- 
bitions of  these  dispositions  are  important  hints 
to  the  teacher  and  guardian  of  the  young ;  and 
if  he  is  wise  and  skilful,  may  receive  such  a 
direction  from  him  as  will  turn  them  to  good 
account  in  the  ultimate  character  of  those  en- 
trusted to  his  charge.  For  example,  selfwill 
and  obstinacy  indicate  firmness  of  character; 
forwardness  and  inquisitiveness  indicate  a  cu- 
rious and  active  mind. 

(5)  The  social  life  of  man,  the  gradual  in- 
crease of  cultivation,  refinement,  and  luxury, 
and  the  propensity  to  seek  for  the  pleasures  of 
sense,  while  they  are  in  some  respects  advan- 
tageous, are  the  cause  of  great  evil  and  injury. 
Cf.  Rousseau,  Stir  Vinegalite.  des  hommes.  The 
wants  of  men  are  greatly  multiplied,  their  sen- 
sual appetites  are  greatly  excited  by  the  con- 
stant presentation  of  new  objects,  and  their  true 
peace  and  contentment  (av-rapx/a)  are  prevent- 
ed. They  thus  become  continually  more  pas- 
sionate and  insatiable,  and  more  withdrawn 
from  invisible  and  spiritual  objects. 

Civilized  man  has,  indeed,  more  means  in  his 
power  to  resist  the  evils  arising  from  the  social 
state ;  but  these  means  are  too  little  regarded 
and  employed.  Luxury  makes  men  selfish, 
proud,  and  hard-hearted,  and  paves  the  way  to 
other  vices;  and  when  self,  which  is  so  pam- 
pered by  luxury,  once  gets  firm  possession  of 
the  heart,  morality  and  virtue  are  for  ever  ban- 
ished. The  observation  of  the  evils  which 
arise  from  the  connexion  of  men  in  social  life, 
and  from  the  progress  of  cultivation,  suggested 
to  many  even  of  the  ancient  heathen  world  the 
thought  that  men  were  formerly  in  a  better  con- 
dition than  at  a  later  period.  Vide  s.  56.  But 
Philosophy,  uninstructed  by  Revelation,  can 
never  prove,  a  priori,  that  a  change  has  taken 
place  in  human  nature,  and  that  it  is  now  differ- 
ent from  what  it  was.  At  least,  the  philoso- 
pher can  never  attain  to  perfect  certainty  on  this 
subject,  and  will  find  many  things  enigmatical 
and  inexplicable. 

Cf.  on  this  subject  the  works  from  the  differ- 
ent schools.  Jerusalem,  Betrachtungen  u'ber 
die  Wahrheiten  der  Religion,  b.  ii.  th.  ii.  s.  731, 
f. ;  Junge,  Philosophische  und  Theologische 
Aufsatze,  th.  ii.  s.  297,  367 ;  Steinbart,  System 
der  Glvickseligkeitslehre,  cap.  iii.  s.  46,  f. ; 
Eberhard,  Apologie  des  Socrates ;  Tollner, 
Theologische  Untersuchungen,  b.  i.  St.  2,  s. 
112,  f.  As,  however,  in  some  of  these  works, 
especially  in  Steinbart,  the  depravity  of  man  is 
very  inadeqately  represented,  and  the  present 
34 


state  of  man  is  placed  in  far  too  advantageous 
and  favourable  a  light,  in  contradiction  both  to 
the  Bible  and  to  experience,  we  refer  with  plea- 
sure to  the  views  of  Michaelis  on  this  subject, 
expressed  in  his  book,  "Von  der  Sjiinde,"  s. 
48—54,  and  in  his  "  Moral,"  th.  i.  s.  1 05—130 ; 
also  to  Kant,  "Ueberdas  radicale  Uebel,"  first 
essay  in  his  "Religion  innerhalb  der  Granzen 
der  blossen  Vernunft;"  and  to  Morus,  "Theol. 
Moral,"  and  Reinhard's  "  Dogmatik"  and  "  Mo- 
ral." 

[Cf.  on  this  subject  Bretschneider,  Dogmatik, 
b.  ii.  s.  17,  s.  120,  Ursprung  der  Siinde;  also 
Tholuck,  Lehre  von  der  Siinde.  Coleridge, 
Aids  to  Reflection,  p.  154 — 178,  especially  158 ; 
Neander,  Allg.  Kirchengeschichte,  b.  i.,  Abth. 
ii.  s.  640 ;  Hahn,  s.  342,  s.  77.— TR.] 

III.  Could  God  have  prevented  Sin? 

The  question  here  arises,  How  can  God  be 
justified  as  the  author  of  this  constitution  ?  Could 
he  not  have  guarded  against  moral  evil  in  the 
world  ?  Might  he  not  have  constituted  human 
nature  less  weak,  and  less  inclined  to  err  and 
sin?  It  is  not  strange,  considering  how  imper- 
fect is  our  knowledge  of  the  eternal  plan  and  of 
the  universal  government  of  God,  that  reflecting 
minds  should  have  always  been  disturbed  by 
doubts  on  this  subject,  and  that  they  should  have 
devised  various  means  of  relieving  their  doubts, 
and  of  vindicating  God,  and  that,  after  all,  they 
should  have  been  unable,  by  mere  philosophy, 
to  attain  to  satisfaction.  A  great  portion  of  the 
ancient  philosophers  endeavoured  to  relieve 
themselves  of  this  difficulty  by  supposing  two 
eternal  principles.  Vide  No.  I. 

In  philosophizing  on  this  subject  we  make 
the  following  general  remarks : — 

(1)  It  is  an  established  point  that  to  God  all 
evil,  both  physical  and  moral,  as  such,  must  be 
displeasing;  and  that  he  seeks  to  prevent  it, 
wherever  it  may  be  done.     But  since  there  is 
much  imperfection,  evil,  and  sin,  actually  exist- 
ing in  the  world,  we  must  conclude  that  God  has 
effected  and  will  effect  more  good  by  the  per- 
mission of  sin  than  could  be  effected  if  he  had 
not  permitted  it.     He  must  have  seen  that  he 
would  have  prevented  the  good,  if  he  had  not 
permitted  the  evil.     Vide  s.  48,  ad  finem ;  and 
s.  71,  I.     To  shew  this  was  the  object  of  Leib- 
nitz in  his  "Theodicee." 

(2)  We  must  proceed  on  the  same  principles 
in  judging  of  moral  evil  and  corruption,  espe- 
cially among  men.   Hateful  to  God  as  this  moral 
evil  must  have  been,  and  punishable  as  it  is  in 
itself,  God  yet  must  have  seen  that  by  means  of 
this  constitution,  of   human  nature  a  greater 
amount  of  good  would  be  accomplished  for  the 
human  race  as  a  whole,  and  for  the  world,  than 
if  he  had  made  man  more  perfect,  had  secured 
him  against  every  opportunity  to  sin,  or  had 

Z 


266 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


hindered  his  transgression  by  the  immediate  ex- 
ercise of  his  power.  The  latter  could  not  take 
place,  as  God  had  given  to  man  a  moral  nature, 
which  is  placed  under  the  law  of  freedom  alone, 
and  to  which  compulsion  and  necessity,  which 
prevail  in  the  material  world,  where  everything 
proceeds  by  mechanical  laws,  cannot  be  applied. 
But  as  in  every  other  case,  so  in  this,  God 
knows  how  to  overrule  evil  in  such  a  way  that 
higher  good  shall  result  from  it.  Throughout 
the  world  there  is  a  constant  successive  develop- 
ment, and  a  struggle  after  an  advancement  and 
improvement  of  condition ;  and  so  it  is  with  man. 
Vide  Rom.  viii.  20 — 23.  Sin  itself  may  serve 
for  the  promotion  of  good,  and  may  contribute 
to  the  perfection  of  man.  Through  his  liability 
to  err,  he  may  indeed  pursue  a  retrograde  course 
with  regard  to  virtue  and  moral  perfection ;  but 
without  this  liability  he  could  not  make  ad- 
vancement ;  and  his  virtue  would  cease  to  have 
any  worth,  and  would  no  longer  deserve  the 
name  if  there  were  no  possibility  of  wrong. 
Neither  morality  nor  happiness  can  be  con- 
ceived to  exist  without  freedom.  So  much 
may  be  said  on  this  subject  in  the  way  of  phi- 
losophy ;  it  is,  however,  far  from  being  satis- 
factory. 

SECTION  LXXV. 

MOSAIC  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  SIN  OF  OUR  FIRST 
PARENTS. 

THE  moral  depravity  of  the  human  race  is 
derived  everywhere  in  the  New  Testament 
from  the  disobedience  of  our  first  parents.  This 
universal  corruption  is  denominated  by  theolo- 
gians, peccatum  originatum,  or  originate,  or  ori- 
ginis ;  the  first  transgression,  peccatum  origi- 
nans.  More  frequently,  however,  is  this  trans- 
gression denominated  lapsus,  fall,  according  to 
the  Hebrew  usage,  where  the  verba  cadendi 
signify  to  err,  to  sin,  also  to  become  unhappy  ; 
as  Prov.  xxiv.  16,  17;  Rev.  ii.  5,  ixrtlfttsiv. 
In  the  same  way  is  labi  used  in  Latin  instead 
of  peccare,  errare;  and  cadere,  excidere,  to  be 
miserable,  to  lose  a  thing.  Moses  in  his  narrative 
first  gives  an  account  of  the  divine  precept, 
that  Adam  and  Eve  should  not  eat  of  the  tree 
of  knowledge,  &c.,  Genesis,  ii.  15 — 17;  (vide 
s.  52,  II.  2 ;)  and  then  follows  the  account  of 
the  transgression  itself,  Gen.  iii.  1,  seq.  We 
must  therefore  refer  back  to  what  has  been 
already  remarked,  in  general,  respecting  the 
creation  of  the  world  and  of  man ;  s.  49,  I. ; 
and  s.  52,  II.  We  now  proceed  to  explain  this 
account. 

I.  Different  ways  in  which  this  passage  has  been 

explained.      , 

The  interpreters  of  this  passage  were  formerly 
divided  into  two  general  classes.  Some  have 


regarded  it  as  an  allegory,  and  interpreted  it 
metaphorically,  admitting  no  real  serpent,  tree, 
&c.  Others  consider  it  as  a  literal  narrative  of 
events  which  actually  occurred  in  the  manner 
here  recorded.  To  these  two  classes  a  third 
has  been  added  in  modern  times,  who  hold  that 
it  is  merely  a  didactic  fable.  With  respect  to 
the  history  of  these  various  interpretations,  cf. 
Pfaff  and  Buddeus,  in  their  systems  of  theo- 
logy ;  also  Ode,  De  Angelis,  p.  498 ;  M.  J.  0. 
Thiess,  Variarum  de  cap.  iii.  Geneseos  recte 
explicando  specimen  I. ;  Lubecse,  1788,  8vo. 
[Cf.  Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  345,  f.  s.  78.  Bret- 
schneider,  Dogmatik,  b.  ii.  s.  58,  s.  125 — TR.] 

(1)  The  Allegorical  interpretations.  These 
are  very  various,  and  prove  by  their  variety  that 
no  certain  results  can  be  attained  by  allegorical 
interpretation.  All  the  explanations  of  this 
kind  are  forced  and  artificial.  To  suppose  an 
allegory  in  this  passage,  which  is  preceded  and 
followed  by  plain  and  simple  history,  is  alto- 
gether unnatural,  and  foreign  to  the  spirit  of 
these  ancient  monuments.  Nor  is  any  hint  or 
key  to  such  an  interpretation  given  us  by  the 
writer.  This  mode  of  interpreting  this  passage 
was  resorted  to  merely  for  the  sake  of  avoiding 
certain  difficulties,  some  of  which  seem  to 
arise  from  the  great  simplicity  of  this  narrative, 
(for  to  the  learned  interpreter  this  simplicity 
constitutes  an  objection,)  and  others,  from  the 
great  dissimilarity  in  the  manner  of  thought 
and  expression  of  this  narrative  from  that  which 
is  found  in  this  cultivated  and  refined  age. 
The  interpreters  of  this  passage  thought  it 
necessary,  therefore,  to  make  the  writer  say 
something  of  higher  import,  and  more  philoso- 
phical, than  is  contained  in  the  simple  words ; 
and  proceeded  with  regard  to  Moses  very  much 
as  the  later  Grecian  interpreters  did  with  regard 
to  Homer. 

The  first  attempts  at  allegorical  interpretation 
are  found  among  the  Grecian  Jews,  and  princi- 
pally in  Philo,  De  Opificio  Mundi,  p.  104,  seq. 
ed.  Pfeif.  He  was  followed  by  Origen  in  this 
general  principle  of  interpretation,  though  the 
latter  gave  a  different  turn  to  the  narrative ;  and 
Origen  was  again  followed  by  Ambrose,  in  his 
book,  "De  Paradise,"  I.  Some  of  their  fol- 
lowers understand  all  the  circumstances  here 
mentioned  allegorically ;  others,  only  some  of 
them — e.  g.,  the  serpent,  and  allow  the  rest  to 
stand  as  history.  It  is  said  by  some,  that  the 
whole  is  intended  to  teach,  by  allegory,  how 
unhappy  man  becomes  by  the  indulgence  of 
violent  passions,  and  the  evil  consequences 
resulting  from  the  prevalence  of  sense  over  rea- 
son. To  this  view  of  the  subject  Moms  is  in- 
clined, p.  99,  n.  2.  He  supposes  that  by  the 
serpent  are  intended,  in  general,  the  external 
inducements  to  evil  by  which  we  are  surprised 
and  overborne;  but  that  the  very  things  which 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


267 


constituted  the  original  temptation  are  unknown 
to  us. 

(2)  Literal  interpretations.  A  large  proportion 
of  the  church  fathers,  (e.  g.,  Justin  the  Martyr, 
Irenseus,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Tertullian, 
Augustine,  and  Theodoret,)  and  also  most  of 
the  older  theologians  even  in  the  protestant 
church,  were  united  in  the  opinion  that  this 
passage  should  not  be  explained  as  an  allegory, 
although  they  differed  among  themselves  in  the 
interpretation  of  particular  expressions.  They 
agreed,  however,  for  the  most  part,  in  consider- 
ing the  serpent  as  something  else  than  a  mere 
natural  serpent,  as  it  was  regarded  by  Josephus 
and  other  Jewish  interpreters.  Some  affirmed 
that  the  serpent  was  simply  the  devil — an  opi- 
nion justly  controverted  by  Vitringa,  on  account 
of  the  great  difficulties  by  which  it  is  encom- 
passed. Others,  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
older  Jewish  and  Christian  interpreters,  sup- 
posed that  the  serpent  here  spoken  of  was  the 
instrument  which  was  employed  by  the  evil 
spirit  to  seduce  mankind.  So  it  is  explained 
by  Augustine,  who  was  followed  in  this  by 
Luther  and  Calvin;  and  this,  from  their  time, 
was  the  prevailing  opinion  of  protestant  theolo- 
gians, until  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury. There  is,  indeed,  nothing  said  in  the  ori- 
ginal text  respecting  an  evil  spirit ;  but  as  the 
serpent  is  here  introduced  as  acting  and  speak- 
ing after  the  manner  of  an  intelligent,  though 
evil-disposed  being,  it  was  thought  fair  to  con- 
clude that  an  evil  being  actually  spoke  through 
the  serpent;  and  so  has  it  been  understood  even 
among  modern  critics — e.  g.,  by  Michaelis  and 
Zacharia. 

This  exposition  respecting  the  serpent  is  in- 
deed ancient;  but  still  we  can  find  no  distinct 
traces  of  it  in  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
written  before  the  Babylonian  exile;  and  we 
are  therefore  alike  unable  to  prove  or  disprove 
that  before  that  period  this  passage  was  so 
understood.  To  suppose  that  the  serpent  in 
this  passage  was  the  instrument  of  an  invisible 
being  is  certainly  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  the 
most  ancient  people,  who  imagined  that  evil  and 
good  spirits  were  everywhere  active  in  all  the 
evil  and  good  done  in  the  world.  After  the 
Babylonian  exile,  however,  we  find  it  expressly 
said  by  the  Jewish  teachers,  that  in  the  tempta- 
tion an  evil  being  was  invisibly  active  through 
the  serpent.  This  point  may  therefore  be  one 
of  those  (of  which  we  find  many  relating  to  the 
doctrine  of  spirits)  which  belong  to  the  later 
disclosures  of  the  prophets.  Vide  s.  58.  In 
the  Apocryphal  books  before  Christ  we  find  it 
said  that  the  devil  deceived  mankind,  and 
brought  sin  and  death  into  the  world — e.  g., 
Book  of  Wisdom,  i.  13,  14;  and  especially  ii. 
23,  24,  (<f£ov9  Sia^o^ou,  x,  t.  X.)  This  is  con- 
ceded on  all  hands. 


It  is  asserted,  however,  by  many  learned  men, 
that  this  idea  does  not  occur  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  they  appeal  to  2  Cor.  xi.  3,  where  it 
is  said  that  the  serpent  deceived  Eve,  and  no 
mention  is  made  of  the  devil ;  and  also  to  Rom. 
v.  18,  where  Paul  makes  no  allusion  to  the 
devil,  although  he  is  treating  of  the  origin  of 
evil.  In  answer  to  this  it  may  be  said,  (a)  that 
considering  how  prevalent  this  explanation  was 
at  the  time  of  Christ,  and  that  neither  he  nor  his 
apostles  contradicted  it,  nor  said  anything  in- 
consistent with  it,  the  probability  is,  that  they 
also  assented  to  it.  Morus  seems  to  admit  this, 
although  in  so  doing  he  cannot  be  altogether 
consistent  with  himself.  But  (6)  it  deserves 
also  to  be  considered  that  there  are  many  allu- 
sions and  references  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  this  interpretation  is  presupposed,  and 
from  which  it  appears  that  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles assented  to  it,  and  authorized  it — e.  g., 
John,  viii.  44,  w$purtoxtovo$  art  dp^jjs ;  1  John, 
iii.  8,  drt'  dp2?Jj  o  5iaj3o7.oj  d^aptavf t, ;  also  the 
titles  in  Revelation,  gpd^wv  ^tf'yaj,  6  o$tj  6 
dp^atoj,  Rev.  xii.  9,  seq.  From  these  texts  we 
can  see  how  the  text  2  Cor.  xi.  3  is  to  be  under- 
stood. The  New-Testament  writers  therefore 
assumed  it  as  a  fact,  that  in  some  way,  not  fur- 
ther determined,  the  devil  was  concerned  in  the 
temptation  of  man.  It  is  not,  however,  expressly 
said  in  any  one  passage  that  the  devil  spoke 
through  the  serpent. 

The  principal  advocates  of  the  interpretation 
formerly  adopted  by  theologians,  and  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  allegorists  and  to  the  class  of  inter- 
preters to  be  hereafter  mentioned,  were,  among 
the  more  ancient,  Aug.  PfeifFer,  Dobia  vexata, 
cap.  6;  among  the  more  modern,  Joh.  Balth. 
Liiderwald,  Die  allegorische  Erklarung  der  drey 
ersten  Capitel  Mosis,  u.  s.  w.  in  ihrem  Ungrund 
vorgestellt;  Helmstadt,  1781,  8vo;  also  Karl 
Traugott  Eifert,  Untersuchung  der  Frage, 
Konnte  nicht  die  Mosaische  Erzahlung  vom 
Fall  buchstablich  wahr,  und  durch  den  Fall  ein 
erbliches  Verderben  auf  die  Menschen  gekom- 
men  seyn?  Halle,  1781;  especially  Storr,  De 
Protevangelio ;  Tubingae,  1789,  (in  his  Opus- 
cula,  torn.  ii.  num.  7,)  and  Koppen,  Die  Bibel 
u.  s.  w.  th.  ii.  [To  this  class  the  great  body  of 
American  theologians  belongs.] 

(3)  To  the  third  class  belong  those  interpret- 
ers who  consider  this  narration  as  a  mythus,  or 
a  truth  invested  in  a  poetic  form.  According  to 
this  idea,  this  passage  has  been  interpreted  in 
modern  times  by  Eichhorn,  in  his  "  Urgesch- 
ichte;"  in  such  a  way,  however,  that  he  al- 
lows some  things  in  the  account  to  be  histori- 
cal and  others  allegorical.  Such,  i\i  some  re- 
spects, is  also  the  interpretation  of  Rosenmuller, 
(Repertor.  th.  i.  s.  160,)  who  supposes  that  the 
narrative  in  Genesis  was  taken  from  a  hiero- 
glyphic picture — i.  e.,  transferred  from  pictorial 


366 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


representation  to  alphabetic  signs.  These  inter- 
preters have  endeavoured  to  unite  the  historical 
and  the  mythical  or  allegorical  interpretations. 
But  this  is  inadmissible.  If  the  mythical  inter- 
pretation is  adopted,  the  whole  narrative,  in  all  its 
parts,  must  be  considered  as  a  mythus,  like  what 
other  nations  had,  in  order  to  represent  to  them- 
selves, each  in  its  own  way,  in  a  distinct  and 
vivid  manner,  the  first  sin  of  man,  and  its  con- 
sequences. So  Eichhorn,  Paulas,  Gabler,  and 
many  others.  One  of  two  things  must  be  ad- 
mitted; either  this  narrative  throughout  must 
be  considered  as  a  veritable  history  of  events 
which  took  place  just  as  here  related,  (and  this 
agrees  with  the  New  Testament,)  or  it  is  wholly 
a  didactic  or  moral  fiction.  In  both  cases  the 
interpreter  must  proceed  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  particular  portions  of  this  account  from  the 
same  principles.  It  is  undoubtedly  the  fact, 
that  Moses,  or  the  writer  from  whom  he  took 
this  account,  (vide  s.  49,)  understood  these  ex- 
pressions just  as  they  stand,  according  to  their 
literal  meaning ;  and  that  these  other  ideas  which 
are  attached  to  this  narrative  were  ascribed  to  it 
at  a  later  period,  in  order  to  adapt  it  more  to  the 
tastes  and  feelings  of  cultivated  and  speculative 
minds. 

In  confirmation  of  the  internal  truth  and  con- 
sistency of  this  narrative  let  the  following  things 
be  considered ;  and  they  are  equally  deserving 
of  notice,  whether  this  passage  be  literally  or 
historically  understood.  Conversation  with  ani- 
mals is  something,  which  to  man,  in  his  natural 
condition,  and  before  the  refinements  of  social 
life,  is  perfectly  common,  and  by  no  means 
strange  and  incredible.  How  often  is  it  the 
case  with  children,  (even  with  those,  too,  who 
are  somewhat  grown  up,)  that  they  address 
inanimate  things,  and  still  more  frequently 
living  creatures,  imagining  what  they  would 
answer,  and  then  replying  to  them  in  turn  ! 
They  will  often,  too,  relate  to  others  the  conver- 
sations they  have  had  with  the  animals  around 
them.  Hence  the  fables  of  ^Esop  were  more 
agreeable  and  impressive,  and  less  strange  and 
startling,  even  to  mature  minds,  in  the  ancient 
world  than  now.  Hence,  too,  the  supposition 
which  once  prevailed  even  in  the  heathen  world, 
that  in  the  golden  age  beasts  actually  spake,  j 
Again ;  the  author  understood  the  speaking  of 
God,  here  mentioned,  as  real,  articulate  speech, 
perhaps  with  a  voice  of  thunder.  For  the  idea 
was  very  prevalent  in  the  ancient  world  that  the 
Deity  was,  as  it  were,  personally  present,  and 
appeared  to  the  men  of  early  times  in  the  most 
free  and  familiar  intercourse ;  somewhat  as  the 
gods  were  supposed  by  the  Greeks  to  have  as- 
sociated with  men  in  the  heroic  ages.  Vide 
s.  54, 1. 

This  whole  representation,  however,  whether 
it  be  fact  or  moral  fiction,  is  entirely  conformed 


to  the  nature  of  the  human  soul,  and  describes 
in  a  manner  perfectly  true,  the  history  of  the 
temptation  and  sin  of  man,  as  it  is  witnessed 
every  day,  through  the  impression  which  sensi- 
ble objects  make  upon  him.  Here  then,  by  the 
example  of  our  first  parents,  two  things  are 
shewn  :  the  way  in  which  sin  commonly  arises, 
and  the  way  in  which  it  actually  first  entered 
the  world.  In  this,  however,  there  is  a  differ- 
ence, that  in  the  case  of  our  first  parents  they 
had  come  to  maturity  without  having  yet  sinned. 
The  first  sin  committed  upon  earth  was  one  of 
momentous  consequences  for  themselves  and 
their  posterity.  In  looking  at  this  transaction, 
we  are  again  impressed  with  the  idea  that  the 
state  of  innocence  in  which  our  first  parents  were 
placed  was  a  state  of  immaturity,  of  childhood, 
and  infantine  simplicity ;  and  that  they  then 
had  no  very  extended  knowledge  or  experience. 
They  were  deceived  in  nearly  the  same  way  as 
an  innocent  and  inexperienced  child  is  now  de- 
ceived. In  this  point  of  view  this  narrative  has 
been  very  justly  apprehended,  even  by  Moms, 
p.  99,  n.  1. 

[Note. — There  is  an  interesting  essay  on  the 
Mosaic  account  of  the  Fall  in  the  Appendix  to 
Tholuck's  "  Lehre  von  der  Siinde."  While  he 
contends  for  the  historic  fact  of  the  fall,  he  at  the 
same  time  regards  the  representation  here  given 
of  this  fact  as  figurative,  and  finds  insuperable 
objections  in  the  way  of  the  literal,  and  very 
plausible  arguments  in  favour  of  the  moral  inter- 
pretation. He  gives  the  following  as  the  moral 
import  of  the  passage  :  "  Man,  who,  in  accord- 
ance with  his  destination,  enjoyed  a  holy  inno- 
cence, in  which  he  knew  no  other  will  than  that 
of  God,  abandoned  this  state,  became  selfish 
(autonomic),  and  would  no  longer  acknowledge 
the  divine  law  of  life  as  the  highest;"  s.  266, 
of  the  work  above  mentioned.  The  views  of  the 
German  theologians  on  this  subject  are  very  vari- 
ous ;  and  though  often  fanciful,  sometimes  deep- 
ly interesting  and  profound.  It  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  refer  to  some  of  the  more  important  of 
these,  which  the  ardent  student  of  theology, 
who  wishes  to  overstep  the  limit  of  merely  tra- 
ditionary ideas,  may  consult  at  his  leisure.  Cf. 
Schleiermacher,  Christ.  Glaub.  b.  ii.  s.  59. 
Schlegel,  Philosophic  der  Geschichte,  b.  i.  s. 
42,  43.  Herder,  Geist  der  Ebra.  Poesie,  b.  i. 
s.  155.  To  these  we  may  add  the  speculations, 
ingenious  and  exciting,  even  when  unfounded 
and  fanciful,  of  Coleridge.  See  his  "  Aids  to 
Reflection,"  notes,  p.  324,  325;  also  p.  176, 
177.— TR.] 

II.  Particular  Expressions  and  Representations. 

(1)  Respecting  the  divine  law,  the  transgres- 
sion of  it,  and  the  temptation.  Genesis,  ii.  17, 
coll.  ver.  9,  and  chap.  iii.  1 — 6.  For  an  account 
of  the  name,  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


269 


evil,  vide  s.  52,  II.  The  question  is  here  asked, 
What  design  had  God  in  view  in  giving  this 
precept?  According  to  the  opinion  of  many 
theologians,  this  command  was  given  by  God 
merely  for  the  sake  of  putting  the  virtue  of 
Adam  and  Eve  to  the  test,  there  being  no  inju- 
rious quality  in  the  tree  itself  which  should  lead 
him  to  forbid  it ;  and  so  they  suppose  that  the 
punishment  of  death  threatened  and  inflicted  by 
God  had  no  natural  connexion  with  the  eating 
of  the  forbidden  fruit,  but  depended  merely  upon 
the  divine  will.  This  is  supposed  by  Ernesti, 
Vindiciae  arbitrii  divini,  in  his  "  Opusc.  Theol." 
p.  231 ;  and  among  the  ancients,  by  Theophilus, 
Ad  Autolyc.  1.  ii.  c.  35.  But  against  this  sup- 
position there  are  many  reasons,  both  of  an  in- 
ternal and  external  nature,  which  have  been 
well  exhibited  by  Michaelis,  Von  der  Siinde,  s. 
559.  The  fact  that  this  forbidden  tree  is  set 
over  against  the  tree  of  life,  would  lead  us  to 
think  that  it  was  in  itself  a  poisonous  tree,  and 
in  its  own  nature  destructive  to  man.  And  to 
this  opinion  even  Morus  assents,  p.  102,  s.  16. 
The  writer  here  designs  to  shew  by  what  natu- 
ral means  the  life  of  man  was  to  have  been  pro- 
longed, according  to  the  divine  appointment, 
in  the  state  of  innocence;  and  this  means  is 
the  tree  of  life,  or  life-giving  tree;  and  after- 
wards, by  what  means  death  came  into  the 
world — namely,  by  a  poisonous  tree.  It  is 
against  the  latter,  which  bore  an  alluring,  beau- 
tiful fruit,  that  God  warns  inexperienced  man, 
as  a  father  cautions  his  child  not  to  taste  of  a 
pleasant  poison  which  may  lie  in  his  way. 
Since  man  entered  his  new  abode  as  a  stranger, 
it  was  naturnal  that  he  should  receive  all  neces- 
sary instructions  and  cautions  from  the  being 
who  prepared  it  for  him,  and  introduced  him  to 
it.  Tasting  of  the  fruit  of  this  tree  introduced 
disorder  into  the  human  body,  which,  from  that 
time  forward,  was  subject  to  disease  and  death. 
In  this  way  is  God  justified,  as  every  one  can 
see,  from  the  charge  of  being  the  author  of  human 
misery ;  just  as  a  father  is  acquitted  from  blame 
in  the  misfortune  of  his  children  if  he  had  before 
cautioned  them  against  the  poison.  In  this  way, 
too,  every  one  can  understand  why  God  should 
require  obedience  from  man.  The  father  requires 
obedience  of  his  children,  because  he  knows 
better  than  they  do  what  is  best  for  them.  For 
the  same  reason  should  we  unconditionally  obey 
God.  Nor  is  the  explanation  now  given,  by 
which  the  forbidden  fruit  is  considered  in  its 
own  nature  poisonous,  a  new  explanation;  it 
is  mentioned  by  Chrysostom,  although  he  re- 
jects it. 

The  propriety  and  consistency  of  the  account 
of  the  temptation  by  means  of  the  serpent  may 
be  illustrated  by  the  following  remarks.  The 
serpent  was  used  by  almost  all  the  ancient  na- 
tions as  the  symbol  of  prudence,  adroitness,  and 


cunning.  Vide  Matt.  x.  16 ;  2  Cor.  xi.  3.  Eve 
sees  a  serpent  upon  this  forbidden  tree,  and  pro- 
bably eating  of  its  fruits,  which  to  a  serpent 
might  not  be  harmful.  And  it  is  very  natural 
that  this  should  be  first  observed  by  the  woman, 
that  her  interest  and  curiosity  should  have  been 
arrested  by  the  sight,  and  that,  with  her  greater 
susceptibility  to  temptation,  her  desires  should 
have  been  first  kindled,  and  she  first  seduced 
from  obedience.  Paul  mentions  it  as  worthy 
of  notice,  that  the  woman  first  sinned,  1  Tim. 
ii.  14,  coll.  Sir.  xxv.  32,  drto  ywouxoj  op^  ofiap- 
tf/aj.  We  may  compare  with  this  part  of  the 
narrative  the  Grecian  mythus  of  Pandora.  As 
to  what  follows,  we  very  naturally  understand 
that  Eve  reflected  upon  what  she  had  seen,  and 
expressed  her  thoughts  in  words: — "The  ser- 
pent is  a  very  lively  and  knowing  animal,  and 
yet  it  eats  of  the  fruit  which  is  forbidden  us. 
This  fruit  cannot,  therefore,  be  so  hurtful,  and 
the  prohibition  may  not  have  been  meant  in 
earnest,"  &c. — the  same  fallacies  with  which 
men  still  deceive  themselves  when  the  objects 
of  sense  entice  and  draw  them  away.  The  fact 
which  she  observed,  that  the  serpent  ate  the 
fruit  of  the  forbidden  tree  without  harm,  excited 
the  thought  which  in  ver.  4,  5  are  represented 
as  the  words  of  the  serpent,  that  it  was  worth 
while  to  eat  of  this  fruit.  It  did  not  seem  to 
occasion  death  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  appeared 
rather  to  impart  health,  vigour,  and  intelligence, 
as  was  proved  from  the  example  of  the  serpent, 
which  remained  after  eating  it  well  and  wise. 
"  Consider  me,"  the  serpent  might  have  seemed 
to  her  to  say,  "how  brisk,  sound,  and  cunning 
I  am,"  &c.  Now,  as  she  knows  of  no  being 
who  surpasses  man  in  wisdom,  excepting  God 
only,  she  supposes,  in  her  simplicity,  that  if  she 
became  wiser  than  she  then  was,  she  should 
be  like  God.  Meanwhile,  the  desire  after  that 
which  was  forbidden  became  continually  more 
irresistible.  She  took  of  the  fruit  and  ate.  The 
man,  who,  as  is  common,  was  weak  and  pliable 
enough  to  yield  to  the  solicitation  of  his  wife, 
received  the  fruit  from  her  and  ate  with  her. 

All  this  may  have  been  as  now  stated,  even 
on  the  supposition,  so  conformed  to  the  spirit 
of  the  ancient  world,  and  fully  authorized  in 
the  New  Testament,  that  the  evil  spirit  had  an 
agency  in  this  transaction.  This  supposition 
can  occasion  no  alteration  in  the  verbal  explana- 
tion of  this  record.  Satan  can  be  allowed  to  be 
no  otherwise  concerned  in  this  affair  than  as  in- 
stigator and  contriver ;  somewhat  after  the  man- 
ner of  a  malicious  and  crafty  man,  who  might 
secretly  injure  another,  by  tempting  him,  either 
by  words  or  in  any  other  way,  to  taste  of  a  poi- 
sonous article.  Those  to  whom  the  real  speak- 
ing of  the  serpent  seems  strange  and  incredible, 
may  understand  it  as  above. 

Now  it  was  in  this  transgression  of  the  divine 
z2 


270 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


law,  which  made  strict  abstinence  from  the  for- 
bidden tree  binding  upon  them,  that  their  sin  is 
placed ;  and  it  is  this  which  the  apostle  calls 
Tiopaxojj,  Rom.  v.  19.  The  rising  desires  which 
our  first  parents  felt  to  eat  the  fruit  were  founded 
in  their  nature,  and  were  not  imputed  to  them 
as  sin.  Nor  is  the  springing  up  of  involuntary 
desire  in  the  heart  of  man  ever  considered  in 
scripture  as  sin,-  but  merely  the  entertaining, 
cherishing,  and  accomplishing  of  this  desire. 
Vide  James,  i.  14.  The  sin  of  our  first  parents, 
then,  properly  consisted  in  this — that  they  were 
not  implicitly  obedient  to  God,  as  Paul  remarks 
in  the  passage  just  cited.  This  disobedience 
to  God  is  the  greatest  wrong,  and  draws  after 
itself  inevitably  the  mostinjurious  consequences, 
whether  it  is  shewn  in  greater  or  smaller  in- 
stances. Cf.  1  Sam.  xv.  23.  They  did  what 
God  had  forbidden,  under  the  impression  which 
men  are  accustomed  to  have  in  such  cases,  that 
it  was  something  trifling,  and  of  little  import. 
From  this  first  act,  there  now  arose  in  their 
minds  alienation  from  God,  distrust  of  him,  the 
desire  of  independence  of  him,  &c.  They  began 
to  say,  "that  God  had  not  allowed  them  to  be 
like  himself,"  &c. — thoughts  from  which  they 
should  have  shrunk  with  abhorrence,  and  ban- 
ished instantly  from  their  hearts. 

(2)  The  consequences  of  this  transgression  are 
narrated,  ver.  7,  seq.  The  author  does  not  give 
such  a  representation  as  would  lead  us  to  think 
that  all  piety,  virtue,  and  religion,  ceased  with 
man  immediately  upon  his  first  transgression. 
For  we  see  in  the  sequel,  that  the  knowledge 
and  worship  of  God  were  perpetuated  in  the 
family  of  Adam.  We  perceive  too,  that  our 
first  parents  felt  repentance  and  shame  after  the 
fall,  and  these  feelings  are  sufficient  proof  that 
morality  and  rectitude  were  not  wholly  oblite- 
rated by  the  fall.  Some  theologians  maintain 
that  by  the  fall  man  lost  the  image  of  God,  but 
this  is  denied  by  others.  And  both  may  be  true, 
according  as  the  image  of  God  is  understood  in 
a  wider  or  more  narrow  sense.  The  whole  dis- 
pute is  more  respecting  words  than  things. 
Vide  s.  53,  ad  finem,  and  s.  54.  The  author 
places  the  consequences  of  this  transgression 
in  the  following  particulars — viz., 

(a)  In  the  disturbed  balance  of  the  powers  and 
inclinations  of  man,  and  in  the  preponderance 
which  the  impulses  of  sense  now  obtained  over 
reason.  For  this  balance  and  harmony  of  powers 
was  that  which  constituted,  according  to  the  ac- 
count of  Moses,  the  principal  advantage  of  the 
state  of  innocence.  That  this  was  the  conse- 
quence of  the  first  transgression  is  clearly  taught 
by  Moses  in  the  expression,  "  and  they  knew  that 
they  were  naked"  which  may  be  euphemistically 
expressed  as  follows:  "They  felt  the  motions 
of  sense  uncommonly  strong,  which  they  were 
no  longer  able  to  control  as  heretofore,  but  by 


which  they  were  now  governed,  whence  the 
feeling  of  shame  arose  in  their  minds;"  as  is 
still  the  case  with  innocent  youth,  when  it  first 
begins  to  have  such  desires.  It  is  possible  that 
this  may  be  considered  as  also  the  effect  of  the 
harmful  fruit  which  had  been  eaten  by  them, 
by  which  their  nerves  were  strongly  excited  ; 
for  there  are  many  poisonous  plants  by  which 
violent  excitement  is  imparted  to  the  nerves, 
and  by  which  great  disorder  is  produced  both  in 
soul  and  body — spasmodic  affections,  stupefac- 
tion, and  delirium;  such  are  belladonna,  opium, 
thorn-apple,  and  hemlock.  This  supposition 
will  at  least  serve  to  render  the  subject  more 
intelligible,  and  to  explain  how  this  effect  may 
have  been  propagated  from  Adam  to  his  poste- 
rity, although  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to 
understand  this  effect  as  a  physical  one;  and  at 
all  events  this  should  not  be  brought  into  popu- 
lar instruction,  as  it  is  merely  conjectural.* 


*  The  views  here  expressed  respecting  the  nature 
of  the  forbidden  fruit,  and  the  consequences  of  eat- 
ing it  upon  our  first  parents,  are  the  basis  of  our  au- 
thor's ideas  respecting  the  natural  character  of  man  ; 
they  ought  therefore  to  be  carefully  examined  here, 
where  they  are  first  introduced.  It  is  easy  to  see 
how  Dr.  Knapp's  love  of  plainness  and  simplicity  of 
interpretation,  and  his  aversion  to  the  metaphysical 
and  speculative  spirit  of  his  times,  should  have  in- 
clined him  to  sentiments  like  those  which  he  has 
here  expressed  respecting  the  narrative  in  Genesis. 
Indeed,  they  may  be  said  to  result  fairly  from  adopt- 
ing and  carrying  through  the  principle  of  literal  in- 
terpretation in  application  to  this  passage.  To  the 
same  conclusion  substantially  were  Michaelis  and 
Reinhard  brought  before  him,  by  reasoning  on  the 
same  principles.  But  we  ought  to  hesitate  before 
adopting  principles  which  strip  this  opening  page  of 
human  history  of  its  chief  moral  and  religious  inter- 
est, and  substitute  transactions  so  unimportant  and 
even  trivial.  To  teach  that  the  forbidden  tree  was 
one  of  physical  poison;  that  on  this  account  mainly, 
and  not  for  the  purpose  of  testing  their  obedience, 
our  first  parents  were  warned  against  it ;  that  by 
seeing  a  serpent  feed  on  it  with  impunity,  they 
falsely  concluded  they  might  do  so ;  that  having  thus 
by  mistake  been  led  to  taste  of  it,  their  nerves  were 
excited,  their  passions  inflamed,  and  reason  weaken- 
ed ;  and,  lastly,  that  the  propagation  of  this  physical 
disorder  is  the  cause  of  the  universal  predominance 
of  sense  over  reason,  in  short,  of  human  depravity; 
these  are  propositions  so  strange  that  we  must  won- 
der how  they  could  have  been  soberly  propounded 
by  writers  of  such  eminence. 

To  minds  of  a  particular  cast,  which  had  been  dis- 
gusted with  the  assumptions  of  philosophy,  and 
wearied  with  travelling  through  its  thorny  mazes,  so 
simple  and  easy  a  solution  of  the  mysteries  of  our 
present  condition  might  naturally  furnish  repose. 
But  a  just  and  unperverted  critical  taste  must  be  of- 
fended with  an  interpretation  so  flatly  and  frigidly 
ad  literam  as  that  which  is  here  suggested. 

If  this  narrative  is  to  retain  the  least  doctrinal  in- 
terest, it  must  be  regarded  as  exhibiting  the  trial  of 
man  as  to  obedience  to  the  divine  will,  and  the  un- 
happy issue  of  this  trial.  And  if  this  meaning  be 
extracted  from  this  history,  it  is  not  of  so  much  con- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


271 


(i)  The  consequences  of  the  first  transgres- 
sion are  seen  in  still  other  evils.  Physical  evils 
are  usually  regarded  as  the  consequences  of  an- 
tecedent moral  faults,  and  experience  shews 
this  to  be  correct,  though  mistakes  are  easily 
made  in  applying  this  principle  to  particular 
cases.  When  man  was  more  perfect,  and  lived 
in  a  state  of  innocence,  he  bore  none  of  those 
loads  which  he  is  now  called  to  sustain ;  he 
was  under  no  necessity  of  tilling  the  ground 
with  weariness ;  he  lived  free  from  care,  needed 
no  clothing,  &c.  Vide  s.  56.  All  this  now 
ceased;  and  the  evils  which  began  to  appear 
were  regarded  as  the  consequences  of  the  fall, 
and  as  punishments  inflicted  by  the  Deity. 
Hence  it  is  related,  ver.  8,  that  God  sat  in  so- 
lemn judgment  upon  our  first  parents,  and  pro- 
nounced their  sentence.  And  this  was  done  in 
a  thunder  storm,  which  took  place  oi'»n  nnS— i.  e., 
at  eventide,  when  the  cool  evening  wind  began 
to  blow  at  sunset,  as  it  does  in  the  east.  This 
term  is  used  in  opposition  to  ovn  on,  meridies, 
Gen.  xviii.  1.  Man  hid  himself;  the  natural 
effect  of  the  consciousness  of  having  acted 
wrong;  and  then  comes  the  trial.  All  this  is 
perfectly  natural,  and  like  what  we  see  every 
day  in  the  case  of  crime  and  of  an  evil  con- 
science. Men,  as  here,  fear  the  presence  of 
God,  and  wish  to  conceal  themselves  from  him, 
although  they  well  know  that  this  is  impossi- 
ble. It  is  hard  for  them  to  acknowledge  their 
sins,  repent  of  them,  and  confess  them.  They 
seek  vain  excuses,  and  throw  off  the  guilt  from 
themselves  to  others;  Eve  upon  the  serpent, 
and  Adam  upon  Eve.  And  indeed,  in  these 
words — the  woman  which  THOIJ  GAVEST  me, 
Adam  seems  to  throw  the  guilt  upon  God,  as 


sequence  whether  it  be  by  an  allegorical  or  literal 
interpretation.  But  to  make  this  the  history  of  the 
imprudent  conduct  of  Adam  and  Eve  in  eating  of  a 
fruit  of  whose  fatal  qualities  they  had  been  fore- 
warned, and  thus  poisoning  themselves,  is  to  empty 
it  of  its  high  interest  as  the  account  of  the  birth  of 
sin,  and  to  reduce  it  to  a  common-place  story,  un- 
worthy of  its  place  at  the  head  of  the  history  of  man. 
It  was  well  said  by  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  long  ago, 
"  that  it  was  not  the  tree,  but  the  disobedience,  which 
had  death  in  itself,"  Contra  Autyl.  Luther,  too, 
who  in  general  followed  the  literal  interpretation, 
says,  with  regard  to  this  passage,  "  Adam  indeed 
stuck  his  teeth  into  the  apple ;  but  he  set  them,  too, 
upon  a  thorn,  which  was,  the  law  of  God  and  dis- 
obedience against  him ;  and  this  was  the  proper 
cause  of  his  misery."  Com.  on  Gen.  ii.  5. 

Some  of  the  remoter  consequences  of  Knapp's 
view  of  the  transgression  of  our  first  parents  and  its 
influence  on  their  posterity  are  not  less  singular  than 
the  first  appearance  of  his  interpretation,  'if  the  re- 
sult of  the  fall  to  Adam  was  a  physical  disorder  which 
we  inherit  from  him,  then  it  would  seem  that,  in 
order  that  man  might  be  restored,  a  physical  cure 
ought  first  to  be  effected,  and  the  first  step  towards 
his  recovery  should  be  a  medical  prescription.  But 
of  this  more  hereafter. — TR.] 


much  as  to  say,  "hadst  not  thou  given  her  to 
me,  this  evil  had  not  been  done." 

But  the  most  distinct  punishment  for  the 
transgression  of  the  divine  law  was  this — that 
they  must  die;  Gen.  ii.  17,  coll.  iii.  19.  In  the 
former  of  these  texts  the  phrase  is  nrcn  DID  (best 
rendered  by  Symmachus,  ^t^foj  toy) ;  in  the 
latter,  thou  shalt  return  to  the  earth  from  whence 
thou  wast  taken.  In  the  latter  passage,  there- 
fore, it  can  be  only  mortality  which  is  spoken 
of;  and  the  theological  distinction  of  spiritual, 
bodily,  and  eternal  death  has  no  connexion  with 
this  passage.  Some  theologians  assert  even 
that  it  does  not  relate  to  bodily  death  at  all,  but 
only  to  spiritual  and  eternal.  So  Calovius, 
Seb.  Schmidt,  Fecht,  &c.  This  mortality  now 
was  the  consequence  of  the  harmful  fruit  they 
had  eaten,  just  as  their  immortality  was  de- 
scribed as  what  would  be  the  consequence  of 
eating  of  the  tree  of  life.  And  as  men  were 
henceforward  to  be  deprived  of  immortality, 
they  were  no  more  permitted  to  eat  of  the  tree 
of  life,  and  were  therefore  removed  by  God  from 
the  garden,  ver.  22,  24.  In  the  same  way  that 
their  removal  from  the  garden  is  represented  as 
an  act  of  God,  are  we  to  understand  the  direc- 
tion that  they  should  be  clothed  with  the  skins  of 
beasts,  ("  God  made  them  coats  of  skins,"  as  it 
is  said,  ver.  21) — viz.,  as  an  instruction  which 
they  received  directly  and  immediately  from 
God ;  for  it  was  a  common  opinion  throughout 
the  ancient  world,  that  God  had  directly  com- 
municated to  men  the  knowledge  of  many  use- 
ful inventions. 

In  the  words,  ver.  22,  "Adam  has  become 
like  one  of  us,  knowing  good  and  evil,"  there 
is  something  ironical,  and  they  refer  to  ver.  5, 
as  much  as  to  say,  "  we  see  now  how  it  is,  man 
wished  to  become  wise  and  like  to  God,  but  in 
breaking  the  commandment  of  God  he  acted 
like  a  fool."  Others  render  these  words,  "Ae 
WAS  like  one  of  us,  but  now  is  so  no  more." 

With  respect  to  the  curse  pronounced  upon 
the  serpent,  ver.  14,  many  difficulties  are  found. 
How  can  the  serpent,  which,  even  supposing  it 
the  instrument  of  the  devil,  was  an  innocent 
cause  of  the  temptation,  have  been  punished  1 
This  certainly  does  not  seem  to  agree  with  our 
present  ideas  of  punishment,  and  what  consti- 
tutes capacity  for  it.  But  if  we  notice  the  con- 
duct of  children,  and  of  rude  and  uncultivated 
men,  we  shall  find  a  solution.  God  deals  with 
men  more  humano,  and  condescends  in  his  con- 
duct to  their  limited  and  infantine  comprehen- 
sions. When  children  are  injured  by  an  animal, 
or  even  by  an  inanimate  thing,  they  often  pro- 
ceed in  the  same  way  as  they  would  with  one 
like  themselves.  The  sense  of  the  injury  which 
they  have  experienced,  and  the  displeasure 
which  they  naturally  feel,  leads  them  to  wish 
for  recornpence ;  and  they  feel  a  kind  of  satis- 


272 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


faction  when  the  cause  of  the  injury  done  them, 
even  if  it  be  a  lifeless  object,  is  in  their  view 
repaid.  To  these  conceptions  does  God  here 
condescend,  and  designs  to  impress  upon  the 
minds  of  our  first  parents,  by  this  vivid  repre- 
sentation, the  idea  that  the  tempter  in  this 
transaction  would  not  go  unrewarded,  and  that 
every  tempter  must  expect  to  receive  from  him 
unavoidable  and  severe  punishment.  This  is 
the  doctrine  which  is  taught  them  in  this,  so  to 
speak,  sensible,  manner.  The  punishment  in- 
flicted upon  the  invisible  agent  concerned  in 
this  temptation  could  not  be  made  obvious  to 
them  ;  it  must  therefore  be  made  to  fall  upon  the 
instrument.  Enough  for  them  that  they  could 
derive  from  the  punishment  of  the  serpent  this 
doctrine,  which,  in  the  state  in  which  they  then 
were,  could  have  been  in  no  other  way  made  so 
obvious  and  impressive.  Hence  the  fear  and 
dread  of  the  serpent  which  is  felt  by  man  and 
beast.  It  is  the  image  of  baseness,  and  cleaves 
to  the  ground.  To  eat  dust,  is  a  figurative  ex- 
pression, denoting  to  be  levelled  with  the  ground, 
laid  in  the  dust,  Is.  xlix.  23.  So,  1o  eat  ashes, 
Ps.  cii.  10,  and  the  phrase  humum  ore  memordit, 
used  by  Virgil  with  respect  to  one  struck  dead 
,  to  the  earth.  Cf.  Horn.  Odyss.  xxii.  269. 

(3)  Ver.  15, 1  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and 
the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed ;  it 
shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his 
heel,  jnr  in  the  first  case  denotes  the  posterity 
of  the  serpent — the  serpent  race  ,•  in  the  second 
case,  either  collectively,  the  posterity  of  Eve, 
yswytoi  yvvaixuv,  Matt.  xi.  11;  or  one  of  this 
posterity,  a  descendant  or  son  of  Eve ;  for  in  this 
latter  sense  may  jnr  in  the  singular  be  taken, 
according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom — e.  g.,  Gen.  iv. 
25.  Taken  in  this  sense  it  is  referred  to  the 
Messiah,  the  second  Adam,  who  even  by  the 
later  Jews  was  denominated  jnr,  the  descendant 
sometimes  of  Adam  and  sometimes  of  Abraham. 
Vide  Gal.  v.  16,  and  Wetstein  ad.  h.  1.  These 
words  admit  of  a  threefold  construction,  neither 
of  which  is  inconsistent  with,  or  entirely  ex- 
cludes the  others,  and  either  of  which  contains 
instruction  for  those  to  whom  these  words  were 
first  addressed,  and  to  their  posterity. 

(a)  If  these  words  are  referred  to  the  serpent 
here  visible,  the  sense  is,  "  It  is  my  will  that  en- 
mity should  exist  between  thee  and  the  woman, 
between  thy  breed  and  her  descendants — i.  e., 
there  shall  be  a  constant  hatred  between  the 
human  and  the  serpent  race.  Men  shall  aim  at 
thy  head,  and  thou  at  their  heel — i.  e.,  they 
shall  seek  thy  life,  and  thou  shalt  seek  to  injure 
them  by  thy  poisonous  bite  whenever  thou 
canst."  Cf.  Zacharia,  Bibl.  Theol.,  th.  ii.  s. 
318,  and  Repert.  iv.  250,  f. 

(6)  Everything  which  took  place  here  was 
designed  to  give  moral  instruction  to  our  first 
parents.  In  this  way  it  was  intended  to  teach 


them  respecting  the  external  occasions  and  ex- 
citements to  sin ;  and  by  means  of  the  serpent, 
this  lesson  was  made  plain  and  ebvious  to  their 
senses.  Hence  wre  have  in  these  words  the  fol- 
lowing maxim  :  "  Thou  and  thy  posterity  (i.  e., 
all  men)  will  have  from  henceforward  a  constant 
warfare  against  sin  to  maintain.  The  victory 
of  man  over  the  tempter  and  his  seductions  will 
be  difficult  and  uncertain;  they  will  be  in  con- 
stant contention  with  each  other,  and  men  will 
not  come  off  uninjured,  nor  will  they  remain 
hereafter  unseduced,  and  must  always  feel  the 
injurious  consequences  of  transgression." 

(c)  If  jnr  in  the  second  case  denotes  a  single 
individual  among  the  descendants  of  Adam,  it^ 
refers  to  the  Messiah,  who  has  destroyed  the 
power  of  the  tempter  and  of  sin,  and  who  has 
also  made  it  possible  for  all  his  followers  to 
overcome  them.  Vide  1  John,  iii.  8.  Our  first 
parents  could  not  indeed  have  understood  these 
words  as  a  distinct  prophecy  respecting  the  Mes- 
siah, for  they  were  not  able  at  that  time  to  com- 
prehend the  idea  of  a  Messiah  in  all  its  extent; 
nor  is  this  text  ever  cited  in  the  New  Testament 
as  a  prophecy  respecting  Christ.  From  these 
words,  however,  they  could  easily  deduce  the 
idea,  that  in  this  contest  the  human  race  might 
and  would  come  off  finally  victorious.  The 
head  of  the  serpent  would  be  bruised  for  its  en- 
tire destruction,  and  the  only  revenge  it  could 
take  would  be,  to  bite  the  heel;  it  could  injure 
less  than  it  would  itself  be  injured.  Hence  it 
was  here,  as  Paul  says  respecting  the  patriarchs, 
Heb.  xi.  13,  they  received  the  promise  from 
God,  but  saw  that  which  was  promised  n6f>^n^tfv. 
Respecting  th,e  manner  in  which  this  promise 
should  be  fulfilled,  and  the  person  through  whom 
it  should  be  performed,  more  full  revelations 
were  gradually  given  at  a  later  period.  So  that 
even  although  our  first  parents  might  not  have 
been  able  to  refer  this  jnj  to  one  particular  de- 
scendant of  Adam,  they  might  yet  find  in  these 
words  a  consoling  promise  of  God.  And  for 
this  reason  we  may  justly  call  this  passage,  as 
it  has  been  called  by  some  of  the  church  fathers, 
protevangelium,  because  it  contains  the  first  joy- 
ful promise  ever  given  to  our  race.  Vide  Storr, 
De  Protevangelio ;  Tubingae,  1781.  [Hengsten- 
berg,  Christologie.  Smith,  Scripture  Testimony 
to  the  Messiah,  vol.  i. — TR.] 

Note. — In  explaining  the  history  of  the  fall  to 
the  people,  the  teacher  should  dwell  mostly 
upon  the  internal  truth  and  the  practical  instruc- 
tion contained  in  it.  In  conformity  with  the 
remark  at  the  latter  part  of  No.  I.  of  this  section, 
he  must  shew,  from  the  example  of  the  proge- 
nitors of  our  race,  not  only  how  sin  first  entered 
into  the  world,  but  also  how  it  is  still  accus- 
tomed to  arise.  In  doing  this  he  can  appeal  to 
James,  i.  13 — 15,  and  then  illustrate  the  truth 
by  examples,  such  as  daily  occur.  In  this  way 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


273 


he  may  rescue  this  history  from  the  contempt 
sometimes  thrown  upon  it,  and  teach  those  en- 
trusted to  his  care  to  regard  it  not  as  a  fable, 
but  seriously  to  reflect  upon  it  in  such  a  manner 
as  may  be  profitable  to  them.  He  must  treat  it 
entirely  as  fact  or  history,  in  the  same  manner 
as  it  is  treated  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment. Let  him  by  no  means  initiate  his  hear- 
ers into  all  the  hypotheses  and  controversies  of 
the  learned  on  this  subject,  since  they  are  un- 
able to  form  a  judgment  respecting  them,  and 
will  be  rather  confounded  than  enlightened  by 
hearing  them  recited.  And  since  in  the  New 
Testament  the  devil  is  represented  as  having  an 
agency  in  this  transaction,  he  must  also  be  so 
represented  by  the  Christian  teacher,  who,  how- 
ever, must  not  attempt  to  determine  the  manner 
in  which  this  agency  was  exerted,  as  on  this 
point  the  scripture  says  nothing. 

[On  the  general  subject  of  this  section  cf.  the 
authors  before  referred  to,  Tholuck,  Lehre  von 
der  Siinde,  Appendix,  s.  264 ;  Schleirmacher, 
Glaubenslehre,  b.  ii.  s.  59 ;  Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s. 
345,  s.  78 ;  Bretschneider,  Handbuch,  b.  ii.  s. 
58,  s.  125 ;  Herder,  Geist  der  Ebrai.  Poesie,  b. 
i.  s.  136,  ff.— TR.] 

SECTION  LXXVI. 

OF  THE  IMPUTATION  OF  THE  SIN  OF  OUR  FIRST 
PARENTS. 

IT  is  taught  in  theology,  that  the  transgres- 
sion of  the  progenitors  of  mankind  had  a  two- 
fold influence  upon  their  posterity — viz.,  a  phy- 
sical influence  in  the  propagation  of  sinful  desires 
and  moral  imperfection,  and  also  a  moral  influ- 
ence, which  is  commonly  considered  as  properly 
imputationem  peccati  Adamitici.  These  two  do 
not  necessarily  belong  together,  although  impu- 
tatio  and  peccatum  originate  have  been  often 
connected  together  by  theologians.  They  may, 
however,  be  distinguished  ;  and  one  may  easily 
affirm  moral  corruption  while  he  denies  imputa- 
tion, and  the  reverse.  We  shall  therefore  first 
treat  of  imputation,  and  then  show  how,  accord- 
ing to  the  scriptures,  the  two  are  united. 

Now,  whatever  diversity  there  may  exist  in 
the  opinions  of  theologians  respecting  imputa- 
tion when  they  come  to  express  their  own  views 
definitely,  they  will  yet,  for  the  most  part,  agree 
that  the  phrase,  God  imputes  the,  sin  of  our  pro- 
genitors to  their  posterity,  means,  that  for  the  sin 
committed  by  our  progenitors  God  punishes  their 
descendants.  The  term  to  impute  is  used  in  dif- 
ferent senses,  (a)  It  is  said  of  a  creditor,  who 
charges  something  to  his  debtor  as  debt;  like 
arn,  and  Xoyi^Ojuat  and  £M.oy«o — e.  g.,  Philem. 
ver.  18.  (6)  It  is  transferred  to  human  judg- 
ment, when  any  one  is  punished,  or  declared 
deserving  of  punishment.  Crime  is  regarded 
as  a  debt,  which  must  be  cancelled  partly  by 
35 


actual  restitution  and  partly  by  punishment, 
(c)  This  now  is  applied  to  God,  who  imputes 
sin  when  he  pronounces  men  guilty,  and  treats 
them  accordingly — i.  e.,  when  he  actually  pu- 
nishes the  sin  of  men,  (jij?  atsfri,  fcoy«£radac  a^ap- 
,  Ps.  xxxii.  2.)  The  one  punished  is  called 
yj,  in  opposition  to  one  to  whom  nfvtt1?  aisfri, 
who  is  rewarded,  Ps.  cvi.  31 ;  Rom.  iv.  3. 

In  order  to  learn  what  is  taught  in  the  theo 
logical  schools  on  this  subject,  we  must  pursue 
the  historic  method,  or  we  shall  grope  in  the 
dark. 

1.  Opinions  of  the  Jews. 

The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  is  not  called 
in  the  Mosaic  narrative,  or  anywhere  in  the  Old 
Testament,  by  the  name  of  imputation,  although 
the  doctrine  of  imputation  is  contained  in  it,  as 
we  shall  soon  see.  But  in  the  writings  of  the 
Talmudists,  and  of  the  Rabbins,  and  still  earlier 
in  the  Chaldaic  paraphrases  on  the  Old  Testa- 
merit,  we  find  it  asserted,  in  so  many  words, 
that  the  posterity  of  Adam  were  punished  with 
bodily  death  on  account  of  his  first  sin,  although 
they  themselves  had  never  sinned.  Cf.  the 
Chaldaic  paraphrase  on  Ruth,  iv.  22,  "Because 
Eve  ate  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  all  the  inhabitants 
of  the  earth  are  subject  to  death."  In  this  way 
they  accounted  to  themselves  for  the  death  of 
the  greatest  saints,  who,  as  they  supposed,  had 
never  themselves  sinned.  They  taught,  also, 
that  in  the  person  of  Adam  the  whole  multitude 
or  mass  of  his  posterity  had  sinned.  Vide  the 
Commentators  on  Rom.  v.,  especially  Wetstein 
and  Koppe.  As  early  as  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tles, this  doctrine  was  widely  prevalent  among 
the  Jews.  It  is  clearly  taught  by  Paul,  in  Rom. 
v.  12, 14,  and  is  there  placed  by  him  in  intimate 
connexion  with  the  more  peculiar  Christian  doc- 
trines. In  this  passage  he  has  employed  ex- 
actly the  same  expressions  which  we  find  among 
the  Rabbins. 

How  was  this  doctrine  developed  and  brought 
to  such  clearness  among  the  Jews?  They  pro- 
ceeded from  the  scriptural  maxim,  that  man  was 
created  immortal,  and  that  the  death  of  Adam 
was  a  consequence  of  his  transgression.  And 
since  all  the  posterity  of  Adam  die,  although  all 
have  not  themselves  sinned  (e.  g.,  children), 
they  concluded  that  these  too  must  endure  this 
evil  on  account  of  Adam's  transgression.  Cf. 
Book  of  WTisdom,  ii.  23,  24.  Sirach,  xxv.  32, 
arto  yvvaixb$  a^x^l  aftapfuxj,  XOA  8t'  avt^v  arto- 
^vrtoxofji.£v  rtavffj.  Farther  than  this,  which  is 
evidently  founded  in  the  scriptures,  they  did  not 
go.  In  order  to  illustrate  this  doctrine  and  ren- 
der it  plain,  they  probably  resorted  to  some 
analogies ;  such,  for  example,  as  the  fact,  that 
children  must  often  suffer  for  the  crimes  of  their 
parents,  in  which  they  had  no  share ;  and  that, 
according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  the  iniquity  of 


274 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


parents  was  visited  upon  the  children  of  the 
third  and  fourth  generation.  In  what  way  they 
probably  conceived  of  imputation,  and  formed 
their  conclusions  about  it,  may  be  seen  from  the 
remarkable  passage,  Heb.  vii.  9,  10.  The  pa- 
triarch Levi  (who,  according  to  the  Mosaic  law, 
receives  the  tithes)  paid  tithes  to  Melchisedec  in 
the  person  of  Abraham — i.  e.,  it  is  to  be  consi- 
dered the  same  as  if  the  Levites  paid  tithes  to 
Melchisedec  when  Abraham  paid  t^em,/or  Levi 
was  in  the  loins  of  his  father  Abraham  when  he 
met  Melchisedec — i.  e.,  he  already  existed  in 
Abraham,  although  he  was  not  yet  born.  What 
Abraham  did  is  to  be  considered  as  if  it  had 
been  done  by  his  descendant ;  for  had  he  lived 
at  that  time  he  would  have  done  the  same  that 
Abraham  then  did. 

II.  Opinions  of  the  New-Testament  "Writers. 

This  doctrine  is  most  clearly  taught  in  Rom. 
v.  12 — 14,  a  passage  which  is  very  variously  ex- 
plained. It  is  also  briefly  exhibited  in  1  Cor.  xv. 
21,  22.  Vide  Tollner,  Theol.  Untersuchungen, 
Theil  i.  st.  2,  s.  56.  Modern  philosophers  and 
theologians  have  found  many  things  here  incon- 
sistent with  their  philosophical  systems.  And 
some  of  them  have  laboured  so  hard  and  long 
upon  this  passage  that  they  have  at  length  ex- 
torted a  sense  from  it,  in  which  nothing  of  im- 
putation could  any  longer  be  discerned ;  and  this 
is  the  case  with  Doderlein  in  his  "Dogmatik." 
They  did  not  consider,  however,  that  Paul  here 
makes  use  of  the  same  words  and  phrases  which 
were  then  common  among  the  Jews  on  the  sub- 
ject of  imputation,  and  that  he  could  not  there- 
fore have  been  otherwise  understood  by  his  con- 
temporary readers ;  and  that  Paul  has  also 
reasoned  in  the  same  way  on  another  subject, 
Heb.  vii.  9,  10.  Cf.  No.  I. 

Paul  shews,  in  substance,  that  all  men  are 
regarded  and  punished  by  God  as  sinners,  and 
that  the  ground  of  this  lies  in  the  act  of  one 
man ;  as,  on  the  contrary,  deliverance  from  pu- 
nishment depends  also  upon  one  man,  Jesus 
Christ.  If  the  words  of  Paul  are  not  perverted, 
it  must  be  allowed,  that  in  Rom.  v.  12 — 14,  he 
thus  reasons :  "The  cause  of  the  universal  mor- 
tality of  the  human  race  lies  in  Adam's  trans- 
gression. He  sinned,  and  so  became  mortal. 
Other  men  are  regarded  and  treated  by  God  as 
punishable,  because  they  are  the  posterity  of 
Adam,  the  first  transgressor,  and  consequently 
they  too  are  mortal.  Should  it  now  be  objected, 
that  the  men  who  lived  from  Adam  to  Moses 
might  themselves  have  personally  sinned,  and 
so  have  been  punished  with  death  on  their  own 
account,  it  might  be  answered,  that  those  who 
lived  before  the  time  of  Moses  had  no  express 
and  positive  law  which  threatened  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,  like  those  who  lived  after  Moses. 
The  positive  law  of  Moses  was  not  as  yet  given ; 


they  could  not,  consequently,  be  punished  on 
account  of  their  own  transgressions,  as  no  law 
was  as  yet  given  to  them ;  ver.  14.  Still  they 
must  die,  like  Adam,  who  transgressed  a  posi- 
tive law.  Hence  their  mortality  must  have  an- 
other cause,  and  this  is  to  be  sought  in  the  im- 
putation of  Adam's  transgression.  And  in  the 
same  way,  the  ground  of  the  justification  of  man 
lies  not  in  himself,  but  in  Christ,  the  second 
Adam." 

Such  is  the  argument  of  Paul  in  this  passage. 
But  respecting  eternal  death^  or  the  torments  of 
hell,  he  here  says  nothing,  and  is  far  from  im- 
plying that  on  account  of  a  sin  committed  by 
another  man  long  before  their  birth,  God  pu- 
nishes men  with  eternal  hell  torments.  On  the 
contrary,  he  here  speaks  of  bodily  death  merely, 
as  the  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  And 
herein  the  learned  Jews  agreed  with  him.  And 
in  the  passage  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  seq.,  Paul  shews 
that  the  resurrection  to  a  blessed  immortality 
will  be  the  best  and  highest  proof  of  our  entire 
restoration  through  Jesus  Christ,  even  as  bodily 
death  is  the  first  and  most  striking  proof  of  our 
degeneracy  through  Adam.  [On  this  passage, 
cf.  Tholuck,  Comm.  iib.  Rom.  v. ;  Usteri,  Ent- 
wickel.  d.  paulin.  LehrbegriflFs ;  Edwards,  Ori- 
ginal Sin,  chap.  iv.  p.  352;  Stuart's  Comment- 
ary on  Rom.  v.  and  Excursus. — TR.] 

III.  Hypotheses  of  Theologians. 

The  greatest  difficulties  with  respect  to  this 
doctrine  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  many 
have  treated  what  is  said  by  Paul  in  the  fifth  of 
Romans — a  passage  wholly  popular,  and  any- 
thing but  formally  exact  and  didactic — in  a  learn- 
ed and  philosophical  manner,  and  have  defined 
terms  used  by  him  in  a  loose  and  popular  way, 
by  logical  and  scholastic  distinctions.  We  do 
not  find  anywhere  among  the  ancients,  in  their 
popular  discourses,  an  exact  and  philosophically 
precise  use  of  terms  with  respect  to  the  conse- 
quences and  the  punishment  of  sin.  They  fre- 
quently use  the  word  punishment  in  a  wider 
sense,  in  which  it  is  here  and  .elsewhere  em- 
ployed by  Paul.  He  and  the  Jewish  teachers, 
with  whom  in  this  particular  he  agrees,  use  pu- 
nishment (xataxpt/ta,)  imputation  of  sin,  &c.,  in 
the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  said  respecting 
children,  for  example,  that  they  me  punished  on 
account  of  the  crimes  of  their  ancestors,  that  the 
crimes  of  their  ancestors  are  imputed  to  them, 
&c. ;  although  they,  in  their  own  persons,  had 
no  share  in  the  guilt,  and  could  not,  therefore, 
in  the  strictest  philosophical  and  juridical  sense, 
be  considered  as  the  subjects  of  imputation  and 
punishment.  The  family  of  a  traitor,  whose 
name  is  disgraced,  and  whose  goods  are  confis- 
cated, are  thus  said  to  be  punished  on  his  ac- 
count. Respecting  Louis  XVI.,  who  was  so 
unfortunate,  and  suffered  so  much  in  consequence 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


275 


of  the  errors  of  his  predecessors  Louis  XIV.  and 
XV.,  it  would  be  commonly  said,  without  hesi- 
tation, that  he  endured  punishment  on  their  ac- 
count, and  had  to  atone  for  or  expiate  their 
crimes.  Here,  what  is  merely  the  consequence 
of  the  sin  of  another,  is  called,  from  some  ana- 
logy between  them,  the  punishment  of  one  who 
has  no  personal  guilt  in  the  matter.  Just  such 
is  the  case  here.  Mortality  was  to  Adam  the 
punishment  of  his  sin,  strictly  speaking.  His 
posterity  are  also  mortal,  since  a  mortal  cannot 
beget  those  who  are  immortal.  With  them, 
therefore,  mortality  is  the  natural  consequence 
of  Adam's  sin,  but  not  their  punishment,  in  the 
proper  juridico-philosophical  sense  of  the  word, 
because  they  themselves  had  no  share  in  the 
first  transgression.  Imputation,  therefore,  of 
the  sin  of  Adam,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word 
imputation,  does  not  exist  with  regard  to  us,  his 
posterity,  since  we  only  suffer  the  baleful  con- 
sequences of  the  sin  of  the  first  man,  of  which 
we  ourselves  were  not,  however,  guilty,  and  for 
which  we  cannot  therefore  be  punished.  Speak- 
ing, however,  in  a  loose  and  popular  way,  we 
may  call  what  we  endure,  punishment  and  im- 
putation. 

By  this  observation,  many  difficulties  in  other 
passages  of  scripture  are  obviated.  So  when 
Moses  says,  "  the  iniquity  of  the  father  shall  be 
visited  upon  his  posterity  from  generation  to 
generation,"  (cf.  Ezek.  xviii.  4,  20,  coll.  Jer. 
xxxi.  29,  30,)  he  is  to  be  understood  as  speak- 
ing in  a  popular  way  of  the  consequences  which 
should  befal  the  posterity  of  the  wicked  without 
any  fault  of  their  own.  When,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  said,  "the  son  shall  not  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  father,"  it  is  to  be  understood  as 
a  maxim  of  justice,  and  to  be  taken  in  the  literal 
sense.  Paul  himself  says,  in  other  passages, 
that  man  will  be  punished  solely  on  his  own 
account.  Rom.  ii.  6,  i.  18,  seq.;  Gal.  vi.  5; 
2  Cor.  v.  10.  In  these  he  speaks  sensu  proprio 
etforensi.  He  also  teaches  expressly,  that  re- 
ward and  punishment  do  not  depend  upon  na- 
tural birth  and  derivation,  Rom.  ix.  11;  and 
Jesus  rejects  the  opinion  suggested  by  his  dis- 
ciples, that  the  misfortune  of  the  one  born  blind 
was  to  be  regarded  as  the  imputation  of  the 
guilt  of  his  parents,  John,  ix.  2,  3. 

But  why  is  language  used  in  such  a  manner 
with  regard  to  this  subject  in  the  scriptures'? 
The  principal  reason  why  the  word  punishment 
is  used  in  this  connexion  lies  in  the  fact  that 
there  is,  in  all  the  mortal  descendants  of  Adam, 
a  preponderance  of  carnal  appetites  and  pas- 
sions, and  that  they  are  invariably  seduced  by 
these  into  actual  sin,  and  so  become  punish- 
able. There  is  not  one  upon  earth  who  re- 
mains uncorrupted,  and  consequently  all  are 
rendered  liable  to  punishment.  Vide  Rom.  v. 
12 ;  Ephes.  ii.  3.  God  would  not  treat  all  men 


as  sinners  did  they  not  in  this  respect  resemble 
Adam. 

We  find,  accordingly,  that  the  passage  in 
Rom.  v.  was  never  understood  in  the  ancient 
Grecian  church,  down  to  the  fourth  century,  to 
teach  imputation,  in  a  strictly  philosophical  and 
judicial  sense;  certainly  Origen  and  the  writers 
immediately  succeeding  him,  exhibit  nothing 
of  this  opinion.  They  regard  bodily  death  as  a 
consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  not  as  a 
punishment,  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  of 
this  term.  Thus  Chrysostom  says,  upon  Rom. 
V.  12,  'ExftWu  rtsaovtos  ('ASc^ii),  xai  ol  py  $a- 
yovff  $  drto  -fov  |v7.oi),  •yeywcKHv  if  exsivov  ^vytoi. 
And  Cyril  (Adv.  Anthropom.  c.  8)  says,  ol  y«- 
oArtov  ('ASujtt),  wj  ajtb 


The  Latin  church,  on  the  other  hand,  was  the 
proper  seat  of  the  strict  doctrine  of  imputation. 
There  they  began  to  interpret  the  words  of  Paul, 
as  if  he  were  a  scholastic  and  logical  writer. 
One  cause  of  their  misapprehending  so  entirely 
the  spirit  of  this  passage  was,  that  the  word  im- 
putare  (a  word  in  common  use  among  civilians 
and  in  judicial  affairs)  had  been  employed  in  the 
Latin  versions  in  rendering  ver.  13  of  Rom.  v.  ; 
and  that  £>'  u>  (ver.  12)  had  been  translated  in 
quo,  and  could  refer,  as  they  supposed,  to  nobody 
but  Adam.  This  opinion  was  then  associated 
with  some  peculiar  philosophical  ideas  then  pre- 
valent in  the  West,  and  from  the  whole  a  doc- 
trine de  imputations  was  formed,  in  a  sense 
wholly  unknown  to  the  Hebrews,  to  the  New 
Testament,  and  to  the  Grecian  church.  We  may 
hence  see  the  reason  of  the  fact,  that  the  Gre- 
cian teachers  —  e.  g.,  those  in  Palestine  —  took 
sides  with  Pelagius  against  the  teachers  of  the 
African  church. 

The  following  are  the  principal  theories  which 
have  been  adopted  in  the  Western  church,  to 
illustrate  the  mode  of  imputation,  and  to  vindi- 
cate hs  justice. 

(1)  The  oldest  hypothesis  is  that  which  af- 
firmed that  all  the  posterity  of  Adam  were,  in 
the  most  literal  sense,  already  in  him,  and  sin- 
ned in  him  —  in  his  person  ;  and  that  Adam's  sin 
is  therefore  justly  imputed  by  God  to  all  his  pos- 
terity. This  hypothesis  has  its  ground  in  the 
opinion  that  the  souls  of  children  have  existed, 
either  in  reality,  or  at  least  potentially,  in  their 
parents,  and  this  as  far  back  as  Adam  ;  and  that 
in  this  way  the  souls  of  all  his  posterity  partici- 
pated in  the  actions  done  in  his  person,  although 
they  themselves  were  never  after  conscious  of 
such  action.  Vide  s.  57,  II.  3.  This  was  the 
doctrine  of  the  Traduciani,  which  Tertollian  also 
professed.  And  it  was  upon  this  ground  prin- 
cipally that  the  strict  doctrine  of  imputation  was 
maintained  in  the  Latin  church  ;  even  Ambro- 
sius  placed  his  defence  of  it  upon  this  basis. 
But  this  doctrine  was  argued  with  the  greatest 


276 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


zeal  by  Augustine,  in  opposition  to  Pelagius,  and 
after  his  time  was  generally  received  in  the 
Western  church;  although  Augustine  himself 
was  often  doubtful  in  respect  to  Traducianism. 
What  Paul  had  taught  in  a  loose,  popular  way, 
respecting  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  was 
now  taken  by  Augustine  and  his  followers  in  a 
strict,  philosophical,  and  legal  sense.  Ambro- 
sius  says,  Omnes  in  primo  homine  (Ity  w)  pecca- 
vimus,  et  culpas  successio  ob  uno  in  omnes  trans- 
fusa  cst.  Augustine  says,  In  Adamo  omnes  pec- 
carunt,  in  lumbis  JLdami.  erat  genus  humanum. 
Also,  Infantes  ab  eo  trahunt  peccati  reatum,  mor- 
tisque  supplicium.  For  a  full  collection  of  texts 
on  this  controversy,  vide  Vossius,  Historia  Pe- 
lagiana.  [Vide  Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  80,  An- 
merk.  1,  2. — TR.]  In  form,  these  declarations 
have  an  apparent  resemblance  to  the  doctrine  of 
Paul;  but  the  resemblance  is  only  apparent. 
Augustine  understands  in  a  strictly  philosophical 
sense  what,  as  we  have  seen  above,  was  said  by 
Paul  in  a  popular  manner. 

In  opposition  to  Augustine,  Pelagius  taught 
that  Adam  hurt  himself  alone,  and  not  his  pos- 
terity, by  his  transgression,  and  t.hat  it  would  be 
unjust  for  God  to  impute  his  guilt  to  his  innocent 
descendants — a  doctrine  evidently  opposed  to 
that  of  Paul. 

As  the  theory  of  Augustine  rests  upon  a  base- 
less hypothesis,  it  does  not  need  a  formal  refuta- 
tion. It  was  the  prevailing  theory  among  the 
schoolmen,  and  even  throughout  the  sixteenth 
centur}r,  and  until  about  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth, when  it  was  contested  by  the  French  re- 
formed theologians,  Joshua  Placaeus,  and  Moses 
Amyraldus,  who,  however,  were  violently  op- 
posed. In  England,  too,  it  was  contested  by 
Thomas  Burnet.  The  advocates  of  this  theory 
endeavoured  to  defend  it  by  means  of  the  theory 
of  spermatic  animalculae^  which  arose  about  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  WThen,  by 
means  of  the  magnifying  glass,  these  spermatic 
animalculae  were  observed,  the  thought  occur- 
red that  they  were  the  cause  of  impregnation. 
And  some  then  affirmed  that  the  souls  of  all  men 
were  in  Adam,  had  their  seat  in  these  invisible 
animalculae,  participated  in  everything  which  he 
did,  and  consequently  sinned  with  him.  While, 
therefore,  the  Biblical  theologians  of  the  protest- 
ant  church  have  justly  held  fast  the  doctrine  of 
imputation,  they  have  abandoned  the  theory  of 
Augustine,  because  this  does  not  accord  either 
with  reason  or  with  scripture,  and  because  it 
furnishes  no  adequate  vindication  for  God  in  this 
procedure.  In  place  of  this  theory,  our  theolo- 
gians have  substituted  others,  either  invented  by 
themselves  or  adopted  from  different  authorities. 

(2)  Many  have  inferred  the  justice  of  imputa- 
tion from  the  supposition  that  Adam  was  not 
only  the  natural  or  seminal,  bnt  also  the  moral 
head  of  the  human  race,  or  even  its  representative 


and  federal  head.  They  suppose,  accordingly, 
that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  us,  on  the 
same  principle  on  which  the  doings  of  the  head 
of  a  family,  or  of  the  plenipotentiary  of  a  state, 
are  imputed  to  his  family  or  state,  although  they 
had  no  personal  agency  in  his  doings.  In  the 
same  way,  they  suppose  Christ  took  the  place 
of  all  men,  and  that  what  he  did  is  imputed  to 
them.  According  to  this  theory,  God  entered 
into  a  league  or  covenant  with  Adam,  and  so 
Adam  represented  and  took  the  place  of  the 
whole  human  race.  This  theory  was  invented 
by  some  schoolmen,  and  has  been  adopted  by 
many  in  the  Romish  and  protestant  church  since 
the  sixteenth  century,  and  was  defended  even  in 
the  eighteenth  century  by  some  Lutheran  theolo- 
gians, as  Pfaff  of  Tubingen,  some  of  the  follow- 
ers of  Wolf,  (e.  g.,  Carpzov,  in  his  "  Comm.  de 
Imputationefactiproprii  et  alieni"}  and  Baum- 
garten,  in  his  Dogmatik,  and  disputation,  "de 
imputatione  peccati  Jldamitici"  But  it  was  more 
particularly  favoured  by  the  reformed  theolo- 
gians, especially  by  the  disciples  of  Cocceius,  at 
the  end  of  the  seventeenth  and  commencement 
of  the  eighteenth  century — e.  g.,  by  Witsius,  in 
his  "  (Economia  fcederum."  They  appeal  to 
Hosea,  vi.  7,  "They  transgressed  the  covenant, 
like  Adarn" — i.  e.,  broke  the  divine  laws.  But 
where  is  it  said  that  Adam  was  their  federal  head, 
and  that  his  transgression  is  imputed  to  them  1 
On  this  text  Morus  justly  observes,  "est  mera 
comparatio  Judaeorum  peccantium  cum  Adamo 
peccante."  Other  texts  are  also  cited  in  behalf 
of  this  opinion. 

But,  for  various  reasons,  this  theory  cannot  be 
correct.  And,  («)  The  descendants  of  Adam 
never  empowered  him  to  be  their  representative, 
and  to  act  in  their  name.  (Z>)  It  cannot  be  shewn 
from  the  Bible  that  Adam  was  informed  that  the 
fate  of  all  his  posterity  was  involved  in  his  own. 
(c)  If  the  transgression  of  Adam  is  imputed,  by 
right  of  covenant,  to  all  his  posterity,  then,  in 
justice,  all  their  transgressions  should  be  again 
imputed  to  him  as  the  guilty  cause  of  all  their 
misery  and  sin.  What  a  mass  of  guilt,  then, 
would  come  upon  Adam!  But  of  all  this,  no- 
thing is  said  in  the  scriptures,  (d)  The  impu- 
tation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  cannot  be 
alleged  in  support  of  this  theory.  For  this  is 
imputed  to  men  only  by  their  own  will  and 
consent.  This  hypothesis  has  been  opposed, 
with  good  reason,  by  John  Taylor,  in  his  work 
on  original  sin,  which  will  be  hereafter  noticed. 

(3)  Others  endeavour  to  deduce  the  doctrine 
of  imputation  from  the  scientia  media  of  God,  or 
from  his  foreknowledge  of  what  is  conditionally 
possible.  The  sin  of  Adam,  they  say,  is  im- 
puted to  us,  because  God  foresaw  that  each  one 
of  us  would  have  committed  it  if  he  had  been 
in  Adam's  stead,  or  placed  in  his  circum- 
stances. Even  Augustine  says,  that  the  sin  of 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


277 


Adam  is  imputed  to  us  propter  consewionem,  or 
consensum  prxsumptum.  This  theory  has  been 
advanced,  in  modern  times,  by  Reusch,  in  his 
Introductio  in  Theologiam  revelatam,"  and  in 
Brunquell's  work,  "Die  gute  Sache  Gottes, 
bey  Zurechnung  des  Falls;"  Jena,  1749.  But 
it  is  a  new  sort  of  justice,  which  would  allow 
us  to  be  punished  for  sins  which  we  never 
committed,  or  never  designed  to  commit,  but 
only  might  possibly  have  committed  under  cer- 
tain circumstances.  Think  a  moment,  how 
many  sins  we  all  should  have  committed  if  God 
had  suffered  us  to  come  into  circumstances  of 
severe  temptation.  An  innocent  man  might,  by 
this  rule,  be  punished  as  a  murderer,  because, 
iad  he  lived  at  Paris  on  St.  Bartholomew's 
Night  in  1572,  he  might,  from  mistaken  zeal, 
lave  killed  a  heretic. 

(4)  Since  none  of  these  hypotheses  satisfac- 
;orily  explain  the  matter,  the  greater  part  of  the 
noderate  and  Biblical  theologians  of  the  pro- 
;estant  church  are  content  with  saying,  what  is 
nanifestly  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  the 
mputation  of  Adam's  sin  consists  in  the  prevail- 
ng  mortality  of  the  human  race,  and  that  this  is 
lot  to  be  regarded  as  imputation  in  the  strict 
judicial  sense,  but  rather  as  the  consequence  of 
Adam's  transgression,  perhaps,  as  is  thought  by 
some,  the  physical  consequence  of  eating  the 
brbidden  fruit,  which  may  certainly  be  inferred 
rom  Gen.  iii.  The  strict  doctrine  of  immediate 
mputation  was  by  no  means  universal  among 
he  protestant  theologians  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
ury,  and,  as  is  justly  remarked  by  Pfaff,  Weis- 
nann,  Burnet,  and  others,  was  to  many  of  them 
mknown  even  in  name.  The  common  theory, 
le  capite  morali  sive  feeder  all  is  not  to  be  found 
n  the  symbols. 

For  the  purposes  of  popular  instruction  let 
herefore  the  following  Biblical  statement  suf- 
ice  :  "  Adam,  on  account  of  his  transgression 
)f  the  divine  law,  was  punished  with  death,  and 
rom  thenceforward  became  mortal ;  and  being 
limself  mortal,  he  could  beget  only  mortal  de- 
scendants. Vide  1  Cor.  xv.  48 — 50,  coll.  Gen. 
r.  3.  Hence  we  and  all  men  are  mortal ;  and  the 
rround  of  this  mortality  lies  in  our  progenitors, 
md  this  mortality  is  a  consequence  of  their 
.ransgression."  In  conformity  with  these  views, 
et  the  teacher  explain  the  passage  in  Rom.  v., 
md  abstain  from  all  subtleties  and  learned  hy- 
potheses. 

Note. — Works  on  Imputation  and  Original 
Sin.  (1)  In  opposition  to  imputation  sensu 
itrictiori,  and  also  the  doctrine  concerning  ori- 
ginal sin.  Of  these  there  have  been  many 
among  the  English  theologians  of  the  eighteenth 
century.  Vide  especially  Dan.  Whitby,  De 
imputatione  divina  peccati  Adamitici;  Londini, 
1711;  translated  into  German,  with  notes,  by 
Semler,  1775;  John  Taylor,  Scriptural  Doc- 


trine of  Original  Sin,  in  three  parts,  also  trans- 
lated into  German.  At  a  later  period  these  doc- 
trines were  investigated  by  the  protestant  di- 
vines and  philosophers  of  Germany,  and  partly 
opposed — e.  g.,  by  Tollner,  Theol.  Untersuch- 
ungen,  st.  ii.  iib.  Rom.  v. ;  Eberhard,  Apologie 
des  Socrates,  th.  i.  and  ii. ;  Steinbart,  System 
der  Gluckseligkeitslehre ;  Jerusalem,  Betracht- 
ungen,  th.  ii. 

2.  In  defence  of  these  doctrines,  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  works  above  mentioned.  Joh. 
Andr.  Cramer,  Exercitationes  de  peccato  origi- 
nali  adversus  Jo.  Taylor ;  Kopenhagen,  1766-67. 
Sixt,  Priifung  des  Systems,  u.  s.  w.  st.  i. 
(in  opposition  to  Steinbart.)  The  work  enti- 
tled, "  Freymiithige  Priifung  des  Steinbart'shen 
Christenthums"  (1792),  contains  also  many 
excellent  and  just  observations.  Seiler,  Von 
der  Erbsiinde,  oder  dem  naturlichen  Verderben 
— a  work  directed  in  general  against  the  ancient 
and  modern  objections  to  this  doctrine,  especially 
those  of  Eberhard  and  Steinbart;  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
Gedanken  iiber  die  Lehre  der  Schrift  von  der 
Siinde  und  Genugthuung,  Gottingen  u.  Bremen, 
1779,  8vo,  one  of  the  most  important  works  in 
relation  to  this  subject.  He  lay  the  doctrine  of 
the  Bible  at  the  foundation,  and  then  endeavours 
to  shew  its  agreement  with  reason  and  experi- 
ence, and  to  vindicate  it  against  objections. 
This  work  contains  many  very  excellent  and 
ingenious  observations.  There  are  also  valu- 
able remarks  on  this  subject  in  Storr's  work, 
"  Zweck  des  Todes  Jesu,"  and  in  his  Comment- 
ary on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Cf.  Kant, 
Vom  radikalen  Bosen.  In  illustration  of  the 
history  of  this  doctrine,  cf.  W7alch,  Historia 
doctrinae  de  peccato  originis;  Jenae,  1738  ;  Sem- 
ler, Geschichte  der  Glaubenslehre,  prefixed  to 
Baumgarten's  "  Polemik." 

[The  work  of  President  Edwards  "On  Ori- 
ginal Sin"  deserves  mention  among  the  most 
celebrated  works  of  European  theologians  on 
this  subject.  Among  the  later  and  more  tho- 
rough German  writers  on  the  subject  of  impu- 
tation are,  Schleiermacher,  Usteri,  Tholuck, 
Nitzch.  The  former  of  these  has  vindicated 
some  of  the  highest  points  of  Calvinism  by  the 
most  profound  reasoning.  The  others  follow 
more  or  less  the  general  system  which  he  has 
developed. — Tr.] 

SECTION  LXXVII. 

IN  WHAT  THE  NATURAL  DEPRAVITY  OF  MAN  CON- 
SISTS ;  ITS  APPELLATIONS  IN  THE  BIBLE  ;  WHERE 
IT  HAS  ITS  PRINCIPAL  SEAT  IN  MAN;  AND  HOW 
ITS  EXISTENCE  MAY  BE  PROVED  FROM  THE  HOLY 
SCRIPTURES. 

I.  In  what  Natural  Depravity  consists.     * 

THE  descriptions  given  of  it  by  theologians 
are  very  different  as  to  the  words  employed. 

2  A 


278 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Melancthon  describes  the  peccatum  originis  as 
an  inclination  or  disposition  to  all  evil,  which, 
however,  does  not  always  manifest  itself  in  the 
same  way,  or  in  the  same  degree,  and  which 
does  not  appear  at  once,  but  gradually,  and  in 
all  men.  Others  describe  it  as  that  disposition 
of  the  soul  by  which  evil  desires  have  an  exist- 
ence in  it,  or  rather,  spring  up  whenever  occa- 
sion offers,  &c.  But  they  all  agree,  at  last,  that 
the  essence  of  natural  depravity  is  the  disturbed 
balance  of  the  powers  or  inclinations  of  man, 
or  the  preponderance  of  the  carnal  desires  over 
reason.  It  lies  in  the  fact,  that  the  lower  nature 
of  man,  made  by  God  to  obey,  is  not  submissive 
to  the  reason,  as  the  power  which  should  give 
law,  and  govern.  The  following  definition  may 
therefore  be  given  of  the  moral  depravity  of 
man,  in  conformity  both  with  experience  and 
with  scripture :  it  is  that  tendency  to  sinful  pas- 
sions or  unlawful  propensities  which  is  perceived 
in  man  whenever  objects  of  desire  are  placed  before 
him  and  laws  are  laid  upon  him,  Rom.  vii.  This 
want  of  harmony  between  the  two  natures  being 
but  too  clearly  perceived,  and  being  justly  re- 
garded as  an  evil  fraught  with  ruinous  conse- 
quences to  man,  it  was  early  maintained  among 
the  Hebrews  and  other  nations,  that  it  could  not 
have  existed  in  the  original  state  of  man.  We 
see  everywhere  that  men  have  felt  it  necessary 
to  adopt  this  supposition.  It  is,  moreover,  in 
accordance  with  the  Bible.  Vide  s.  75,  II.  2. 
We  have  already  considered  (vide  s.  74)  how 
far  unaided  reason  can  go  in  clearing  up  this 
subject;  we  now  come  to  examine  what  we  are 
taught  respecting  it  by  the  scriptures. 

Theologians  remark  here,  by  way  of  cau- 
tion, that  we  must  carefully  distinguish  between 
the  essential  and  accidental  deficiencies  and  im- 
perfections of  our  nature.  Essential  imperfec- 
tions would  always  have  been  seen  in  man, 
owing  to  the  limitation  of  his  nature,  even  al- 
though he  had  not  fallen.  But  these  imperfec- 
tions would  have  implied  no  fault  and  no  de- 
pravity. Depravity  in  any  one  presupposes  a 
better  state,  from  which  he  has  deteriorated. 
Hence  our  essential  imperfections  cannot  proper- 
ly be  considered  as  belonging  to  our  natural 
depravity — e.  g.,  man  cannot  be  accounted  de- 
praved in  consequence  of  the  ignorance  in  which 
he  is  born,  and  the  false  judgments  which  spring- 
merely  from  that  ignorance,  nor  for  the  pleasure 
which  he  takes  in  objects  of  sense,  when  sim- 
ply considered;  but  only  for  the  other  class  of 
imperfections,  those  that  are  contingent.  Among 
these  may  be  placed  the  violence  of  the  pas- 
sions, their  obvious  preponderance  over  reason, 
and  the  hindrances  we  meet  with  from  this 
source  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  to  our 
progress  in  holiness.  This  is  shewn  by  the 
example  of  Eve.  She  was,  even  before  her  fall, 


in  many  respects  ignorant  and  inexperienced  ; 
she  judged  incorrectly  respecting  God;  she  felt 
too  the  motions  of  sense  ;  but  as  yet  she  was 
uncorrupted.  But  after  she  fell  she  was  the 
subject  of  those  other  accidental  imperfections 
which  now  constitute  human  depravity. 

II.  How  Depravity  is  named  in  the  Bible,  and  where 
it  is  located  in  Man. 


(1)  The  word  $£opa  is  used  in  scripture  to 
designate  the  entire  corrupt  constitution  of  man 
in  a  moral  respect.   According  to  common  usage 
it  denotes  a  constitution  and  state  which  is  not 
as  it  should  be.     Vide  2  Pet.  ii.  19  ;  Ephes.  iv. 
22;  1  Tim.  vi.  5. 

(2)  This  depravity  (<j&opa)  of  man  exerts  a 
powerful  influence  upon  his  soul,  his  under- 
standing, and  will.     Vide  Rom.  vi.  14  —  23  ; 
Ephes.  ii.  3.   The  body  is,  however,  plainly  the 
principal  seat  of  the  carnal  appetites  and  desires, 
and  hence  the  origin  of  this  depravity  is  to  be 
sought  chiefly  in  the  body.     Vide  Rom.  vii.  5, 
23;  vi.  12,  seq.     And  all  the  ancient  heathen 
philosophers,  who  considered  the  preponderance 
of  this  lower  animal  nature  as  the  source  of 
human  depravity,  made  the  body  the  principal 
seat  of  this  evil,  and  in  doing  so  were  supported 
by  observations  familiar  to  all. 

(a)  The  ancient  Grecian  philosophers,  Pytha- 
goras, Plato,  Aristotle,  the  stoics,  (vide  s.  74, 
I.,)  considered  matter,  and  the  human  body  as 
consisting  of  matter,  to  be  the  seat  and  source 
of  evil.  With  these  writers,  the  Hellenistic 
Jews  agreed.  Vide  Book  of  Wisdom,  ix.  15, 
"The  decaying  body  burdens  the  soul,  and  the 
earthy  tabernacle  presses  down  the  thinking 
spirit."  Of  the  same  mind  were  most  of  the 
early  Christian  fathers—  e.  g.,  Justin  the  Mar- 
tyr, Origen,  (although  some  passages  in  his 
works  appear  to  contradict  this,)  Hilarius,  and 
Augustine  himself.  This  doctrine  was  carried 
to  a  great  length  and  very  much  abused  by  some 
heretics  who  sprang  up  in  the  Christian  church, 
particularly  in  the  East.  They  regarded  matter 
as  in  itself  an  evil  existence,  not  deriving  its 
being  from  God,  nor  depending  upon  him.  So 
the  Gnostics  and  the  Manicheans. 

(6)  The  doctrine  that  the  body  of  man  is  the 
chief  seat  of  human  weaknesses  and  imperfec- 
tions, and  also  the  germ  of  moral  evil,  was 
widely  diffused  among  the  eastern  nations  in 
the  remotest  antiquity,  and  was  adopted  by  the 
writers  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  may  be  clearly 
seen  from  their  use  of  the  word  ifra,  (0ap§.) 
This  word  signifies  originally  the  human  body, 
then,  men  themselves,  but  always  with  the  im- 
plied idea  that  they  are  frail,  imperfect,  and 
mortal,  or,  in  a  moral  respect,  that  they  are  in- 
clined to  err  and  sin.  Vide  Gen.  vi.  12;  viii. 
22;  Isaiah,  xl.  6,  coll.  Matt.  xxvi.  41;  John. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


279 


iii.  6.   On  the  other  hand  the  word  nn 
denotes  what  is  spiritual,  moral,  divine,  perfect, 
holy,  &c. 

(c)  This  doctrine,  the  first  traces  of  which 
we  find  in  the  earlier  Jewish  books,  was  gra- 
dually developed,  and  was  at  last  exhibited  in 
the  New  Testament  with  the  greatest  clearness. 
Paul  places  tfapf  in  opposition  to  vov$  or  ftvsvpa, 
and  depicts  the  controversy  between  the  two, 
and  the  hindrances  which  the  0ap|  opposes  to 
the  jtvsvpa,  in  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and 
holiness  of  walk.  Vide  Rom.  vii.  18,  23. 
With  him  fypovtiv  and  j<fpi7ta.tttv  xata  oapxa 
mean  to  indulge  sinful  desires,  Rom.  viii.  1,  5; 
and  &typ.a,,  (ppot^a,  vov$  crapxoj,  signify,  the 
corrupt,  depraved  disposition  of  human  nature — 
the  propensity  to  sin,  Gal.  vi.  13 ;  Ephes.  ii.  3. 
Cf.  ijti&vpiM  tfapxwccu',  bodily,  sensual  desires, 
1  Peter,  ii.  11 ;  also  6  crapxwcos  (ai£pco7toj.)  In 
Rom.  vi.  6,  16,  Paul  says  that  the  Christian 
should  deprive  the  sw^a  d^apr'taj  of  its  power, 
and  not  suffer  himself  to  be  subject  irfgtywm 
cuytctfoj;  and  in  Rom.  vii.  18—25,  still  more 
plainly;  he  knew,  he  says,  that  in  him  (or  rather 
in  his  body,  tv  aapxi)  the  seat  of  moral  good  was 
not  to  be  found,  (ovx  olxtt  oya^ov.)  He  was 
not,  indeed,  wanting  in  good  will  to  live  righte- 
ously, but  in  power  to  perform  his  will.  He 
often  could  not  accomplish  the  good  which  he 
heartily  approved  from  his  inmost  moral  feel- 
ings ;  and,  on  the  contrary,  he  often  did  the  evil 
which  he  disallowed.  And  thus  he  knew  that 
sin — i.  e.,  a  disposition  to  sin,  sinful  depravity — 
dwelt  in  him.  His  spirit  (vovj,  6  ecu  av^pcortoj) 
approved  the  divine  law,  and  acknowledged  it 
good  and  useful ;  but  in  his  members  (i?/t&£M — 
i.  e.,  tv  tfw/icwt)  there  was  another  law,  the  law 
of  sin,  (diclamen  sensuum,}  which  was  opposed 
to  the  law  of  God,  and  which  ruled  over  him. 
Hence  he  exclaims,  "  0  miserable  man  that  I 
am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from  this  mortal  body, 
(tfwjta  tfo-u  ^ava-r'os  T'OVT'OD.)"  And  at  last  he 
thanks  God  that  through.  Christ  he  has  granted 
him  this  deliverance,  and  that  he  was  no  more 
under  the  necessity  of  yielding  obedience  to  his 
depraved  appetites,  although  they  still  conti- 
nued, and  often  resumed  their  power. 

The  word  4/^1x6?,  tyv%ixbs  cu£porfo$  is  also 
often  used  in  the  scriptures,  denoting  that  one 
does  not  follow  his  reason,  but  is  wholly  under 
the  influence  of  his  bodily  appetites  and  desires, 
and  will  give  heed  only  to  what  he  learns 
through  his  senses,  and  so  despises  the  instruc- 
tion which  God  has  given  respecting  spiritual 
things.  Thus  Jude,  ver.  19  ;  for  rw  and  tyxi 
often  signify  the  impulses,  desires,  and  pro- 
pensities of  our  lower  nature;  and  1  Cor.  ii.  14, 
where  tyv%ixo$  ow&pwTtoj  is  one  who  scorns  divine 
instruction,  and  chooses  rather  sense,  darkness, 
and  delusion;  one  who  has  no  organ  for  what 
is  above  sense,  and  no  taste  for  divine  instruc 


tion, — the  same  with  oapxwedj,  1  Cor.  iii.  1. 
The  inordinate  desires,  those  which  are  not  as 
they  should  be,  are  often  called  in  scripture,  by 
way  of  eminence,  irt&vfuo*  ijf£*ytuu  crapxdj,  1 
John,  ii.  16, — commonly  rendered  in  the  Vul- 
gate concupiscentia ;  hence  this  word  is  adopted 
in  ecclesiastical  Latinity.  Vide  Moms,  p.  107, 
n.  3,  4. 

(d)  From  the  passages  now  cited,  and  from 
the  known  sense  in  which  the  words  above  men- 
tioned were  anciently  used,  it  is  plain  that  those 
writers  who  make  the  soul  the  chief  seat  and 
original  source  of  corruption  very  much  mistake. 
Into  this  error  Buddeus  has  fallen,  as  appears 
from  his  dissertation,  "  De  anima  sede  peccati 
originalis  principale;"  Jense,  1725;  and  in  this 
error  he  is  followed  by  Seiler.  It  is  equally  cer- 
tain, however,  that  this  originally  bodily  disor- 
der has  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  soul,  on 
account  of  the  intimate  connexion  between  these 
two  essential  parts  of  man.  It  acts  (a)  upon  the 
understanding,  since  by  means  of  it  the  objects 
of  knowledge  are  placed  before  the  mind  in  an 
entirely  false  light,  so  that-  the  understanding 
holds  that  which  is  false  for  true,  what  is  evil 
for  good,  and  the  reverse.  (|3)  Upon  the  will 
and  the  actions,  so  that  what  has  been  thus  false- 
ly represented  by  the  senses  to  the  understand- 
ing as  good  and  right,  is  now  desired  and  ac- 
complished. The  evil  consequences  of  this  are, 
that  man  prefers  apparent  to  real  good,  that  he 
allows  himself  to  be  more  governed  by  his 
senses  than  by  his  understanding,  and  often 
does  that  which  he  himself  disapproves,  and  so 
chooses  and  acts  against  his  own  principles  and 
his  better  views.  Vide  Rom.  vii.  8,  19,  23  ;  Gal. 
v.  17,  "The  desire  of  the  flesh  is  often  opposed 
to  the  desire  of  the  spirit,  so  that  man  is  often 
unable  to  accomplish  his  good  purposes."  The 
soul,  as  Paul  teaches,  is  so  far  weak  as  the  ani- 
mal propensities  (rto^uafa  <yapscd$)  are  strong ; 
and  so  feeble  that  it  is  the  slave  of  these  pro- 
pensities; and  although  it  may  have  a  better 
conviction,  is  not  able  to  carry  it  into  effect,  but 
is  so  carried  away  that  it  must  do  what  itself 
disapproves.  And  this  is  the  benefit  of  Christ 
(#api<tyia),  that  he  saves  us  from  the  power  of 
sin,  as  well  as  from  its  punishment. 

Note  1. — Care  must  be  taken  here  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  injury  which  we  sustain  from  the 
body  and  the  inordinate  appetites  of  which  it 
is  the  seat,  be  not  carried  too  far,  as  it  has  been 
by  Less,  and  other  modern  theologians.  This 
extreme  in  the  doctrine  very  naturally  leads  to 
dangerous  perversions;  and  we  might  expect 
that  it  would  lead  many  to  resort  to  suicide,  in 
order  to  free  themselves  from  the  burdensome 
prison  of  the  body.  And  indeed  suicide  was 
justified  on  this  ground  by  the  stoics,  and  other 
ancient  philosophers.  On  this  subject  it  is  im- 
portant to  bear  in  mind  the  great  advantages 


280 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


which,  as  we  are  taught  in  the  scriptures,  we 
possess  from  the  connexion  of  the  rational  soul 
with  the  body  in  our  present  state.  Vide  s.  74. 
The  false  idea  of  the  ancient  Pythagoreans  and 
Platonists  that  the  body  is  a  prison  where  the 
soul  is  incarcerated  for  its  punishment,  was  held 
also  by  many  of  the  mystics  and  Platonists 
among  the  old  Jews  and  Christians;  but  it  has 
no  foundation  in  the  scriptures.  The  sacred 
writers  never  require  us,  as  Grecian  philosophers 
and  Christian  mystics  often  do,  to  eradicate  our 
bodily  appetites  and  desires,  (which,  if  it  were 
possible,  would  destroy  the  very  nature  of  man,) 
but  only  to  control  them  and  subject  them  to 
reason.  Christian  morals  therefore  insists,  not 
that  man  should  leave  off  particular  sins,  or 
suppress  particular  outbreakings  of  unlawful 
desire,  but  that  a  new  turn  should  be  given  to 
all  the  natural  desires ;  and  this  is  the  proper 
tendency  of  Christian  morals.  It  designs  to 
bring  man  from  the  love  of  the  world  to  the  love 
of  God ;  from  an  improper  self-love  to  the  love 
of  others  ;  from  a  love  to  sensible  and  perishing 
things  to  a  love  of  spiritual  and  eternal  good. 
Such  are  the  instructions  which  Christ  every- 
where gives.  Vide  John,  iii.  3 — 21.  It  is  a  false 
assertion  that  the  inculcation  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  natural  propensity  to  evil  has  a  tendency 
to  discourage  men  from  the  pursuit  of  good; 
when  properly  exhibited,  this  doctrine  has  ex- 
actly the  opposite  effect,  and  excites  to  the  vi- 
gorous employment  of  our  powers.  The  great 
point  in  this  doctrine  is,  that  the  man  who 
would  fulfil  his  destination  must  depart  from 
evil,  and,  not  content  with  merely  cultivating 
and  developing  his  powers,  must  experience  a 
radical  reformation. 

[ Note  2. — Does  the  depravity  of  our  nature  con- 
sist in  the  inordinateness  of  our  BODILY  desires  ? 

From  the  views  exhibited  in  this  section  it 
appears  that  our  author  adopts  the  affirmative 
of  this  question.  He  sees  in  man  a  conflict  be- 
tween reason  and  those  lower  principles  which 
have  their  seat  in  the  body,  and  thinks  of  no  ul- 
terior or  more  radical  evil.  To  such  a  concep- 
tion of  human  depravity  he  is  necessarily  brought 
by  his  theory  respecting  the  consequences  of  the 
fall,  making  them  to  consist  chiefly  in  the  dis- 
arrangement of  our  bodily  constitution.  In  be- 
half of  these  views  he  appeals,  as  the  reader  has 
perceived,  to  the  universal  doctrine  of  pagan 
philosophy  on  this  subject,  to  the  familiar  ob- 
servation of  the  actual  inordinateness  of  the 
bodily  appetites  and  their  preponderance  over 
reason,  but  principally  to  the  scriptural  phrase- 
ology employed  to  designate  the  native  charac- 
ter of  man,  and  which,  taken  in  its  first  etymo- 
logical sense,  seems  to  indicate  that  the  body  is 
the  ultimate  cause  and  principal  seat  of  human 
depravity. 

This  part  of  our  author's  system  is  of  such 


radical  importance,  and  so  materially  affects  the 
views  we  must  entertain  of  the  other  doctrines 
of  Christianity,  and  especially  of  the  atonement, 
that  it  ought  not  to  pass  without  examination. 

As  to  the  first  argument  above  mentioned,  it 
will  be  readily  conceded  that  this  view  of  our 
natural  character  and  state  harmonizes  well  with 
pagan  philosophy.  It  has  a  general  resemblance 
even  to  the  Indian  and  Persian  religious  sys- 
tems, as  exhibited  by  the  Schlegels  and  other 
modern  writers  on  the  East.  But  it  corresponds 
more  exactly  with  the  Platonic  system,  which 
fully  recognises  the  conflict  between  the  rational 
principle,  (the  toyixov),  and  the  irrational,  ani- 
mal principle,  (the  axoyor.)  And  while  it  re- 
sembles these  systems,  it  must  be  said  also  that 
it  is  liable  to  the  same  objection  which  has  often 
been  urged  against  them — viz.,  that  in  some 
way,  by  supposing  either  an  eternal  intelligent 
principle  of  evil,  or  a  blind  destiny,  or  some  de- 
fective bodily  organization,  or  by  some  other 
external  necessity,  they  account  for  the  origin 
and  prevalence  of  evil,  instead  of  charging  it 
upon  the  perverted  use  of  the  moral  powers  of 
men.  But  to  all  such  conceptions  of  our  moral 
condition  Christianity  stands  opposed,  espe- 
cially in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  which, 
by  is  proffer  of  forgiveness,  presupposes,  not 
misfortune  merely,  but  guilt,  on  the  part  of  man, 
and  which,  in  its  whole  bearing,  aims  at  a  spi- 
ritual and  not  a  physical  evil.  It  is  in  this  way 
that  Christianity  furnishes  a  new  point  of  view 
for  observing  the  character  of  man,  and  discloses 
the  essential  nature  and  deeper  root  of  evil. 

The  fact  alleged  in  the  second  argument — 
viz.,  that  there  is  a  visible  preponderance  of 
sense  or  of  bodily  appetites  over  reason,  is  also 
readily  conceded ;  but  can  we  conclude  from 
this  fact  that  this  disorder  is  to  be  attributed  to 
the  body,  and  the  affections  having  their  seat  in 
it?  Would  not  the  just  balance  between  the 
higher  and  lower  principles  of  our  nature  be 
equally  disturbed  by.  altering  the  weight  in 
either  scale1?  If  in  the  original  constitution  of 
our  nature,  the  lower  principles  of  the  animal 
life  on  one  side  were  balanced  on  the  other  by 
the  higher  principles  of  our  intellectual  life,  not 
by  themselves,  but  in  connexion  with  a  communi- 
cated divine  life,  of  which  they-  are  the  organ, 
(as  we  shall  attempt  to  shew,)  then  the  mere 
loss  or  withdrawment  of  this  divine  life  would 
be  followed  of  course  by  a  loss  of  this  original 
equipoise,  and  the  undue  predominance  of  the 
lower  principles.  Thus  it  can  be  conceived  that 
the  inordinateness  of  the  bodily  appetites,  in 
which  human  depravity  might  seem  at  first  view 
to  consist,  so  far  from  constituting  its  real  es- 
sence, may  "be  only  the  necessary  result  of  an 
ulterior  cause,  the  defect  of  the  higher  princi- 
ples. Indeed,  considering  the  nature  of  these 
higher  principles,  and  their  rightful  supremacy, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


281 


how  can  their  being  drawn  away  and  enslaved 
by  principles  so  inferior  and  subordinate  be  ac- 
counted for,  except  from  some  defect  in  the  spi- 
xitual  part,  to  say  nothing  of  positively  evil  in- 
clinations seated  there? 

The  argument  derived  from  the  use  of  the 
scriptural  terms  -lira  and  0ap£,  and  their  syno- 
nymes,  is  very  plausible ;  and  when  Paul  calls 
the  j'o^uoj  Hrfi  6apx6$  also  a  vo/j.o$  EV  -rotj  ^Ifoeft, 
the  question  might  seem  to  be  decided.  But  if 
this  is  difficult  on  one  side,  it  is  not  less  so  on 
the  other,  that  pride,  envy,  and  other  feelings, 
the  most  remote  from  the  influence  of  the  body, 
are  derived  by  Paul  from  <jap|,  as  its  immediate 
fruits.  Of.  Gal.  v.  19—22 ;  Col.  ii.  18.  Other 
reasons  against  the  meaning  assigned  by  our 
author  to  these  scriptural  terms  will  appear  in 
the  sequel  of  this  note. 

The  following  development  of  the  scriptural 
doctrine  respecting  the  natural  state  of  man  is 
offered  for  consideration,  in  the  belief  that  it  is 
Augustinian  and  Edwardsean  on  the  particular 
points  in  which  these  systems  differ  from  the 
Pelagian  and  Arminian  anthropologies. 

In  the  first  place ;  that  principle,  state,  or  dis- 
position of  human  nature,  whatever  it  may  be, 
by  which  it  is  designated  as  corrupt  or  evil,  is 
more  usually  denominated  <?ap|,  one  who  is  in 
this  state,  aapxixos',  the  living  and  acting  in  it 
are  described  by  the  formulae,  rtfptrtarf  lv  tv  erapxt, 
xata  adpxa  ^ijv,  typovtiv,  x.  ?.  X.  The  same  state 
is  also  described,  though  less  commonly,  by 
other  terms  nearly  synonymous  with  these. 

Secondly.  The  most  important  clue  to  the 
meaning  of  the  term  crapf,  upon  which  so  much' 
depends,  and  which  is  so  difficult  of  interpreta- 
tion, is  the  fact  that  it  is  placed  in  constant  and 
direct  contrast  to  the  term  rtvsvpa, — so  much  so, 
that  it  seems  necessarily  to  imply  a  state  exactly 
opposite  to  that  denoted  by  the  latter  term.  The 
opposition  between  these  two  principles  is  point- 
ed out  in  the  following  passages — viz.,  Rom. 
vii.  25;  viii.  1,  seq. ;  1  Cor.  iii.  4;  Gal.  v.  19, 
seq.  Hence  it  is  obvious,  that  in  order  to  attain 
distinct  and  specific  conceptions  of  the  meaning 
of  oapS,  we  must  fully  understand  the  import  of 
the  term  rtvsvpa,  with  which  it  is  contrasted. 
If  rtvevpa  denotes  merely  the  intelligent,  ration- 
al principle,  (the  ^oytxov,)  then  may  sap!  desig-' 
nate  merely  the  irrational,  bodily  appetites  and 
desires,  (the  akoyov.)  But  if  Ttvevpa,  have  a 
higher  import,  then  to  suppose  cap!  to  be  still 
limited,  as  before,  to  the  designation  of  merely 
bodily  appetites,  would  be  to  lose  sight  of  the 
direct  and  invariable  opposition  in  which  these 
terms  are  placed. 

Thirdly.  It  would  be  a  very  superficial  view 
of  the  import  of  rtwDpa,  and  contrary  to  the 
whole  scriptural  usage,  to  understand  by  it  the 
me.  e  intelligence  or  reason  of  man ;  on  the  con- 
trary it  denotes  this  reason,  considered  as  the  or- 


gan of  the  higher  divine  life  imparted  to  man,  and 
which  is  itself  more  properly  the  jtvevfia,  and 
upon  which  the  SPIRIT,  as  a  natural  faculty  with 
which  man  is  endowed,  depends  absolutely  for 
its  exercise.  This,  it  seems  to  us,  is  the  gene- 
ric idea  of  the  term  rtvtvfia,  although  sometimes 
it  denotes  more  prominently  the  faculty  of  the 
mind,  and  at  others,  the  divine  life  itself  of 
which  the  mind  is  the  recipient;  just  as^avowoj 
is  used  to  denote  either  the  natural  or  the  spiri- 
tual part  of  the  whole  penalty  of  the  law,  of 
which  it  is  the  generic  name,  according  as  the 
one  or  the  other  of  these  is  more  prominently  in 
the  mind  of  the  writer.  And  so  the  itvivfiofewo j 
is  one  who  not  merely  possesses  reason  and  go- 
verns his  animal  appetites  by  it,  but  one  who 
partakes  of  this  higher,  divine  life,  who  stands 
in  living  communion  with  God,  receives  the  su- 
pernatural gifts  of  his  grace,  by  which  the  na- 
tural principles  of  reason  are  strengthened  and 
enabled  to  maintain  the  proper  mastery  over  the 
lower  principles  of  sense.  Accordingly,  0ap! 
must  indicate  that  state  of  man  in  which  he  is 
destitute  of  this  higher  life,  either  having  lost 
it,  or  never  attained  to  the  possession  of  it, — in 
which  the  principles  of  humanity,  both  the  higher 
and  lower,  are  left  to  themselves;  in  short,  the 
state  in  which  man  is  without  the  Spirit  of  God 
— a  state  which,  from  this  its  privative  charac- 
rer,  might  be  appropriately  denominated  unre- 
generacy,  or  ungodliness.  And  the  <sapxix6$  is 
one  who  not  merely  has  inordinate  bodily  appe- 
tites, and  obeys  the  dictamen  sensuum,  but  one 
who  does  not  receive  and  enjoy  the  presence  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.  And  so  Calvin,  in  his  Comm. 
on  John,  iii.  6,  explains  crop|  to  mean  the  whole 
natural  man,  considered  as  without  the  new 
birth,  or  the  divine  life ;  and  well  remarks,  "/n- 
sulse  theologastri  ad  partem  quam  vacant  sen- 
sudlem  restringunt." 

Fourthly.  The  correctness  of  the  account 
here  given  of  the  import  of  crapl  is  strikingly 
confirmed  by  the  manner  in  which  its  syno- 
nymes  are  used  throughout  the  New  Testament. 
Thus  4-v^txdj  is  used  (e.  g.,  1  Cor.  ii.  14  and 
Jude,  ver.  19)  to  designate  one  who  has  not  the 
Spirit,  and  receives  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit. 
And  in  Eph.  iv.  22,  the  rfa&aio;  ai£pco7to$,  corrupt 
according  to  the  deceitful  lusts,  is  opposed  to 
the  being  renewed.  And  so  everywhere  the 
destitution  of  the  supernatural  grace  of  God  and 
of  his  life-giving  Spirit  is  the  prominent  idea  in 
these  and  similar  terms. 

Fifthly.  But  thus  far  we  attain  only  a  nega- 
tive conception  on  this  subject.  What  positive 
idea,  then,  shall  we  form  of  the  State  of  man 
destitute  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  estranged 
from  God  ?  An  answer  to  this  question  will 
bring  us  upon  the  highest  dividing  points  be- 
tween the  Augustinian  and  Pelagian  anthropo- 
logies; for  it  was  not  in  the  doctrines  which 


282 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


came  most  into  discussion  during  the  Pelagian 
controversies  that  the  first  and  essential  differ- 
ences between  these  systems  lay ;  but  in  points 
further  back,  adopted  unconsciously  by  these 
diverging  tendencies,  according  to  their  differ- 
ent nature,  and  of  which  the  doctrines  in  discus- 
sion were  only  the  more  remote  results. 

According  to  Pelagius,  man  was  originally, 
and  is  still,  endowed  by  God  with  all  the 
powers  and  faculties  requisite  to  the  ends  of  his 
being,  and  it  depends  only  upon  himself,  in  the 
exercise  of  his  free  will,  to  practise  all  good  and 
fulfil  his  destination.  In  his  system  there  is 
therefore  no  necessity  for  any  supernatural  in- 
fluences of  grace,  and  scarcely  any  place  for 
them ;  certainly  a  destitution  of  them  does  not 
necessarily  imply  the  corruption  of  nature,  since 
without  them  man  is  adequate  to  holiness.  But 
according  to  Augustine  it  is  far  otherwise ;  and 
man  stands  in  an  absolute  and  constant  depend- 
ence upon  God,  as  the  only  source  of  truth  and 
good ;  the  faculties  of  reason  and  will  with 
which  the  Creator  has  endowed  us  are  by  no 
means  complete  in  themselves  and  self-suffi- 
cient to  the  purposes  for  which  they  were 
given,  but  only  organs  to  receive  and  reveal  the 
higher  life  communicated  from  God,  to  whom 
they  are  related  as  the  eye  to  the  sun ;  and  this, 
not  merely  through  the  contingency  of  the  fall, 
but  originally  and  essentially ;  so  that  the  loss 
of  this  imparted  divine  life  must  be  followed  by 
the  powerlessness  of  the  higher  principles  of  our 
nature,  the  predominance  of  the  lower,  and  so 
the  corruption  of  the  whole  man.  We  have 
thus  a  contrast  between  a  state  of  grace  and  of 
nature,  between  the  spiritual  and  natural  man, — 
the  former  participating  in  divine  life  through 
fellowship  with  God,  and  consequently  superior 
to  the  baser  and  lower  principles;  the  latter, 
estranged  from  this  life,  and  so  fallen  into  en- 
tire disorder,  inability  to  good,  and  moral  cor- 
ruption. Such  is  the  positive  idea  of  crap!,  and 
this  is  the  being  in  the  flesh,  or  being  carnal,  so 
often  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  views  of  Edwards,  which  are  exhibited 
so  lucidly  and  even  beautifully  in  his  work  on 
"Original  Sin,"  (p.  330,  and  especially  p.  427, 
seq.  Worces.  ed.,)  correspond  entirely  with 
those  of  Augustine.  "  The  case  with  man  was 
plainly  this : — When  God  made  man  at  first  he 
implanted  in  him  two  kinds  of  principles.  There 
was  an  inferior  kind,  which  may  be  called  natu- 
ral, being  the  principles  of  mere  human  nature ; 
such  as  self-love,  with  those  natural  appetites 
and  passions  which  belong  to  the  nature  of  man, 
in  which  his  love  to  his  own  liberty,  honour, 
and  pleasure  were  exercised  :  these,  when  alone, 
and  left  to  themselves,  are  what  the  scriptures 
sometimes  call  flesh.  Besides  these,  there  were 
superior  principles,  that  were  spiritual,  holy,  and 
divine,  summarily  comprehended  in  divine  love. 


These  principles  may,  in  some  sense,  be  called 
supernatural,  being  (however  concreated  or  con- 
nate, yet)  such  as  are  above  those  principles  that 
are  essentially  implied  in,  or  necessarily  result- 
ing from,  and  inseparably  connected  with,  mere 
human  nature  ,•  and  being  such  as  immediately 
depend  on  man's  union  and  communion  with 
God,  or  divine  communications  and  influences 
of  God's  Spirit.  These  superior  principles 
were  given  to  possess  the  throne,  and  maintain 
an  absolute  dominion  in  the  heart;  the  other,  to 
be  wholly  subordinate  and  subservient.  And 
while  things  continued  thus,  all  things  were  in 
excellent  order,  peace,  and  beautiful  harmony, 
and  in  their  proper  and  perfect  state."  Again 
he  says :  "  The  withholding  of  special  divine 
influence  to  impart  and  maintain  the  good  prin- 
ciples, leaving  the  common  natural  principles 
to  themselves,  without  the  government  of  supe- 
rior divine  principles,  will  certainly  be  followed 
with  the  corruption,  yea,  the  total  corruption  of 
the  heart.  As  light  ceases  in  a  room  when  the 
candle  is  withdrawn,  so  man  is  left  in  a  state 
of  darkness,  woful  corruption  and  ruin,  nothing 
but  flesh  without  spirit,  when  the  Holy  Ghost, 
that  heavenly  inhabitant,  forsakes  the  house. 
The  inferior  principles,  given  only  to  serve, 
being  alone,  and  left  to  themselves,  of  course 
become  reigning  principles ;  the  immediate  con- 
sequence of  which  is,  a  turning  of  all  things 
upside  down.  It  were  easy  to  shew,  if  here 
were  room  for  it,  how  every  depraved  disposi- 
tion would  naturally  arise  from  this  privative 
original."  (Abridged.) 

But  we  may  attain  to  still  more  definite  con- 
ceptions respecting  the  positive  nature  of  the 
flesh,  by  considering  it  in  opposition  to  the 
highest  principle  and  spring  of  the  spiritual 
state.  This  latter  is  ascertained  by  all  just  rea- 
soning about  the  nature  of  holiness,  and  by  the 
first  precept  of  the  divine  law,  to  be  supreme 
love  to  God.  Hence  selfishness  is  to  be  regarded 
as  constituting  the  central  point  of  the  natural 
unregenerate  life. 

It  will  now  be  obvious  how,  in  the  catalogue 
of  the  works  of  the  flesh,  there  should  stand  such 
feelings  as  have  no  conceivable  connexion  with 
the  body,  and  cannot  possibly  be  derived  from 
its  influence. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  why,  then,  if  it  is  not 
intended  to  exhibit  the  influence  of  the  body, 
should  the  term  crop!  and  its  synonymes  be  em- 
ployed to  designate  the  natural  unrenewed  state 
of  man1?  To  this  question  various  answers 
might  be  given.  One  reason  is  offered  by  Ed- 
wards, p.  321  of  the  work  cited  above.  But 
the  reason  suggested  by  Tholuck  corresponds 
best  with  the  view  which  has  been  given  of  the 
privative  nature  of  the  flesh.  As  the  body  is 
dead  without  the  enlivening  soul,  so  the  spirit 
of  man  is  powerless  and  dead  without  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


283 


higher  life  derived  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  And 
thus  the  mortal  part  of  our  animal  nature  is 
taken  for  the  designation  of  our  intellectual  and 
moral  being,  as  far  as  it  is  dead,  powerless,  and 
corrupt,  from  its  being  destitute  of  its  higher 
spiritual  life  in  God. 

This  view  of  human  depravity,  in  opposition 
to  that  which  makes  it  consist  in  the  inordinate- 
ness  of  bodily  appetites,  derives  its  principal  in- 
terest and  importance  from  its  bearing  on  the 
other  doctrines  of  religion,  and  especially  on  the 
doctrine  of  atonement.  As  was  hinted  in  a  pre- 
vious note,  if  the  depravity  of  man  results  from 
any  physical  disarrangement,  then  the  remedy, 
in  order  to  meet  the  exact  point  of  the  disease, 
and  to  reach  its  real  source,  ought  to  be  applied 
to  the  physical,  instead  of  the  moral,  nature  of 
man.  It  is  only  on  the  supposition  that  selfish- 
ness is  the  root  of  evil,  and  the  central  principle 
of  our  natural  life,  and  that  man  is  dependent 
for  holiness  and  happiness  upon  an  imparted 
life,  higher  than  that  of  reason,  that  the  pro- 
visions of  the  atonement  have  any  signifi- 
cance.— TR.] 

III.  How  Native  Depravity  may  be  proved  from 

the  Bible. 

(1)  In  doing  this,  we  should  not  employ, 
without  selection,  all  those  texts  which  speak 
of  the  moral  depravity  of  man  in  general,  or  of 
that  of  particular  men  or  nations ;  for  in  many 
of  these  passages  the  sins  and  vices  actually 
committed  by  men  are  the  subjects  of  discourse, 
and  not  the  disposition  to  sin  inherent  in  man- 
kind. It  was  the  intention  of  the  sacred  writers, 
in  some  of  the  examples  which  they  have  given 
us  of  heinous  transgressors,  to  shew  to  what  sin 
leads,  by  what  terrible  consequences  it  is  fol- 
lowed, in  order  to  deter  men  from  committing 
it,  and  not  to  teach  that  all  men  are  the  same, 
or  have  actually  sunk  to  the  same  depth  of  vile- 
ness,  although  by  reason  of  their  inherent  de- 
pravity they  might  all  sink  to  the  same  depth. 
Among  texts  of  this  nature  we  may  mention 
Psalm  xiv.  3,  seq.,  where  the  declaration,  there 
is  none  that  doeth  good,  &c.,  relates  to  the  god- 
less persons  mentioned  ver.  1.  And  so  Paul, 
Rom.  iii.  10,  proves  from  this  passage  that  there 
were  formerly  among  the  Israelites  very  wicked 
men.  And  Job  (chap.  xiv.  4)  alludes  princi- 
pally to  those  actual  transgressions  by  which 
men  are  brought  into  that  state  in  which  none 
can  be  guiltless  in  the  sight  of  God.  In  Rom. 
iii.  9,  seq.,  the  apostle  shews  that  the  Jewish 
nation  had  no  advantage  over  others  in  point  of 
holiness  or  moral  purity,  and  that  there  had  al- 
ways been  in  it  corrupt  and  vicious  men.  Nor 
can  the  text,  Ps.  li.  7,  be  cited  in  behalf  of  this 
doctrine.  The  mention  of  natural  depravity  does 
not  harmonize  with  the  context,  and  the  phrase 
to  be  born  in  or  with  sin  (i.  e.,  to  bring  sin  into 


the  world  with  one)  relates,  as  is  evident  from 
John,  ix.  34,  not  to  native  depravity,  which  all 
have,  but  to  the  fact  that  he  had  not  sinned  for 
the  first  time  in  the  particular  crime  of  which  he 
had  then  been  guilty,  but  from  his  youth  up  had 
been  a  great  sinner;  for  such  is  frequently  the 
meaning  of  the  term  jcpar.  Cf.  Job,  xxxi.  18; 
Ps.  Iviii.  4.  It  may  also  be  said  here  that  David 
does  not  make  an  universal  affirmation,  but  only 
speaks  of  himself,  designing  to  describe  himself 
as  a  great  sinner. 

(2)  The  proof  that  the  doctrine  of  natural  de- 
pravity and  its  propagation  is  founded  in  the 
holy  scriptures,  is  rather  to  be  made  out  from 
the  comparison  of  many  texts  taken  together,  or 
viewed  in  their  connexion.  The  doctrine  itself 
is  undoubtedly  scriptural,  although  the  Biblical 
writers  did  not  always  express  themselves  re- 
specting it  with  equal  clearness  and  distinct- 
ness, and  did  not  adopt  all  the  consequences 
which  have  been  since  drawn  from  it  by  many 
from  its  connexion  with  other  doctrines.  The 
Bible  speaks,  as  Musseus  and  Moms  justly  ob- 
serve, far  more  frequently  in  the  concrete  than  in 
the  abstract,  respecting  the  sinful  corruption  of 
man ;  and  in  this  respect  it  should  be  imitated 
by  preachers  in  their  popular  instruction.  Men 
will  readily  concede  the  general  proposition, 
csse  perditam  naturam  humanam ;  but  they  are 
unwilling  that  this  proposition  should  be  ap- 
plied to  themselves  ,•  while  yet  the  effect  of  the 
personal  self-application  of  this  doctrine  is  most 
salutary  to  every  individual.  The  scriptures 
teach  us  how  to  bring  this  doctrine  home  to 
every  heart. 

The  course  of  thought  on  this  subject  which 
the  Hebrews  followed,  and  which  was  gradually 
developed  and  transmitted  to  Christians,  is  as 
follows: — God  created  everything,  and  conse- 
quently the  material  from  which  the  sensible 
world  has  originated,  and  from  which  he  formed 
the  human  body.  All  this  was  good  and  per- 
fect in  its  kind — i.  e.,  adapted  to  the  attainment 
of  its  end  or  destination ;  Gen.  i.  The  body  of 
man  was  sustained  by  the  tree  of  life,  and  happy 
and  peaceful  was  his  condition  in  the  state  of 
innocence.  This  Mosaic  narrative  is  at  the 
foundation  of  the  whole.  Men  ate  of  the  for- 
bidden tree  of  poison ;  its  taste  brought  sickness 
and  death  upon  them,  weakened  their  body,  and 
destroyed  its  harmony.  Violent  passions  now 
arose  within  them,  and  the  just  balance  of  the 
human  powers  and  inclinations  was  destroyed, 
and  sense  obtained  predominance  over  reason. 
Vide  s.  75.  All  this  is  indeed  spoken  in  Gen. 
ii.  and  iii.  only  respecting  Adam  and  Eve,  and 
nothing  is  there  expressly  said  of  the  propaga- 
tion of  this  evil.  But  their  posterity  died  after 
the  same  manner,  and  experienced  the  same 
predominance  of  sense  and  inclination  to  sin, 
from  their  youth  up.  Respecting  the  race  of 


284 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


man  sprung1  from  Adam  before  the  flood,  the 
scripture  saith,  Gen.  vi.  5,  Their  wickedness 
was  great,  and  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts 
of  their  heart  (137  rotfnp  w^3,  all  the  thoughts, 
desires,  resolves,  arising  within  them,  and  car- 
ried out  into  action; — nr,  nature,  constitution, 
Ps.  ciii.  14,  [rather,  frame,  whatever  is  made  by 
an  artificer,  and  so  here  the  whole  doing  or  ope- 
ration of  the  heart,])  was  daily  nothing  but  evil. 
Nor  did  any  change  take  place  in  those  who 
lived  after  the  flood ;  but  men  were  found  to  be 
the  same  as  before,  and  so  God  repeated  the 
same  declaration  respecting  them,  Gen.  viii.  22. 
And  the  constant  experience  of  later  times  con- 
firmed the  same  truth.  It  was  therefore  justly 
concluded  that  this  evil  is  transmitted  from  ge- 
neration to  generation,  and  is  the  common  here- 
ditary disease  of  the  human  race;  especially  as 
this  evil  was  seen  to  exist  very  early  in  all  men, 
even  from  their  youth  (pap),  and  so  could  not 
have  arisen  merely  from  defect  in  education  or 
the  influence  of  bad  example.  All  the  imper- 
fections, therefore,  which  were  understood  by 
the  Jews  under  the  terms  -lira  and  <ja'p|  (viz., 
mortality,  the  predominance  of  sense,  the  bias 
to  sin,  &c.)  were  universally  regarded  by  them 
as  the  melancholy  consequences  of  the  fall  of 
the  first  man.  Vide  No.  I.  3.  In  this,  there- 
fore, lay  the  germ  of  all  the  evil  and  moral  cor- 
ruption among  men.  It  is  obviously  to  these 
fundamental  ideas  that  all  the  prophets  refer 
back,  when  they  speak  of  the  sin  and  corruption 
so  prevalent  among  men.  And  it  is  the  same 
with  the  later  Jewish  writers  after  the  Babylo- 
nian exile  until  the  time  of  Christ — e.  g.,  the 
writers  of  the  Apocrypha.  And  so  we  find 
many  traces  of  this  in  the  old  Jewish  transla- 
tions of  the  Hebrew  scriptures;  in  the  Chaldaic 
Paraphrases,  and  in  the  Septuagint  Version — e. 
g.,  in  Job,  xiv.  4,  where  it  is  said,  none  is  pure, 
the  Septuagint  adds,  even  although  he  should  live 
but  for  a  single  day  upon  the  earth. 

On  the  same  general  views  do  Christ  and  the 
apostles  proceed ;  and  Paul  especially  teaches 
this  doctrine  plainly  and  expressly,  and  im- 
proves it  in  order  to  set  forth  more  conspicu- 
ously the  high  worth  of  Christianity,  as  that 
system  in  which  more  efficacious  and  sure  re- 
medies against  this  evil  were  provided  than  the 
Jewish  or  any  other  religion  ever  possessed.  In 
this  way  does  he  humble  the  pride  of  man,  and 
describe  the  disorder  of  the  soul  in  that  cele- 
brated passage  before  cited,  Rom.  vii.  14,  seq. 
He  calls  this  innate  evil,  ver.  17,  y  olxovaa  tv 
f/tot  d/iaprta,  ver.  23,  etspo$  »>op>?  sv  T'ot'j  /tlfocri 
pov,  ver.  25,  VO/AOJ  d^aprtaj. 

In  the  text  Eph.  ii.  3,  the  term  ^rut?  is  vari- 
ously explained.  The  explanation  of  Morus, 
that  it  denotes  the  state  of  one  who  follows  his 
sensual  desires,  as  all  men  are  naturally  prone 
to  do,  is  just,  on  account  of  the  antithesis  in  ver. 


5,  10.  <£v<jtj  properly  signifies  (a)  origin,  birth, 
from  <j>wo,  nascor  ,•  so  in  Gal.  ii.  15,  tyvati  'lov- 
SCHOJ,  Jews  by  birth,  native  Jews ;  and  so  too  in 
the  classics.  (ft)  It  is  also  used  both  by  the 
Jews  and  classics  to  denote  the  original,  inborn, 
and  peculiar  properties,  attributes,  nature  of  a 
thing  or  person,  the  naturalis  indoles  or  affcctio ; 
as  Rom.  xi.  21,  24,  where  the  sense  is,  "even 
we  who  are  born  Jews,  are,  as  to  our  nature — 
i.  e.,  that  natural  disposition  which  we  have 
exhibited  from  our  youth  up — equally  deserving 
of  punishment  with  other  men, — i.  e.,  native 
heathen;  for  all,  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike,  are 
born  with  a  dangerous  predominance  of  sense, 
arid  deserving  of  the  punishment  of  all  the  sons 
of  Adam — viz.,  death" 

After  these  texts,  the  passage,  John,  iii.  6,  is 
easily  explained :  what  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh — i.  e.,  from  men  who  are  weak,  erring, 
and  sinful,  men  of  the  same  character  are  born. 
No  one  attains,  therefore,  by  his  mere  birth, 
(e.  g,  as  a  Jew,)  to  any  peculiar  privileges  from 
God  ;  these  he  attains  only  by  being  born  again, 
by  becoming  a  regenerate  man,  morally  changed. 
On  principles  like  these  do  the  sacred  writers 
always  proceed  when  they  teach  that  all  men, 
without  exception,  are  sinners;  John,  iii.  6; 
Rom.  iii.  9,  19. 

SECTION  LXXVIII. 

OF  THE  NATURE  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  THIS  COR- 
RUPTION ;  ITS  PROPAGATION  ;  ITS  PUNISHABLE- 
NESS  ;  ALSO  OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  SINFUL  DESIRES 
AMONG  MEN,  AND  THEIR  PUNISHABLENESS. 

I.  Nature  of  Human  Depravity. 

(1)  IT  is  universal  This  implies,  (a)  that 
no  man  is  wholly  exempt  from  it,  however  dif- 
ferent may  be  the  degrees  and  modifications  in 
which  it  may  exist.  The  universality  of  human 
depravity  is  proved,  partly  from  the  experience 
of  all  men  and  ages  (vide  s.  74),  partly  from 
the  testimony  of  the  holy  scriptures.  Many 
texts,  indeed,  treat  of  the  sinful  actions  and 
moral  corruption  of  men  of  mature  life;  but  we 
are  taught  by  the  Bible  to  look  for  the  first 
ground  even  of  these  in  that  human  depravity 
or  bias  to  sin  without  which  sin  itself  would 
never  have  prevailed  so  universally ;  s.  77,  III. 
ad  finem. 

The  texts  commonly  referred  to  on  this  sub- 
ject are,  Job,  xiv.  4,  (who  can  find  a  pure  man? 
none  is  unspotted,)  Rom.  iii.  23,  where  Paul 
says,  in  order  to  humble  the  pride  of  the  Jews, 
that  they  were  no  better  than  the  heathen,  and 
were,,  as  w'ell  as  they,  vGTtfpovvets  tr^  6o|>7?  ®tovf 
also  Rom.  v.  12 — 21;  Eph.  ii.  3;  John,  iii.  6. 
No  sooner  does  man  begin  to  exercise  his  rea- 
son, and  to  distinguish  between  good  and  evil, 
than  this  bias  to  sin  shews  itself  in  him.  While 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


285 


he  must  acknowledge  the  law  as  good  and  obli- 
gatory, he  feels  within  himself  a  resistance  to 
it — an  inclination  to  do  that  which  is  opposed 
to  it,  and  forbidden  by  it.  Indeed,  he  is  borne 
away  with  such  power  by  his  lower  appetites 
and  passions,  that  he  often  does  that  which  he 
himself  knows  to  be  injurious,  and  neglects  that 
which  he  knows  to  be  salutary.  Rom.  vii.  8; 
Eph.  ii.  3;  Gal.  v.  17.  Thus  it  is  with  all 
men ;  and  each  individual  must  confess  that  the 
Bible  truly  describes  his  own  history  and  ex- 
perience. Hence  this  evil  is  universal. 

The  universality  of  this  corruption  implies, 
(6)  that  it  can  never  be  entirely  eradicated,  even 
with  the  most  sincere  endeavours  of  the  pious ; 
that  although,  through  divine  assistance,  an  end 
may  be  put  to  the  dominion  of  sin,  and  its  out- 
breakings  may  be  prevented,  yet  the  root  and 
germ  of  evil  will  remain,  and  cease  only  with 
death,  or  the  laying  aside  of  the  body,  in  which 
this  sinful  corruption  has  its  principal  seat. 
Vide  Rom.  vi.  12;  vii.  17,  24;  Gal.  v.  16,  17; 
1  John,  i.  8.  Every  one,  therefore,  who  has 
been  freed  from  the  dominion  of  sin,  has  still  to 
contend  against  this  propensity  to  sin,  lest  he 
should  again  fall  under  its  dominion.  Rom. 
viii.  13 ;  vi.  12,  seq.  These  remnants  of  de- 
pravity which  are  found  even  in  the  best  men, 
make  their  holiness  and  virtue  very  imperfect; 
and  the  feeling  that  they  are  sinners  continually 
humbles  them  before  God.  The  truly  pious 
man  will  never  therefore  glory  in  his  holiness, 
or  be  proud  of  his  virtue,  because  he  well  knows 
that  it  is  imperfect.  This  is  evident  from  every 
page  of  the  scriptures. 

(2)  It  is  natural  and  innate,  (naturalis  et 
congenita  sive  insita  vitiositas  sive  depravatio.) 
The  term  natural  is  taken  from  Eph.  ii.  3,  fyvaei 
xvo,  opy^v  Vide  s.  77,  III.  1.  Tertullian 
seems  to  be  the  first  among  the  church  fathers 
who  used  the  term  naluralis.  Vide  s.  79,  No. 
4.  The  use  of  this  term,  if  it  be  rightly  ex- 
plained, is  unobjectionable.  If  natural  be  un- 
derstood in  the  sense  of  essential,  it  conveys  a 
false  idea,  and  is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  this 
depravity  is  an  essential  part  of  man,  that  man 
could  not  exist  as  man  without  it.  Matt.  Fla- 
cius  of  Jena,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  contended, 
in  his  controversies  with  Victor  Strigelius  about 
Synergism,  that  peccatum  originate  esse  non  acci- 
dens,  sed  IPSAM  SUBSTANTIATE  hominis.  But  he 
asserted  this  merely  from  ignorance  of  scholas- 
tic phraseology.  He  meant  only  to  maintain 
the  entire  corruption  of  man,  and  his  incapacity 
to  all  good.  And  although  the  authors  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  (Art.  I.)  nominally  oppose 
Flacianism,  they  maintain  the  same  doctrine  in 
other  words :  peccatum  originate  cum  natura  et 
substantia  hominis  intime  conjunctum  esse  et  com- 
mixtum. 

The  term  natural  is  rather  used  in  this  doc- 


trine in  opposition  to  what  is  acquired,  or  first 
produced  and  occasioned  by  external  circum- 
stances and  causes.  It  denotes  that  for  which 
there  is  a  foundation  in  man  himself,  although 
it  may  be  an  accident,  and  may  not  belong  es- 
sentially to  his  nature.  In  the  same  sense  we 
say,  for  example,  that  such  a  man  possesses  na- 
tural sagacity,  that  a  disease  is  natural  to  an- 
other, that  he  is  by  nature  a  poet,  &c.,  because 
the  qualities  here  spoken  of  are  not  the  result  of 
diligence,  practice,  or  any  external  circum- 
stances. In  the  same  way  this  depravity  is 
called  natural,  because  it  has  its  ground  in  man, 
and  is  not  in  the  first  place  acquired ;  or,  still 
more  plainly,  because  it  does  not  first  come  to 
man  from  without,  through  instruction  or  the 
mere  imitation  of  bad  examples. 

As  the  term  natural,  however,  is  ambiguous, 
and  liable  to  misconception,  some  prefer  the 
designation  innate,  (congenitum  or  insitum) — a 
term  which,  as  well  as  the  other,  is  scriptural. 
The  word  congenitus  is  used  by  the  elder  Pliny 
in  the  sense  of  innate,  and  as  opposed  acquisito 
sive  aliunde  illato,  and  is  in  substance  the  same 
as  natural.  So  Cicero  (Orat.  pro  domo,  c.  5,) 
places  nativum  malum  in  opposition  to  that 
which  is  aliunde  allato.  And  it  is  with  justice 
that  a  quality,  which  has  its  origin  at  the  same 
time  with  man,  which  is  found  in  him  from  his 
earliest  youth,  and  can  be  wholly  eradicated  by 
no  effort,  is  denominated  natural,  (jt?3p,  applied 
to  the  good,  Job,  xxxi.  18 ;  to  the  wicked,  Ps. 
Iviii.  4,  denoting  anything  which  is  deep-rooted, 
and  shews  itself  early  in  men.)  In  this  sense 
we  speak  at  the  present  day  of  innate  or  heredi- 
tary faults,  virtues,  excellences,  both  in  men 
and  beasts — e.  g.,  of  cunning,  pride,  magnani- 
mity, &c.  So  Kant  speaks  of  RADIKALE  Hose  ,- 
and  Sosipater,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
Stobaeus,  wrote  in  one  of  his  letters,  ci/voct  6s, 
tbj  avfjifyvtov  *fo  afiapfdvsw  dv^pwrtocj. 

(3)  It  is  hereditary.  That  this  evil  is  trans- 
mitted from  parents  to  children  follows  partly 
from  its  universality,  and  partly  from  its  entire 
sameness  in  all  men.  As  it  was  in  the  parents, 
so  it  is  in  the  children,  although  it  shews  itself 
in  different  degrees,  according  to  the  difference 
in  the  organization,  the  temperament,  and  the 
external  circumstances  and  relations  in  which 
they  live.  In  the  same  way  we  judge  that  cer- 
tain faults,  talents,  and  virtues,  are  inherited  by 
children,  when  we  see  a  resemblance  between 
them  and  their  parents  in  these  respects.  The 
doctrine  that  this  depravity  is  propagated  among 
men  from  parents  to  children,  and  on  this  very 
account  is  universal,  is  clearly  taught  in  the 
holy  scriptures,  as  Rom.  v.  12,  seq.;  John,  iii. 
6,  and  other  texts.  Vide  s.  77,  III.  2. 

Note. — Human  depravity  does  not,  however, 
consist  in  definite  inclinations  directed  to  parti- 
cular objects,  but  rather  in  a  general  disposition 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


to  inordinate  and  violent  passions,  which  shews 
itself  now  with  regard  to  one  object,  and  again 
with  regard  to  another,  according  to  the  differ- 
ence of  organization,  of  temperament,  and  of 
external  circumstances ;  but  in  all  cases,  what- 
ever may  be  the  object  of  the  passion,  in  such  a 
way  that  reason  and  conscience  avail  but  little 
against  passion,  or  far  less  than  they  should. 

II.  The  manner  in  which  Natural  Depravity  is 
propagated. 

(1)  From  what  has  been  already  said,  it  is 
plain  that  a  physical  propagation  of  human  de- 
pravity is  affirmed  in  the  scriptures,  and  it  is  in 
this  that  what  theologians  call  original  sin 
(Erbsiinde)  principally  consists.  This  may  be 
proved  from  the  following  principles,  which  are 
undeniably  taught  in  the  Bible  :  (a)  tnat  human 
nature  was  unquestionably  more  perfect  and 
better  formerly  than  it  is  at  present;  (6)  that 
our  progenitors  were  corrupted,  and  as  it  were 
poisoned,  by  the  fall ;  (c)  that  the  principal  seat 
of  this  depravity  is  to  be  found  in  the  body,  s. 
77,  II.  Children  derive  their  bodies  from  their 
parents,  and  so  back  to  the  first  human  pair. 
The  attributes  which  belonged  to  the  bodies  of 
our  first  parents  after  the  fall,  their  excellences 
as  well  as  imperfections,  belong  also  to  their 
posterity,  and  so  are  inherited  by  children  from 
their  parents.  Parents  could  not  beget  children 
better  or  more  perfect  than  they  themselves 
were.  Vide  1  Cor.  xv.  48,  49.  After  the  fall 
they  had  <yapxa,  or  cjw^a  aaapttaj  and  §avdtov, 
and  consequently  their  posterity,  begotten  and 
born  after  the  fall,  possessed  the  same.  John, 
iii.  6,  -to  ysysvvqvevov  ex  tfapxoj  <jap|  (ffapxcxoj) 
efftt. 

This  is  illustrated  from  the  analogy  of  certain 
diseases  of  mind  and  body,  which  are  often  pro- 
pagated through  whole  generations.  It  is  a 
matter  of  experience,  that  some  qualities,  intel- 
lectual and  corporeal,  are  propagated  from  pa- 
rents to  their  offspring,  although  it  is  not  the 
case  with  all.  The  propagation  of  moral  de- 
pravity is  not,  therefore,  contrary  to  what  is 
known  from  experience,  but  rather  in  perfect 
consistency  with  it,  and  this  is  enough. 

Closely  connected  with  this  is  the  New-Tes- 
tament doctrine,  that  the  man  Jesus  Christ  was 
not  produced  in  the  common  course  of  nature, 
like  other  men,  but  in  an  extraordinary  manner, 
by  the  immediate  agency  of  God.  Luke,  i.  34 ; 
Matt.  i.  16 — 20,  25.  It  was  necessary  for  him 
to  be  without  sin  or  depravity,  (Heb.  iv.  15,) 
vitiositatis  expers,  and  like  the  first  man  in  his 
state  of  innocence,  in  order  to  restore  the  happi- 
ness which  was  squandered  by  him;  hence  he 
is  called  6  Sai^poj  ai£pcorto$,  o  £S%aifo^  'A8dfi,  1 
Cor.  xv.  45,  47;  also,  6  Tto?  tov  cU^pwrfou,  the 
great  Son  of  Adam,  or  of  man. 

It  was  on  this  account  that,  in  the  twelfth 


century,  some  teachers  in  France,  and  Ansel- 
mus  of  Canterbury,  in  England,  maintained  the 
unspotted  conception  of  the  mother  of  Jesus.  To 
this  opinion  Scotus  acceded,  and  after  him  his 
adherents,  the  entire  body  of  the  Franciscans, 
and,  at  a  later  period,  the  Jesuits.  But  they 
were  opposed  by  Thomas  Aquinas  and  his  fol- 
lowers, and  by  all  the  Dominicans.  On  this 
point  there  was  a  violent  dispute  in  the  Romish 
church  from  the  fifteenth  to  the  seventeenth  cen- 
turies, and  the  popes  decided  nothing  respecting 
it.  This  doctrine  is  wholly  unsupported  by  the 
holy  scriptures. 

When  all  which  has  now  been  said  is  taken 
in  connexion,  it  plainly  appears  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  physical  propagation  of  depravity  fully 
agrees  with  the  other  scriptural  ideas.  Any  one, 
therefore,  who  receives  these  representations  re- 
specting the  original  and  more  perfect  state  of 
man,  respecting  the  sin  and  fall  of  Adam,  &c., 
as  true,  and  founded  in  the  scriptures,  proceeds 
inconsistently  when  he  denies  the  consequences 
which  flow  from  them,  as  many  modern  theolo- 
gians do. 

In  the  times  of  the  church  fathers,  during  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries,  this  doctrine  of  the 
physical  propagation  of  human  corruption  was 
often  vindicated  and  illustrated  by  the  doctrine 
respecting  the  propagation  of  the  soul  per  tra- 
ducem;  (vide  s.  57,  II.,  and  s.  79,  No.  2 ;)  but  of 
this  there  is  nothing  said  in  the  Bible.  The 
manner  in  which  this  disposition  is  propagated 
can  be  explained  neither  psychologically  nor  ana- 
tomically. The  psychologist  does  not  know  the 
soul  as  it  is  in  itself,  but  only  a  part  of  its  exer- 
cises. In  like  manner  the  interior  of  our  corpo- 
real structure  is  a  mystery  impenetrable  by  our 
senses.  Into  the  inmost  secrets  of  nature,  whe- 
ther corporeal  or  spiritual,  no  created  spirit  can 
pry.  We  cannot  therefore  either  understand  or 
describe  this  disposition,  which  is  so  injurious  to 
morality,  or  its  propagation,  as  they  are  in  them- 
selves, but  only  according  to  the  appearances 
and  effects  which  they  exhibit  in  the  gradual 
development  of  man. 

Note. — The  universality  of  depravity  (a^uap- 
-r'ta)  and  of  death  Qtaj/afoj)  depends,  according 
to  the  Bible,  upon  the  derivation  of  all  men  from 
one  progenitor  or  father.  Hence  sin  and  death 
are  always  derived  from  Mam,  Rom.  v.  14;  I 
Cor.  xv.  22;  and  not  from  Eve,  although  she, 
according  to  Paul  himself,  (1  Tim.  ii.  14,)  first 
sinned.  If  Eve  only  had  sinned,  she  would  have 
removed  her  depravity  from  the  world  when  she 
died  ;  and  sin  would  not  through  her  have  come 
into  the  world  in  such  a  way  that  sin,  and  death 
through  sin,  should  pass  upon  all  men.  Hence 
Jesus,  when  it  was  necessary  that  he,  as  a  man, 
should  be  without  sin,  was  born  of  a  human  mo- 
ther, but  not  begotten  by  a  human  father.  Vide 
Num.  I. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


287 


(2)  There  is  also  a  moral  propagation  of  this 
depravity.  In  this  are  included, 

(a)-  The  imputation  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  of 
which  we  have  treated,  both  doctrinally  and  his- 
torically, in  s.  76.  By  this  is  understood  the 
universal  mortality  of  man  as  a  consequence  of 
the  sin  of  our  progenitors. 

(6)  The  propagation  of  depravity  through  the 
imitation  of  bad  examples.  The  bias  to  evil 
which  lies  in  the  human  heart  is  in  no  way  more 
excited  and  strengthened  than  by  bad  examples, 
which  very  soon  obtain  approbation  and  are  imi- 
tated, whether  the  individual  may  have  seen 
them  himself,  or  have  heard  of  them  from  others, 
or  have  read  respecting  them  in  books.  The 
influence  exerted  by  this  cause  upon  man  in  the 
formation  of  his  character  is  so  indescribably 
great,  that  many  ancient  writers  regarded  it  as 
the  only  cause  of  the  propagation  of  human  de- 
pravity, and  either  wholly  denied  or,  at  least  in 
a  great  measure,  doubted  the  doctrine  of  its  phy- 
sical propagation.  They  hence  supposed  that 
this  evil  could  be  either  wholly  removed,  or  at 
least  much  diminished,  by  means  of  a  good  edu- 
cation, and  that  the  propensity  to  imitation  could 
receive  such  a  direction  that  the  good  only  should 
be  imitated,  while  the  evil  should  be  shunned. 
So  thought  Pelagius,  (vide  s.  79,  No.  3,)  and  at 
a  later  period  the  Socinians  and  many  Arminians. 
This  opinion  has  found  advocates  also  among 
some  modern  protestant  theologians — e.  g., 
Steinbart,  System,  s.  105,  f. ;  Eberhard,  Apolo- 
gie,  ii.  339,  f. ;  Jerusalem,  Betrachtungen,  th.  ii. 
b.  ii.  s.  683,  f. 

That  example  and  education  contribute  much 
to  the  moral  improvement  or  corruption  of  man 
cannot  be  doubted ;  but  it  is  equally  true,  and 
conformed  to  experience,  that  example  and  edu- 
cation are  far  from  being  the  only  and  sufficient 
cause  of  the  prevailing  wickedness,  and  that 
with  the  best  education  man  becomes  bad  much 
easier  than  good,  with  all  the  pains  taken  to 
make  him  so.  Of  this  the  cause  lies  in  the 
undue  predominance  of  the  animal  appetites. 
This  accounts  for  it,  that  the  bias  to  evil  is  so 
much  stronger  and  more  active  than  the  bias  to 
good.  Were  it  otherwise,  it  would  be  unneces- 
sary to  contend  so  strenuously  against  evil,  and 
to  employ  so  many  means  to  incite  man  to  good- 
ness and  to  secure  him  against  vice.  And  among 
all  the  thousands  who  have  lived  upon  the  earth, 
there  would  have  been  found  some  examples  of 
persons  who  had  passed  through  their  whole  life 
free  from  sin. 

As  man,  therefore,  has  within  himself  a  natural 
adaptation  to  much  which  is  good,  he  has  also  a 
natural  disposition  and  bias  to  much  which  is 
evil,  (malum  radicalc,}  which  soon  strikes  root, 
spreads  round,  and  chokes  the  good.  It  is  abso- 
lutely inexplicable  how  the  preponderance  of 
sense  over  reason,  so  visible  in  all  men,  could  be 


derived  from  mere  imitation.  Were  this  the 
case,  this  preponderance  ought  to  cease  as  soon 
as  man,  in  the  full  exercise  of  his  understanding, 
were  taught  better.  The  will,  we  should  expect, 
would  then  obey  the  dictates  of  reason.  It  is  not 
found,  however,  to  be  so  in  fact.  The  dominion 
of  sense  still  continues,  as  the  experience  of 
every  one  proves.  The  ground  of  this  must  there- 
fore lie  deeper;  and  both  experience  and  reason 
confirm  the  account  which  scripture  gives  of  it. 
Vide  s.  77. 

III.  The  Imputation  or  Punishableness  of  Natural 
Depravity. 

This  is  the  reatas  or  culpa  vitiositatis,  and  was 
asserted  by  Augustine  and  his  followers.  Vide 
Moms,  p.  120,  s.  7,  coll.  s.  79,  No.  2.  They 
contended  that  all  men,  even  before  they  had 
committed  any  sinful  actions,  and  barely  on  ac- 
count of  this  native  depravity,  were  deserving  of 
temporal  and  eternal  death,  or  of  damnation. 
Others  have  endeavoured  in  various  ways  to 
mitigate  the  severity  of  this  opinion.  Some  mo- 
dern theologians  have  taught,  in  imitation  of 
Augustine,  the  doctrine  that  pcccatum  originale 
per  se  esse  damnabile  ,•  but  that,  for  Christ's  sake, 
punishment  was  not  actually  inflicted. 

But  the  assertion,  that  this  corruption  in  and 
of  itself  involves  condemnation,  cannot  be 
proved.  For  (a)  it  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
justice  and  goodness  of  God  that  he  should 
punish  (in  the  proper  sense  of  this  term)  an  in- 
nocent person  for  the  sins  of  another.  Sin 
cannot  exist,  certainly  cannot  be  punished,  un- 
less the  action  is  free ;  otherwise  it  ceases  to  be 
sin.  Vide  s.  76,  III.  (6)  In  those  texts  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  which  are  com- 
monly cited  in  behalf  of  this  opinion,  the  death 
spoken  of  is  not  eternal  death,  or  condemnation; 
but  temporal  death,  Gen.  i.  2,  17;  Rom.  v.  12; 
1  Cor.  xv.  22.  Vide  s.  75,  II.  2.  (c)  Even 
bodily  death  is  represented  in  the  scriptures  as, 
indeed,  the  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  but  not  as 
a  punishment,  strictly  speaking,  for  any  beside 
himself;  for  none  but  himself  were  guilty  of  his 
sin. 

In  conformity  with  this  view,  Rom.  v.  12, 14, 
is  to  be  explained;  also  Rom.  vi.  23, 
64/uma  a/xapi'KX£,  or  ver.  21,  •ti'ko^  (xaprtoj)  aj 
tlac,'  so  called  because  it  followed  upon  Adam's 
sin,  and,  as  far  as  he  was  concerned,  was  a  pu- 
nishment for  it.  Vide  s.  76,  III.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  on  this  subject  is  the  following; 
"The  bias  of  man  to  evil,  and  to  do  that  which 
is  forbidden,  is  in  itself  bad,  (Germ.fehlerkaftes, 
esse  in  vitio,  vitiosum,}  Rom.  vii.  5 ;  xiii.  18 ;  but 
it  cannot  be  imputed  to  man,  or  he  be  regarded 
as  punishable  on  account  of  it,  unless  he  yields 
himself  to  if,,  and  indulges  it.  Vide  Rom.  vi. 
12;  Gen.  iv.  7,  coll.  James,  i.  15.  This,  how- 
ever, is  the  case  with  all  men;  no  one  has 


288 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


lived  upon  the  earth  who  has  not  been  led  by 
this  propensity  into  actual  transgression,  and 
so  has  become  deserving  of  punishment." 
Truly,  therefore,  does  the  scripture  affirm  that 
we  are  all  subject  to  punishment,  (tixva,  6py?jj, 
Ephes.  ii.  3 ;)  not,  however,  because  we  are 
born  with  this  disposition,  (for  this  is  not  any 
fault  of  ours,)  but  because  we  indulge  it,  give 
an  ear  to  our  unlawful  desires,  and  so  suffer  our- 
selves to  be  led  on  to  the  commission  of  sin. 

IV.  The  Source  and  Origin  of  Sinful  Inclinations, 

and  their  Punishableness. 
From  the  preponderance  of  sense  now  ex- 
plained, particular  sinful  dispositions  and  pas- 
sions take  their  origin,  and  so  are  the  result 
and  the  proof  of  the  sinful  depravity  of  man. 
But  in  order  that  we  may  rightly  estimate  the 
sinfulness  and  punishableness  of  these  desires, 
we  must  attend  to  the  following  considera- 
tions : — 

(1)  The  desires  >of  man  are  not  in  themselves, 
and  abstractedly  considered,  sinful ,•  for  they  are 
deep  laid  in  the  constitution  which  God  him- 
self has  given  to  human  nature;  they  arise  in 
man  involuntarily,  and  so  far  cannot  certainly 
be  imputed  to  him.     The  essential  constitution 
of   man  makes  it  necessary  that  everything 
which  makes  an  agreeable  impression  on  the 
senses  should  inevitably  awaken  com  spondent 
desires.     The  poor  man,  who  sees  himself  sur- 
rounded with  the  treasures  of  another,  feels  a 
natural  and  involuntary  desire  to  possess  them. 
The  mere  rising  of  this  desire  is  no  more  pu- 
nishable in  him  than  it  was  in  Eve,  \\hen  she 
saw  the  tree,  and  felt  an  impulse  to  eat  its  beau- 
tiful  fruit,  which  is  never  represented  in  the 
Bible  as  her  sin. 

(2)  The  desires  of  man  become  sinful  and 
deserving  of  punishment  then  only  when  (a) 
man,  feeling  desires  after  forbidden  things,  seeks 
and  finds  pleasure  in  them,  and  delights  himself 
in  them,  and  so  (6)  carefully  cherishes  and  nou- 
rishes them  in  his  heart,     (c)  When  he  seeks 
occasions  to  awaken  the  desires  after  forbidden 
things,  and  to  entertain   himself  with   them, 
(d)  When  he  gives  audience  and  approbation  to 
these  desires,  and  justifies,  seeks,  and  performs 
the  sins  to  which  he  is  inclined.     This  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  twofold  injury,  that  he  not  only 
sins  for  this  once,  but  that  he  gives  his  appetites 
and  passions  the  power  of  soliciting  him  a  se- 
cond time  more  importunately,  of  becoming  more 
vehement  and  irresistible,  so  that  he  becomes 
continually  more  disposed  to  sin,  acquires  a  fixed 
habit  of  sinning,  and  at  last  becomes  the  slave 
of  sin.     Vide  Michaelis,  Ueber  die  Stinde,  s. 
365,  f.     But  if  a  man  repels  and  suppresses  the 
involuntary  desire  arising  w  ithin  him  because  it 
is  evil,  he  cannot  certainly  be  punished  merely 
because,  without  any  fault  of  his  own,  he  f(  It  this 


desire.  It  were  unjust  to  punish  any  one  for  be- 
ing assailed  by  an  enemy,  without  any  provoca- 
tion on  his  part. 

(3)  With  this  doctrine  the  holy  scripture  is 
perfectly  accordant.     Even  in  his  state  of  inno- 
cence man  felt  the  rising  of  desire ;  nor  was  this 
in  him  accounted  sin;  Gen.  iii.  6.     Hence  we 
are  never  required,  either  in  the  Old  Testament 
or  the  New,  to  eradicate  these  desires,  (which, 
indeed,  is  a  thing  impossible,  and  would  cause 
a  destruction  of  human  nature  itself,)  but  only 
to  keep  them   under  control,  and  to  suppress 
those  which  fix  upon  forbidden  things.    Vide  s. 
77.     In  Rom.  vi.  12,  we  are  directed  not  to  let 
our  sinful  appetites  rule,  and  not  to  obey  the  body 
in  the  lusts  thereof,-  here,  therefore,  it  is  presup- 
posed that  these  tempting  lusts  remain.   Again, 
in  Gal.  v.  24,  we  are  charged  to  crucify  the  flesh, 
with  its  affections  and  lusts.   It  is  to  those  who 
contend  against  their  wicked  passions  that  re- 
wards are  promised,  and  not  to  those  who  have 
never  had  these  solicitations  and  allurements 
to  evil.     The  pretended  virtue  of  such  men 
scarcely  deserves  the  name,  and  is  not  capable 
of  reward. 

Some  texts  are  indeed  cited  in  which  the  pas- 
sions, in  themselves  considered,  are  forbidden, 
as  Rom.  vii.  7,  ovx  sTtL^v^fis-  Ex.  xx.  17, 
"Thou  shall  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  house,'* 
&c.  Some  also  in  which  they  are  said  to  be 
deserving  of  punishment  from  God,  as  Matt.  v. 
28.  But  in  these  texts,  such  desires  are  not 
spoken  of  as  arise  involuntarily  within  us,  and 
for  which  we  are  not  therefore  culpable,  but 
such  as  man  himself  nourishes  and  entertains, 
or  by  his  own  agency  awakens  within  himself, 
and  which  he  aims  to  execute.  And  so  in 
Matt.  v.  Christ  speaks  of  the  actual  intention 
and  design  of  man  to  commit  adultery,  if  he 
could ;  and  not  of  the  passion  arising  in  his 
heart,  which  he  himself  disapproves,  and  imme- 
diately suppresses,  because  it  is  contrary  to  the 
divine  law. 

(4)  The  manner  in  which  man  is  borne  away 
by  his  passions  to  the  commission  of  sin  is  de- 
scribed by  James  (i.  14,  15)  in  a  way  that  cor- 
responds with  the  experience  of  every  one;  and 
this   text  confirms  all  the  preceding  remarks. 
When  desires  arise  within  us,  we  are  in  danger 
of  sinning.     Some  present  enjoyment  of  sense 
tempts  us.  Enticements  to  sin  spring  up.  These 
James  calls  temptations,  (elsewhere  called  oxdv- 
Sctfta,  Matt,  xviii.  7,  8,  Stf?p,  Ezek.  xvii.  19.) 
For  we  look  upon  that  which  is  represented  to 
us  by  our  senses  as  charming  and  desirable,  to 
be  a  great  good,  the  possession  of  which  would 
make  us  happy.     This  is  expressed  by  e%ei.x6- 
ptvos  and  SfXsa^o^fvo?.    The  image  is  here  taken 
from  animals,  which  are  ensnared  by  baits  (8«- 
Xf  ap)  laid  before  them,  in  order  to  take  them.  To 
these  allurements  all  men  are  exposed,  although 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


I  not  in  the  same  degree.  Thus  far  there  is  no 
sin— i.  e.,  the  man  is  not  yet  caught  in  the  snare 
under  which  the  bait  lies.  But  here  he  must 
stop,  and  instead  of  indulging  must  suppress 
these  desires — must  fly  from  the  hait.  Other- 
wise, lust  conceives,  (ira^v^a  cri>M,a|3oiJ<?a,)  i.  e., 
these  desires  and  passions  are  approved  in  the 
heart,  and  the  man  begins  to  think  he  can  satisfy 
them.  This  is  wrong  and  sinful.  For  this  is 
no  longer  involuntary,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the 
result  of  man's  own  will,  and  he  is  now  deserv- 
ing of  punishment.  This  is  what  is  called  pec- 
catum  actuale  internum.  But  finally,  desire 
brings  forth  sin,  the  evil  intent  passes  into  ac- 
tion, and  is  accomplished.  This  is  peccatum 
actuate  externum.  Hence  flows  ^avaroj,  misery, 
unhappiness  of  every  sort,  as  the  consequence 
and  punishment  of  sin. 

SECTION  LXX1X. 

OF  THE  REPRESENTATIONS  OF  THE  ANCIENT 
CHURCH-FATHERS  RESPECTING  HUMAN  DEPRA- 
VITY J  AND  THE  MANNER  IN  WHICH  THE  EC- 
CLESIASTICAL PHRASEOLOGY  ON  THIS  SUBJECT 
AND  THE  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  DOCTRINE  WERE 
GRADUALLY  DEVELOPED. 

(1)  THE  oldest  Christian  teachers  were  mostly 
agreed  in  considering  death  as  a  consequence 
of  Adam's  sin.  Vide  s.  76.  [It  should  be  ob- 
served, however,  that  in  these  early  writers  the 
term  <j>^opa  stands  not  only  for  mortality,  but 
also  for  depravity.  Vide  Neander,  b.  i.  Abth. 
iii.  s.  1045. — TR.]  But  we  shall  look  in  vain 
through  the  writings  of  most  of  the  Greek  teach- 
ers to  find  the  full  scriptural  idea  of  an  innate 
depravity  ,-  or,  at  least,  it  cannot  be  found  exhi- 
bited with  sufficient  distinctness  or  clearness. 
As  there  had  been  as  yet  no  controversy  on  this 
subject,  nothing  respecting  it  was  determined 
and  settled  on  ecclesiastical  authority.  Still 
they  agree,  for  the  most  part,  that  the  dispro- 
portion between  sense  and  reason,  or  the  corrup- 
tion of  human  nature,  began  after  the  fall  of 
Adam,  and  has  been  diffused  as  a  universal  dis- 
ease through  the  whole  human  race.  That  this 
evil,  however,  in  itself  considered,  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  actual  sin,  and  as  such  is  punished 
by  God,  they  do  not  teach  ;  but  rather  the  con- 
trary. So  Justin  Martyr,  Ap.  i.  54,  seq. ;  Ire- 
nseus,  Adv.  Haeres.  iv.  37,  seq. ;  Athenagoras, 
Legal,  c.  22;  Clemens  Alex.  Strom,  iii.  (contra 
Encratitas.)  "No  one,"  says  the  writer  last 
mentioned,  "is  wholly  free  from  sin;  but  the 
child,  who  has  never  personally  trespassed, 
cannot  be  subjected  to  the  curse  of  Adam,  (the 
punishment  of  his  sin.)  Yet  all  who  have  the 
use  of  their  reason  are  led  by  this  their  moral 
depravity  to  commit  actual  sin,  and  so  become 
liable  to  punishment."  The  same  writer  says, 
in  his  Paedag.  iii.  12,  juovoj 
37 


yap  efafiapi'avEM'  jtadtv  Ipfyvtov  xai,  xowov. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  in  his  Commentary  on 
Isaiah,  says,  fyvaixov  sv  d^puirtot$  ovx  slvai  xaxov 
and  in  his  work  "  Contra  Anthropomorph."  c. 
8,  he  says,  "  Adam's  posterity  are  not  punished 
as  those  who  with  him  had  broken  the  law  of 
God."  So  also  Origen,  Praef.  ad  libros  Ttgpo 

wv,  and  his  followers,  Basilius,  and  Theo- 
dorus  of  Mopsevestia,  who,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  Photius,  wrote  a  book  against  those 
who  taught  that  man  sinned  ${><*«  xai  oi>  yno^. 
There  were  some,  too,  of  the  Greek  fathers  who 
traced  the  origin  of  the  evil  passions  and  of  the 
actual  sins  arising  from  them  to  the  mortality 
of  the  body — e.  g.,  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret. 
This  hypothesis  has  been  revived  in  later  times 
by  Whitby,  who  has  attempted  to  carry  it 
through.  Vide  s.  76,  note. 

(2)  The  same  representation  is  found  in  many 
of  the  fathers  of  the  ancient  Latin  church,  even 
in  Africa.  They  taught  that  death  (depravity  ?) 
is  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  and  yet  that  it 
is  not,  in  itself,  to  be  regarded  as  sin,  and  pu- 
nished accordingly.  Cyprian  (Epist.  Synod. 
Cone.  Carthag.  iii.)  says,  "A  new-born  child 
has  not  itself  sinned,  nisi  quod  secundum  Adam 
carnaliter  natus,  CONTAGIUM  MORTIS  contraxit" 
In  baptism,  the  sins  of  the  child  (which  v/ere 
still  not  propria  but  aliena}  were  supposed  to 
be  washed  away.  Ambrosius  says,  on  Ps. 
xlviii.,  "There  is  a  bias  to  sin  in  all,  but 
this  is  not  actual  sin,  and  liability  to  punish- 
ment ;  God  punishes  us  only  for  nostra  peccata, 
and  not  for  aliense  (Adami)  nequitiseflagitia." 
Even  according  to  Tertullian,  (detestim.  animae, 
c.  3,)  it  is  only  to  temporal  death  that  we  are 
condemned  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 
To  this  opinion,  Hilarius  and  others  acceded. 
The  African  fathers  before  the  time  of  Augus- 
tine, and  even  Tertullian,  seem,  however,  to 
have  had  less  distinct  and  settled  views  on  this 
subject  than  even  the  Greeks,  which  arose  from 
their  misunderstanding  the  seemingly  obscure 
phraseology  of  the  New  Testament,  and  espe- 
cially of  the  Latin  version  of  it. 

[The  germs  of  the  controversy  which  after- 
wards broke  out  between  Augustine  and  Pela- 
gius  can  be  discerned  in  this  earlier  period. 
The  Alexandrine  teachers,  and  among  these 
principally  Clement  and  Origen,  took  the  side 
of  the  human  will,  and  its  ability  to  good.  They, 
however,  by  no  means  carried  this  so  far  as  was 
afterwards  done  by  Pelagius,  and  often  express- 
ed themselves  strongly  respecting  the  entire  de- 
pravity of  man,  and  his  dependence  on  the  reno- 
vating influence  of  divine  grace.  Vide  Clement, 
Quis  dives  salv.  c.  21.  The  Eastern  teachers 
were  led  to  vindicate  thus  strongly  the  powers 
of  the  human  will  by  their  opposition  to  New 
Platonism,  and  the  Manichean  iheosophy,  by 
which  sin  was  attributed  either  to  an  eternal 
2B 


290 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


principle  of  evil,  to  a  blind  and  resistless  des- 
tiny, or  to  some  necessity  of  nature,  rather  than 
to  the  perversion  of  our  own  moral  powers. 

The  teachers  of  the  Western  church,  on  the 
other  hand,  and  especially  those  of  Africa,  having 
no  such  philosophy  to  oppose,  recognised  more 
fully  the  peculiar  Christian  truths  of  the  corrup- 
tion and  inability  of  human  nature,  and  the  ne- 
cessity of  divine  grace;  but  they  also  were  far 
from  representing  the  grace  of  God  as  compul- 
sory and  irresistible,  as  it  was  afterwards  done 
in  the  Pelagian  controversies.  This  tendency 
in  the  Western  church  is  represented  by  Tertul- 
lian,  Cyprian,  Hilary,  and  Ambrosius. 

As  yet,  however,  these  opposing  tendencies 
had  not  come  into  open  conflict,  but  awaited  the 
causes  which  brought  them  into  direct  collision 
in  the  following  period. — TR.] 

But  Augustine  carried  the  matter  much  fur- 
ther. He  affirmed  the  doctrine  de  imputalione 
peccati  Mami  in  the  strictest  juridical  sense, 
teaching  at  the  same  time  the  entire  depravity 
of  man,  and  his  total  inability  to  all  good,  in 
such  a  sense  as  it  is  nowhere  taught  in  the  Bible. 
He  may  have  been  led  to  this  by  having  for- 
merly belonged  to  the  sect  of  Manicheans,  who 
hold  very  strict  sentiments  on  this  point;  hence 
his  doctrine  depeccato  originali  was  called  by 
Pelagius  and  Julian  a  Manichean  doctrine.* 
He  maintained  that  the  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin  was  not  merely  bodily  death,  but  eternal, 
(mors  secunda,  cujus  non  est finis  ,•)  and  that  to 
this  all  men,  even  children,  who  had  not  them- 
selves thought  or  done  either  good  or  evil,  were 
subjected  ;  though  yet  the  unmerited  grace  of 
God  delivered  some  from  this  punishment,  (de- 
cretum  absolutum.)  He  exhibits  these  doctrines 
in  his  work,  De  civitate  Dei,  xiv.  1,  and  else- 


*  [We  subjoin  the  following  remarks  of  Neander 
with  respect  to  the  charge  here,  and  often  elsewhere, 
brought  against  the  system  of  Augustine.  "  The 
anthropology  of  Augustine,"  he  says,  "  is  unjustly 
supposed  to  be  derived  from  the  influence  of  Mani- 
cheism.  His  doctrine  respecting  the  moral  depravity 
of  man  was  a  very  different  thing  from  the  dualism 
of  Mani,  which  was  derived  from  the  philosophy  of 
nature.  The  system  of  Augustine  did  not,  like  that 
of  Mani,  proceed  from  his  confounding  in  his  con- 
ceptions the  natural  and  the  moral,  but  from  a  pure 
fact  of  moral  consciousness.  On  the  contrary,  it 
may  be  said,  that  while  the  hope  of  finding  out,  by 
means  of  speculation,  an  explanation  of  the  irrecon- 
cilable opposition  between  good  and  evil,  of  which 
he  had  become  early  conscious  in  the  depth  of  his 
soul,  led  him  to  Manicheism ;  he  was  led  from  it 
again  by  coming  to  apprehend  this  opposition  more 
and  more  in  a  moral  light.  Again ;  it  was  in  direct 
opposition  to  Manicheism  that  he  adopted  the  theory, 
the  first  germs  of  which  he  took  from  Platonism,  that 
evil  is  only  a  subjective  deviation  of  created  being 
from  the  law  of  the  supreme  and  only  true  Being, 
and  not,  as  taught  by  Mani,  an  independent,  self-sub- 
sisting existence."  Allg.  Kirchengesch,  b.  ii.  Abth. 
iii.  s.  1206.— TR.] 


where.  Fulgentius  Rusp.  (De  Fide,  c.  29) 
asserts  that  children  who  had  lived  merely  in 
their  mother's  womb,  and  yet  died  without  bap- 
tism, must  suffer  eternal  punishment  in  hell. 
And  so  taught  many  of  the  schoolmen,  according 
to  Peter  of  Lombardy,  1.  ii.  Even  Augustine 
attributed  a  certain  kind  of  physical  influence 
to  baptism,  and  confined  the  grace  of  God  to 
those  to  whom  this  ordinance  was  administered. 
He  held  this  doctrine,  however,  in  common  with 
many  of  the  Latin  fathers  before  his  time— e.  g., 
Cyprian.  The  adherents  of  Augustine  were  ac- 
customed to  vindicate  their  views  by  the  doc- 
trine of  the  propagation  of  the  soul  per  traducem^ 
though  this  is  not  true  of  all  of  them.  On  the 
contrary,  the  adherents  of  Pelagius,  for  the  most 
part,  denied  this  doctrine,  and  were  creationists. 
Vide  s.  57,  II. 

(3)  This  severe  doctrine  of  Augustine  was 
controverted  by  Pelagius,  and  many  others  who 
followed  him.  But  Pelagius,  in  his  turn,  went 
too  far  on  the  other  side,  and  maintained  various 
principles  which  obviously  are  unscriptural. 
Here  were,  therefore,  two  extremes,  between 
which  scriptural  truth  lay  in  the  midst,  having 
both  reason  and  experience  on  its  side.  In  the 
system  of  Augustine,  on  the  one  hand,  there 
is  much  opposed  to  reason  and  scripture;  and 
in  that  of  Pelagius,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is 
much  opposed  to  scriptureznd.  experience.  Pela- 
gius not  only  denied  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,  but  also  the  physical  propagation  of  human 
depravity.  He  taught  that  the  moral  nature  of 
man  is  unaltered,  and  that  man  is  now  entirely 
in  the  same  state  in  which  Adam  was  created. 
Weakness,  imperfection,  and  death,  were,  in 
his  view,  essential  to  man  from  the  first,  and  he 
is  punished  only  for  sinful  actions.  The  pro- 
pagation- of  human  depravity  is  not  physically 
and  by  birth,  but  morally  only,  from  the  imitation 
of  bad  examples.  The  declaration  that  in  Mam, 
all  have  sinned,  does  not  relate,  according  to  his 
scheme,  to  any  peccatum  nascendi  origine  contrac- 
turn;  but  to  that  acquired propter  imitationem  ex- 
empli. Vide  in  Libro  de  Natura,  ap.  August,  ad 
Rom.  v.  And  Julian  said,  (ap.  August,  contra 
Jul.  ii.  54,)  peccatum  primum  MORIBUS,  non  SE- 
MINIBUS  ad  poster os  fuisse  devectum.  Adam  set 
a  bad  example  before  his  children,  and  they 
again  before  theirs,  and  so  on.  In  this  sense 
only  did  Pelagius  allow  of  a  propagation  of  sin 
from  Adam.  Vide  s.  78,  II.  2.  The  views  of 
Pelagius  are  very  clearly  exhibited  in  the  work 
De  libero  arbitrio  (ap.  August,  de  pecc.  orig.  c. 
13)  :  Omne  bonum  aut  malum,  quo  vel  laudibiles 
vel  vituperabiles  sumus,  non  nobiscum  nasciturt 
sed  agitur  a  nobis;  capaces  utriusque  rei,  non 
pleni  nascimur,  et  ut  sine  VIRTUTE,  sic  SINE  VITIO 
procreamur. 

These  views  were  totally  diverse  from  those 
of  Augustine  and  other  African  teachers,  and  in 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


291 


many  points  also  from  the  plain  doctrine  of  the 
Bible.  This  deviation  from  the  scriptures  Au- 
gustine perceived  and  opposed.  Through  the 
resistance  of  Pelagius  he  became  more  zealous 
and  heated,  and  in  his  polemical  zeal  advanced 
continually  greater  lengths  in  his  positions.* 
The  theory  of  Augustine,  or  the  African  theory, 
was,  however,  by  no  means  universal  in  the 
fourth  century.  In  the  East,  and  in  Palestine 
especially,  Pelagius  was  received  into  favour 
and  protection  with  many  who  had  agreed  in 
many  points  with  Origen,  and  who  therefore 
saw  little  reprehensible  in  Pelagius.  Much, 
indeed,  in  his  theory  differed  from  that  then  pre- 
vailing through  the  Eastern  church.  But  from 
the  indifference  of  so  many  Grecian  bishops  on 
this  subject,  it  is  obvious  that  nothing  can  have 
been  at  that  time  ecclesiastically  determined  re- 
specting it,  and  that  the  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion by  no  means  appeared  to  them  at  first. 
And  even  in  the  Western  church  out  of  Africa, 
there  were  many  who  looked  upon  the  Pelagian 
theory  not  unfavourably,  and  on  this  account  it 
was  at  first  acquitted  of  the  charges  brought 
against  it  even  by  Zosimus,  the  Roman  bishop. 
Through  the  efforts  of  the  Africans,  however, 
and  their  connexion  with  the  Anti-Origenistic 
party,  it  was  finally  brought  about  that  the  doc- 
trines of  Pelagius  were  formerly  condemned  as 
heretical  at  the  church  councils,  and  that  the 
theory  of  Augustine,  after  the  year  418,  became 
predominant,  at  least  in  the  Occidental  church. 
Various  attempts  were  made  to  unite  the  two 
parties,  and  many  took  a  middle  course  between 
them,  from  whence  originated,  at  a  later  period, 
the  so-called  Semi-Pelagian  party.  Scotus,  and 
his  followers  among  the  schoolmen,  very  much 
extenuated  the  natural  depravity  of  man;  in 
which  they  have  been  followed  by  many  of  the 
theologians  of  the  Romish  church — e.  g.,  the 


*  [This  remark  respecting  the  theory  of  Augus- 
tine, though  often  made,  may  be  shewn  demonstra- 
bly  to  be  incorrect.  Augustine  had  developed  his 
full  system  concerning  the  inability  of  man  and  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  resulting  from  it,  as  early 
as  the  year  397,  in  a  work  directed  to  Simplician, 
bishop  at  Mailand,  some  time  before  Pelagius  ap- 
peared at  Rome,  and  at  least  ten  years  before  his 
doctrines  had  excited  attention  and  controversy. 
Neander  says, — "  Opposition  to  Pelagianism  could 
have  had  no  influence  upon  Augustine  in  forming 
his  system.  It  may  rather  be  said,  with  more  truth, 
that  Pelagius  was  excited  and  induced  to  develop  his 
own  views,  by  opposition  to  the  principles  of  Augus- 
tine respecting  the  natural  depravity  of  man,  and 
grace  and  predestination  not  conditioned  by  the  free 
will,"  b.  ii.  Abth.  iii.  s.  1215.  We  ought  not  readily 
to  attribute  the  opinions  of  such  minds  as  Augus- 
tine's to  external  causes.  Their  own  internal  im- 
pulse, and  their  effort  after  perfect  consistency,  often 
carry  them  to  extremes,  to  which  others  could  be 
driven  only  by  the  pressure  of  controversy.  Cf.  the 
Note  to  the  History  of  Decrees,  vol.  i.  s.  32,  p.  252, 
Fourthly.— Tn.] 


Jesuits,  who  have  been  on  this  account  often 
accused  of  Pelagianism  or  Semi-Pelagianism. 
Among  the  followers  of  Augustine,  many  ad- 
hered to  his  opinion,  that  even  mere  original 
sin,  in  itself  considered,  is  punished  with  eter- 
nal death,  even  in  the  case  of  children  who  die 
before  baptism,  though  they  themselves  have 
never  done  any  evil — e.  g.,  Gregor.  M.  1.  ix. 
Moral,  c.  16.  Others,  to  whom  this  doctrine 
seemed  too  severe,  held  only,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  original  sin  man  is  excluded  from  the 
full  joys  of  the  blessed  in  heaven,  but  not  mere- 
ly on  that  account  cast  into  the  pains  of  hell ;  in 
short,  that  he  is  placed  in  a  middle  state,  in 
which  he  is  neither  damned  nor  yet  perfectly 
happy.  SoDamasus:  Pcena  originalis  peccati 
est  carentia  visionis  Dei.  The  same  representa- 
tion respecting  children  who  die  before  baptism 
is  found  also  among  some  Greek  writers — e.  g., 
in  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  who  says  respecting 
them,  (Orat.  40,)  p.^fe  8o|oc&»jv(u,  H*6  xohaa- 

£ljef£0$at,  X.  t.  X. 

(4)  Some  additional  historical  illustrations  of 
the  Jiugustinian  and  African  theory  respecting 
natural  depravity  and  respecting  the  term,  PECCA- 

TUM  ORIGINIS  sive  ORIGINALE. 

The  depravity  of  human  nature  being,  accord- 
ing to  the  Bible,  propagated  from  Adam,  and 
communicated  in  the  way  of  ordinary  generation 
to  children,  it  was  very  natural  to  denominate  it 
original,-  and  since,  moreover,  it  is  common  to 
all  men,  and,  though  not  essential  to  human  na- 
ture, yet  properly  belonging  to  it  in  its  present 
state,  it  is  called  natural,  especially  as  the  term 
$v<j£c  is  used  in  Ephes.  ii.  3.  Vide  s.  78,  I.  2. 
Both  of  these  terms  are  found  in  the  same  pas- 
sage in  Tertullian,  (De  Anima,  c.  41,)  where 
he  calls  depravity  malum  animae  ex  originis 
vitio  and  naturale  quodammodo.  Upon  this  pas- 
sage it  is  important  to  observe,  that  he  does  not 
use  the  term  peccatum,  but  malum  and  vitium; 
and  again,  that  this  is  the  first  passage  in  the 
Latin  Fathers  in  which  the  term  naturale  is  ap- 
plied to  this  subject.  But  because  the  Latin 
word  naturale  is  ambiguous,  and  might  be  un- 
derstood in  the  sense  of  essentiale,  (a  sense  in 
which  Tertullian  would  not  use  it,  and  in  which 
even  Cyril  of  Alexandria  rejected  the  expres- 
sion fyvaixov  xaxov,  vide  No.  I.,)  Tertullian  adds 
quodammodo.  The  term  naturale,  as  used  by 
him,  properly  means  nothing  more  than  pro- 
prium,  adhaerens,  non  aliunde  contractum.  Vide 
s.  78, 1.  2.  Ambrosius,  too,  says,  (Apol.  David, 
c.  11,)  Jintequam  nascimur,  maculamur  CONTA- 
GIO,  et  ante  usuram  lucis  originis  ipsius  excipi- 
mus  injuriam.  Thus  none  of  these  fathers  use 
the  term  peccatum,  or  pretend  that  natural  de- 
pravity in  the  abstract,  or  in  itself,  is  imputed  to 
man  as  sin,  or  punished.  Augustine  is  the  very 
first  who  uses  the  term  PECCATUM  originate, 
quid  originaliter  traditur,  as  indeed  he  himself 


292 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


says  in  "Opus  imperf.  contra  Julianum,"  ii. 
After  this  time,  this  terra,  which  perhaps  may 
have  been  used  by  some  Africans  before  Augus- 
tine, was  repeated  by  some  Latin  teachers — e.  g., 
by  Hieronymus,  on  Psalm  1.,  and  was  finally 
authorized  by  councils,  and  adopted  into  the 
terminology  of  the  Western  church.  It  was 
first  publicly  employed  in  the  Acts  (c.  2)  of  the 
Milevitanic  council,  in  the  year  416;  and  those 
who  deny  the  doctrine  de  peccato  originali,  and 
its  punishment,  which  is  removed  by  baptism, 
were  there  denounced  with  an  anathema. 

But  how  came  it  to  pass  that  the  word  pecca- 
tum  should  be  employed  to  designate  natural 
depravity,  since  this  depravity,  in  abstracto,  and 
by  itself,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  disease  or  a  sickly 
moral  disorder  of  man,  and  not  as  action;  and 
since  man  had  no  guilty  agency  in  bringing  it 
upon  himself]  It  came  in  this  way:  in  Rom. 
vii.  9,  and  elsewhere,  Paul  uses  the  term  d/top- 
tia  in  reference  to  the  bias  to  sin  found  in  all 
men,  or  the  disposition  to  do  what  is  forbidden 
by  the  divine  law;  and  this  is  perfectly  con- 
formed to  the  usus  loquendi.  For  the  Greek 
a^aprta  is  employed  not  only  with  regard  to 
sinful  actions,  but  any  fault  or  defective  state  or 
nature  of  a  thing;  like  the  Latin peccatum  and 
peccare.  Vide  s.  73,  II.  In  this  sense,  then, 
they  might  justly  say  peccatum  originis,  instead 
of  vitium,  meaning  simply  defect,  fault,  evil. 
Tertullian,  however,  did  not  use  the  word  pecca- 
tum, probably  on  account  of  this  ambiguity. 
But  when  Augustine  found  the  term  peccatum 
used  in  the  Latin  Bible  in  reference  to  this 
natural  bias  to  sin,  he  supposed  that  he  might, 
and  indeed  ought,  to  employ  the  same.  But  not 
distinguishing  sufficiently  between  the  different 
meanings  of  this  word,  he  contended,  that  all 
that  must  be  true  respecting  this  state,  in  itself 
considered,  which  is  true  respecting  sinful  ac- 
tions, on  the  ground  that  the  same  word  is  used 
respecting  both  in  the  Bible.  He  then  argued 
in  this  way;  "All  sin  is  punished,  or  it  brings 
men  into  a  state  of  condemnation  before  God, 
and  consequently  this  natural  depravity  itself 
because  it  is  included  under  d^apfta,  and  is 
called  peccatum."  Thus  arose  the  scheme  of 
Augustine  described  in  No.  2,  although  in  this 
he  was  not  throughout  consistent  with  himself. 
Instead  of  employing  this  phraseology,  it  would 
have  been  better  for  him  to  have  said,  The  ten- 
dency to  sin  is  indeed  an  evil,  a  moral  disorder — 
i.  e.,  a  wrong  and  defective  constitution  of  our 
nature  in  a  moral  respect,  from  which  particular 
actual  sins  result ;  it  cannot,  therefore,  be  other- 
wise than  displeasing  to  a  perfectly  holy  God  ; 
nor  can  he,  as  the  scriptures  expressly  teach, 
be  its  author;  but  neither  would  God  punish 
men  for  this,  in  and  of  itself.  For  punishment 
is  first  inflicted  when  man  suffers  himself  to  be 
enticed  to  actual  sin,  or  transgression  of  the 


law ;  and  because  none  remain  unperverted,  so 
all  are  sinners,  and  condemned  in  the  sight  of 
God,  although  the  degree  of  their  guilt,  and 
consequently  the  degree  of  their  punishment, 
may  be  different. 

After  the  time  of  Augustine,  various  attempts 
were  made  to  obviate  the  innumerable  mistakes 
which  attended  this  doctrine  depeccato  originali; 
and  among  others,  a  distinction  was  made  be- 
tween peccatum  originale  and  peccata  actualia — 
a  distinction  which  is  first  found  in  Joh.  Cassi- 
anus  in  the  fifth  century.  Vide  Coll.  P.  P. 
Sceticor.  xiii.  7.  There  were  always,  however, 
among  the  catholics,  even  those  of  ancient 
times,  not  a  few  who  disapproved  of  the  appli- 
cation of  the  term  peccatum  to  the  corrupt,  moral 
condition  of  man,  and  wished  it  to  be  abolished. 
And  it  happened  to  many,  merely  because  they 
rejected  this  word,  to  be  counted  among  the  Pe- 
lagians or  Semi-Pelagians.  Many  of  the  school- 
men, too,  preferred  not  to  use  this  term ;  though 
it  is  true,  indeed,  that  among  them  there  were 
many  actually  inclined  to  Pelagianism.  Vide 
No.  3.  The  schoolmen  rather  chose  to  use  the 
term  employed  by  Tertullian — viz.,  vitium  ori- 
ginale  or  naturak;  or  vitiusitas,  or  depravatio 
congenita,  or  naturalis. 

As  to  the  German  word  in  use  on  this  sub- 
ject, Erb-sunde,  (hereditary  sin,)  it  is  still  more 
inconvenient  than  the  Latin  peccatum  origi- 
nale; for  the  latter  admits,  according  to  com- 
mon usage,  of  a  correct  interpretation,  and  so, 
if  it  is  properly  explained,  may  be  still  retained. 
But  the  German  word  Sunde  (sin)  is  elsewhere 
always  used  to  denote  an  action,  so  far  as  it  is 
contrary  to  the  divine  law;  but  never  a  state. 
Instead  of  this  word,  it  would  be  better  to  use 
the  word  Erb-fe.hler,  (hereditary  defect.)  or  still 
better,  Erb-ubel,  (hereditary  evil,)  or  more  defi- 
nitely, das  sittliche  Erb-ubel,  (the  moral  heredi- 
tary evil.)  Many  of  our  protestant  theologians 
have  therefore  for  a  long  time  preferred  to  use 
the  term  natural  depravity.  Vide  s.  87,  I.  2,  3. 
Dr.  Teller  proposed  to  use  the  word  Tempera- 
ments-sunde,  (sin  of  the  constitution  or  temper- 
ament;) this,  however,  is  inappropriate,  since 
it  bears  another  sense — viz.,  some  kind  of  pre- 
vailing sin,  to  which  a  man  is  especially  inclined 
from  his  peculiar  organization,  or  his  individual 
naturel.  Cf.  s.  75. 

Note. — The  term  peccatum  originale,  as  used 
in  the  symbolic  books  of  the  Lutheran  church, 
comprises  the  following  things: — (L)  The  defi- 
ciency in  true  holiness  and  piety  which  is  found 
in  all  men  without  exception,  accompanied  with 
a  deficiency  in  powers  for  attaining  holiness  by 
their  own  exertions.  This  is  just  and  scrip- 
tural ;  for  in  order  to  be  morally  good  and  pious, 
it  is  necessary  for  us  to  become  so ;  we  are  not 
born  with  this  character;  we  do  not  possess  in 
ourselves  the  powers  requisite  to  this  end,  and 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


are  dependent  on  divine  assistance.  (2)  The 
inordinate  passions  and  appetites  which  are 
found  in  all  men;  the  bias  within  us  to  do  what 
is  forbidden,  and  to  leave  undone  what  is  re- 
quired ;  of  the  truth  of  which  every  one's  own 
experience  may  convince  him,  and  which  is  con- 
stantly insisted  upon  in  the  scriptures.  Thus, 
by  peccatum  originate,  the  symbolic  books  un- 
derstand a  STATE  of  man  which,  morally  consi- 
dered, is  not,  from  the  earliest  period,  what  it 
should  be,  or  what  it  originally  was;  and  this 
is  certainly  just  and  true,  both  according  to 
scripture  and  experience. 

These  two  things  taken  together  are  what 
the  theologians  of  the  Lutheran  and  reformed 
churches  mean  when  they  say,  man  is  born  with 
sin,  or  in  sin — an  expression  which  is  taken 
from  Ps.  li.  7.  And  although  this  expression 
is  liable  to  be  misunderstood,  and  indeed  in  that 
passage  is  used  in  a  different  sense,  yet  the  thing 
which  they  intend  by  the  use  of  it  is  true  and 
conformed  to  the  Bible.  Vide  Morus,  p.  117, 
118. 

It  is  a  common,  but  very  unworthy  art  of 
many  of  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  natu- 
ral depravity,  to  make  the  German  word  denot- 
ing this  doctrine,  Erb-siinde,  (hereditary  sin,} 
which  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands  to  be  in- 
convenient, the  object  of  ridicule,  as  if  the 
doctrine  of  the  protestant  church  agreed  with 
the  untenable  positions  in  Augustine's  theory. 
While  they  confute  this  theory  only,  they  as- 
sume the  air  of  having  overthrown  the  doctrine 
of  native  depravity  itself.  The  scriptural  texts 
which  stand  in  their  way  are  brought  into 
agreement  with  the  most  different  modern  phi- 
losophical schools,  by  the  aid  of  that  artificial 
exegesis  which  makes  anything  from  every- 
thing; so  that  the  scriptures  must  say  just  that, 
and  that  only,  which  the  authors  of  these  philo- 
sophical systems  require.  Vide  Teller's  Wor- 
terbuch,  art.  Siinde,  and  other  attempts  of  the 
theologians  of  the  Kantian  school. 

SECTION  LXXX. 

RESULTS  OF  THE  FOREGOING  DISCUSSION  RESPECT- 
ING THE  DOCTRINE  OF  NATURAL  DEPRAVITY, 
AND  OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  MODE  OF  TEACHING 
THIS  DOCTRINE. 

I.  Results  of  the  foregoing  Discussion. 

(1)  THE  doctrine  of  the  holy  scriptures,  that 
the  native  depravity  which  discloses  itself  in  the 
preponderance  of  sense  over  reason  is  to  be  found 
in  all  men  without  exception,  is  confirmed  by 
the  undeniable  experience  of  all  men  of  all 
times;  and  every  individual  may  be  convinced 
of  its  truth  by  his  own  daily  experience,  and  by 
observation  of  those  around  him.  Any  one  who 
is  in  the  habit  of  self-inspection  will  be  compel- 


led to  acknowledge  that  the  confession  of  Paul, 
Rom.  vii.  18,  seq.,  "  To  will  is  present  with  me, 
but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find 
not,"  is  drawn,  as  it  were,  from  his  own  soul. 
Even  the  heathen  nations,  and  those  of  their 
chief  philosophers,  who  did  not  employ  them- 
selves with  empty  speculations,  but  who  built 
their  views  upon  the  observation  of  man  and  of 
themselves,  recognised  the  existence  of  this  evil. 
Vide  s.  74. 

(2)  But  although  philosophy  must  recognise 
the  actual  existence  of  this  evil,  it  can  give  no 
satisfactory  answer  with  regard  to  the  origin  of 
it.  Vide  Kant,  Vom  radikalen  Bosen.  All  the 
philosophemes  upon  this  subject,  from  Aristotle 
down  to  Leibnitz,  Kant,  Fichte,  and  Schelling, 
are  full  of  gaps ;  and  in  surveying  them  we  meet 
with  one  unanswerable  question  after  another. 
Vide  s.  74.  Cf.  Michaelis,  Moral,  th.  i.  s.  127, 
seq.  But  there  appears  in  almost  all  nations  a 
pressing  necessity  to  believe  that  God  made  the 
human  race  in  a  more  perfect  state  than  that  in 
which  it  now  exists.  But  they  were  still  unable 
to  solve  the  riddle.  Now  this  riddle  is  solved  in 
the  holy  scriptures  more  satisfactorily  than  by 
all  the  philosophers.  Vide  s.  56,  ad  fin.  s.  74, 
75,  &c.  And  any  one  who  understands  the  scrip- 
tural account  of  the  fall  of  man  as  a  mere  fable, 
or  as  anything  beside  a  narrative  of  what  actu- 
ally took  place,  and  who  is  incautious  enough 
to  teach  these  views  to  the  common  people  and 
the  young,  takes  away  that  for  which  he  can 
give  nothing  in  return;  although  he  may  not 
design  it,  he  lowers  the  authority  of  the  Bible 
in  the  view  of  his  hearers,  and  does  an  injury 
which  he  will  not  be  able  easily  to  repair. 

There  were  two  theories  which  were  more 
prominent  among  the  Christian  teachers  of  for- 
mer times,  and  which  even  now  have  their  advo- 
cates— viz.,  the  African,  or  Jlugusiinian,  and  the 
Pelagian.  Vide  s.  79.  The  latter,  which  nearly 
accords  with  the  views  of  the  stoics,  plainly  dis- 
agrees with  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and,  more- 
over, has  experience  against  it.  Vide  s.  79,  No. 
3.  But  since  it  wears,  on  the  first  view,  a  more 
rational  aspect,  and  since  especially  it  is  more 
agreeable  to  the  wishes  of  men,  who  had  rather 
view  themselves  in  a  favourable  than  an  unfa- 
vourable light,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that,  \ 
in  spite  of  experience,  it  should  have  obtained, 
and  still  possess,  considerable  currency.  But 
in  Augustine's  theory  there  are-  also  incorrect 
and  untenable  positions,  and  he  deduces  many 
false  conclusions  from  texts  of  scripture  wrongly 
understood.  These  misinterpretations  were  in 
part  occasioned,  and  in  part  promoted,  by  the 
Latin  established  version,  which  Augustine  fol- 
lowed, and  to  which  he  and  his  fellow  teachers 
were  accustomed  from  their  youth.  Besides, 
Augustine's  views  on  the  subject  of  interpreta- 
tion were  deficient.  The  middle  course  between 
2  B  2 


294 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


these  extremes  is  accordant  with  the  Bible,  with 
experience,  and  the  system  of  the  protestant 
church.  Vide  s.  77,  78. 

The  objection,  that  the  scriptural  doctrine  of 
native  depravity  is  irreconcilable  with  the  justice 
and  goodness  of  God,  does  not  lie  so  much  against 
the  scriptural  doctrine  itself  as  against  certain 
false  and  unscriptural  notions  which  are  some- 
times connected  with  it — e.  g.,  against  the  Au- 
gustinian  theory.  Let  the  following  things  be 
considered — viz., 

(a)  It  is  incorrect  to  assert,  as  some  do,  that 
if  Adam  himself  had  maintained  his  original 
innocence,  no  one  of  his  posterity  either  would 
or  could  have  sinned.  This  is  nowhere  taught 
in  the  Bible.  The  possibility  of  erring  and 
sinning  would  have  continued,  both  with  Adam 
himself  and  with  his  posterity,  even  if  he  had 
not  at  that  time  fallen.  And  had  it  been  impos- 
sible for  the  posterity  of  Adam,  supposing  him 
to  have  persevered  in  holiness,  to  be  otherwise 
than  holy,  their  goodness  would  have  had  no 
value,  and  would  not  be  entitled  to  reward. 
Man  would  hftve  been  a  machine,  having  no 
power  to  move  except  in  one  pre-established 
and  appointed  way.  It  does  not,  therefore,  fol- 
low that  there  would  have  been  no  error  and  no 
sin,  and  consequently  no  punishment  of  sin, 
among  men,  if  our  progenitor  had  not  fallen. 
It  is  indeed  true,  that  both  particular  individuals, 
and  the  race  of  man  at  large,  would  have  been 
by  degrees  more  and  more  confirmed  in  good- 
ness, if  the  state  of  innocence  (or  the  state  of 
the  even  balance  of  the  human  powers)  had 
continued,  as  is  actually  the  case  with  good 
angels;  but  this  confirmation  cannot  be  under- 
stood in  reference  to  men  more  than  to  angels 
as  removing  the  possibility  of  sinning. 

(6)  When  now  God  foresaw  that  sin  could 
not  be  hindered  among  men,  since  they  are 
beings  endowed  indeed  with  a  moral  nature,  but 
at  the  same  time  possessing  appetites  and  pas- 
sions limiting  the  exercise  of  reason,  he  provided 
that  the  guilt  and  ill-desert  of  sin  should  be  di- 
minished in  Adam's  posterity  by  allowing  Adam 
to  fall,  and  so  a  general  weakness  and  depravity 
to  pervade  the  whole  race.  A  stronger  and  more 
incorrupt  race  would,  if  it  sinned,  sin  far  more 
deeply  and  unpardonably  than  a  weaker. 
Hence  we  see  that  the  sin  of  the  fallen  angels 
is  always  described  in  the  Bible  as  far  more  de- 
serving of  punishment  and  more  unpardonable 
than  the  sin  of  the  first  parents  of  our  race ;  and 
their  whole  moral  apostasy  is  described  as  far 
greater  than  that  of  man.  Those  among  Adam's 
weaker  posterity  who  resist  the  inducements  to 
sin,  and  are  diligent  in  the  pursuit  of  holiness, 
do,  as  it  were,  overcome  themselves ;  and  their 
virtue  can  therefore  have  so  much  more  internal 
worth,  and  be  so  much  the  more  deserving  of  re- 
ward. Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  yield  to 


these  temptations,  and  sin,  although  they  are 
by  no  means  free  from  the  desert  of  punishment,  < 
(since  God   has   made  known  the  means  by  ! 
which  sin  may  be  guarded  against,)  may  yet, 
on  account  of  their  weakness  and  inability,  hope 
for  pity,  forbearance,  and  a  mitigation  of  punish- 
ment.    Vide  on  this  subject,  Michaelis,  Von 
der  Siinde,  s.  563.     Perhaps  God  designed  by 
permitting  the  fall  to  promote  many  other  and 
unknown  ends.     Perhaps  the  example  of  the 
fall  of  man  may  be  instructive  to  the  higher 
orders  of  spiritual  beings,  who  are  always  de-  ^ 
scribed  in  the  Bible  as  standing  in  intimate  con- 
nexion with  man  and  having  knowledge  respect- 
ing him. 

(c)  Death  was  to  Adam  the  proper  punishment 
of  his  sin ;  to  his  posterity  it  is  not,  properly 
speaking,  punishment,  but  the  inevitable  conse- 
quence of  the  sin  of  Adam.  For  no  mortal  can 
beget  an  immortal.  Vide  s.  78,  III.  Since  now 
death  frees  us  from  this  mortal  body,  the  princi- 
pal seat  of  our  sinful  depravity,  and  since  the 
Christian  doctrine  gives  us  the  comforting  as- 
surance that  in  the  future  life  we  shall  possess 
a  more  perfect  body,  (1  Cor.  xv.  &c.,)  death 
can  no  longer  be  regarded  as  a  punishment,  but 
must  rather  be  considered  as  a  blessing,  by  all 
those  who  fall  in  with  the  order  appointed  by 
God,  and  fulfil  the  conditions  on  which  he  has 
promised  happiness  after  this  life.  Now  it  is 
a  doctrine  which  we  are  everywhere  expressly 
taught  in  the  New  Testament,  that  we  are  in- 
debted for  this  good,  for  this  blessed  immortality, 
to  Jesus  Christ;  and  the  observation  of  Paul  is 
therefore  well  founded,  that  through  the  institutes 
which  God  has  established  for  the  recovery  of 
the  human  race  through  Christ,  through  the  di- 
vine plan  of  mercy,  we  have  gained  far  more 
than  we  lost  through  the  sin  of  Adam  and  its 
consequences;  Rom.  v.  15,  seq. 

Note. — The  disposition  to  transgress  the 
moral  law,  from  which  no  man  is  free,  cannot 
be  derived  from  any  deficiency  of  reason,  from 
error,  or  want  of  knowledge.  There  may  be 
from  hence  a  possibility  of  sinning  either  from 
ignorance  or  design,  but  a  mere  possibility  of 
sinning,  and  an  inclination  to  sin,  are  very  dif- 
ferent things.  And  we  feel  this  disposition 
even  where  there  is  no  error  or  defect  of  know- 
ledge, yea,  even  in  those  cases  in  which  we  see 
most  clearly  that  obedience  to  the  moral  law 
will  conduce  to  our  best  advantage,  and  that  by 
disobedience  we  shall  render  ourselves  misera- 
ble. Nor  can  it  be  a  mere  fault  of  education.  For 
then  there  would  be,  among  all  the  multiplied 
and  often  opposite  modes  of  education,  some  one 
which  would  furnish  us  with  men  who  would 
be  free  from  this  disposition.  Nor  is  it,  as  has 
been  before  observed,  the  effect  merely  of  the 
bad  examples  which  we  witness  in  others.  This 
depravity  is  not  exhibited  in  all  men  in  the  same 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


295 


way.  One  man  is  either  little,  or  not  at  all  in- 
clined to  those  things  for  which  another  has  a 
great  propensity.  All,  however,  are  inclined 
to  perform  many  actions  which  they  themselves 
acknowledge  to  be  sinful  and  injurious.  There 
is  in  men  a  general  anomaly,  or  a  general  dispo- 
sition to  transgress  the  moral  law,  which  does 
not  determine  to  any  one  particular  vice,  but 
which  is  differently  modified  in  different  per- 
sons. Since  this  disposition  seeks  out  so 
many  and  so  different  deviations,  it  has  a  differ- 
ent aspect  in  different  individuals;  but  in  all 
alike,  it  appears  as  a  strong  disinclination  to 
certain  duties,  and  a  vehement  propensity  to 
certain  actions  which  are  morally  bad.  What 
is  common  to  this  depravity,  as  it  appears  in  all 
men,  is  the  preponderance  of  that  which  is  re- 
presented to  us  as  good  or  evil  by  our  lower  ap- 
petites, over  that  which  we  perceive  in  the  use 
of  reason  to  be  good.  From  this  depravity  no 
age  is  free,  nor  can  it  in  this  life  be  ever  wholly 
eradicated.  The  faults  of  youth,  such  as  levity 
and  prodigality,  do,  indeed,  often  disappear  in 
later  periods  of  life,  but  their  place  is  supplied 
by  others,  such  as  ambition  and  jealousy;  and 
many  of  the  excellences  which  belong  to  the  pe- 
riod of  youth — e.  g.,  innocence,  openness,  and  vi- 
vacity, often  gradually  decay  in  the  years  of  man- 
hood ;  and  although  a  more  advanced  age  seems 
to  have  the  advantage  in  point  of  experience  and 
exercise,  yet  still  it  cannot  be  affirmed  as  a  ge- 
neral fact,  that  this  higher  age  is  on  the  whole 
morally  better  than  youth.  It  is  therefore  a 
well-known  proverb,  founded  in  experience,  to 
say  respecting  old  men  who  only  seem  exter- 
nally to  have  reformed,  that  they  have  not  for- 
saken sin,  but  sin  has  forsaken  them. 

II.  On  Teaching  this  Doctrine. 

The  questions  relating  to  this  subject  are, 
WJiether  the  doctrine  of  man's  native  depravity 
ought  to  be  exhibited  in  popular  instruction  ?  and 
if  so,  in  what  way?  On  this  general  subject, 
cf.  Knapp's  Essay  in  Ewald's  Christlicher  Mo- 
natsschrift;  Jahrg.  2,  1802;  bd.  2,  st.  1,  s.  3,  f. 

(1)  The  doctrine  of  native  depravity,  as  we 
are  taught  it  both  by  scripture  and  experience, 
is  very  disturbing,  depressing,  and  humbling 
in  its  tendency,  The  light  in  which  man  is 
here  taught  to  regard  himself  is  not  at  all  favour- 
able or  pleasant,  and  is  calculated  to  lead  him 
to  tremble  for  himself.  But  feelings  of  this 
kind,  although  highly  salutary,  are  yet  unplea- 
sant to  the  natural  man  (tfopxtxy,  ^^1x9),  and 
for  the  very  reason  that  he  is  of  such  a  character, 
he  is  opposed  to  everything  which  awakens  feel- 
ings of  this  kind  ;  he  prefers  to  keep  this  subject 
out  of  sight,  and  is  unwilling  to  hear  anything 
respecting  it.  It  is  with  him  as  with  a  sick 
man,  who  is  unwilling  to  acknowledge,  either 
to  himself  or  others,  that  he  is  sick,  partly  be- 


cause he  is  ashamed  of  his  sickness,  and  partly 
because  he  is  reluctant  to  adopt  the  severe  re- 
medies necessary  to  his  cure.  Thus  it  is  with 
the  carnal  man  who  refuses  to  undertake  the 
radical  cure  of  the  disorders  of  his  soul,  because 
he  would  feign  conceal  his  sickness  from  his 
own  view,  and  dreads  to  make  the  bitter  sacri- 
fices which  his  moral  recovery  and  holiness  re- 
quire. He  would  rather,  therefore,  persuade 
himself  and  others  that  he  is  good,  or  at  least 
that  his  case  is  not  so  bad  as  might  seem.  Now 
if  any  one  does  not  believe  that  he  is  sick,  nei- 
ther does  he  believe  that  he  is  in  any  need  of  a 
remedy  or  of  a  physician ;  or  if  he  thinks  he  is 
only  slightly  sick,  he  hopes  he  shall  be  able  to 
help  himself,  or  to  recover  without  the  aid  of 
medicine.  And  so  any  one  who  thinks  in  the 
same  way  with  regard  to  his  moral  state  will 
infallibly  be  cold  and  indifferent  in  the  use  of 
all  the  means  which  the  Christian  doctrine  pre- 
scribes for  the  sanctification  of  the  heart;  he 
will  even  scorn  them  as  idle  and  superfluous, 
because  he  sees  no  necessity  for  them ;  yea,  he 
will  even  feel  aversion  and  hatred  towards  them, 
as  a  sick  man  is  accustomed  to  do  towards  a 
bitter  and  disagreeable  medicine.  It  is  there- 
fore very  intelligible,  and  may  be  psychologi- 
cally explained,  why  the  opinion,  that  man  is 
not  so  depraved  as  is  sometimes  represented, 
and  the  delusion  that  the  Christian  means  of 
cure  are  inappropriate,  superfluous,  and  may  be 
easily  dispensed  with,  should  gain  currency  in 
an  age  and  among  men  distinguished  above 
others  in  egotism,  self-sufficiency,  and  the  love 
of  worldly  enjoyment. 

(2)  We  may  hence  explain  the  fact  why  the 
doctrine  of  human  depravity  is  repugnant  to  so 
many  in  our  age,  and  why  it  is  almost  wholly 
set  aside  in  the  instruction  of  the  common  people 
and  of  the  young.  The  pretext  by  which  the 
omission  of  this  doctrine  is  commonly  justified 
is,  that  it  inspires  men  with  aversion  to  God, 
that  it  makes  them  irresolute  and  spiritless  in 
the  pursuit  of  virtue,  and  that  it  leads  to  an  un- 
worthy depreciation  of  oneself,  and  even  to  de- 
spair, which  prevents  all  improvement.  These 
effects,  however,  can  never  be  feared  when  this 
doctrine  is  taught  as  it  is  in  the  holy  scriptures. 
Who  can  bring  an  example  to  shew  that  the 
scriptural  doctrine  ever  produced  such  an  effect? 
On  the  contrary,  experience  shews  that  this  doc- 
trine, rightly  exhibited,  produces  just  the  oppo- 
sit  effects,  and  animates  man  in  the  pursuit  of 
holiness,  and  leads  him  to  the  highest  exertions 
of  all  his  powers  for  the  attainment  of  it.  Vide 
s.  77,  II.,  ad  finem. 

The  true  ground  why  so  many  forbear  to 
preach  this  doctrine  is,  that,  for  the  reasons  just 
now  suggested,  it  is  displeasing  to  many  of  their 
hearers,  whose  favour  they  would  gladly  conci- 
liate. It  is  with  them  as  with  those  respecting 


296 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


whom  John  speaks,  ch.  xii.  43.  Others  have 
never  clearly  considered  the  reasons  why  they 
forbear  to  preach  this  doctrine,  but  follow  blindly 
the  example  set  them  by  some  of  the  eminent 
and  lauded  preachers  of  the  day.  For  the  great 
majority  of  men,  and  even  of  teachers,  never 
think  for  themselves,  but  depend  upon  authority. 
Again :  there  are,  alas !  many  religious  teach- 
ers who  are  themselves  unrenewed  men,  who 
even  while  at  home  were  sunk  deep  in  moral 
corruption,  who  become  still  more  depraved  at 
the  schools  and  universities,  and  who,  when 
they  assume  the  sacerdotal  robe,  alter  only  their 
outward  deportment,  without  experiencing  a 
radical  change  of  heart.  Such  are  blind  leaders 
of  the  blind. 

(3)  The  teachers  who  adopt  the  principles 
just  mentioned  are  accustomed  to  descant  large- 
ly upon  the  worth,  the  nobleness,  and  the  dignity 
of  man,  since  discourse  like  this  is  heard  with 
pleasure,  and  it  is  far  more   agreeable  to  be 
praised  than  blamed.     In  this  strain,  therefore, 
preachers  of  such  a  character  often  indulge,  and 
even  in  their  instruction  of  the  young  dwell  on 
nothing  but  the  dignity  of  man.     In  this  way 
many  of  them  suppose  they  shall  elevate  man, 
inspire  him  with  a  zeal  for  virtue,  and  by  means 
of  this  feeling  of  honour  raise  him  to  nobleness  of 
character.     And  it  is,  indeed,  right  to  point  man 
to  the  noble  faculties  which  he  possesses,  &c. 
This  is  often  done  in  the  Bible.     This,  how- 
ever, we  should  do,  and  not  leave  the  other  un- 
done.    In  the  Bible  this  is  always  done  in  con- 
nexion with  the  doctrine  of  the  moral  apostasy 
of  man.     If  this  doctrine  be  not  brought  into 
connexion  with  it,  the  doctrine  of  the  dignity  of 
man  is  injurious;  it  nourishes  pride  and  self- 
righteousness,  and  prevents  that  self-knowledge 
•which  is  so  essential,  and  thus  leads  aside  from 
the  way  of  true  reformation,  such  as  God  will 
accept.     It  leads  men  to  think  that  they  are  per- 
fect, and  have  no  need  of  reformation ;  that  they 
are  in  no  danger,  and  at  most  need  only  to  be 
ennobled  and  perfected,  and  not  to  be  radically 
renewed.     What  must  be  the  effect  of  a  doc- 
trine like  this  in  an  age  in  which  self-confidence 
and  selfish  blindness  are  the  prevailing  fault, 
and  have  so  deeply  imbued  the  minds  even  of 
children  and  youth,  that  at  the  age  when  they 
are  just  beginning  to  learn,  they  think  them- 
selves wiser  than  their  teachers,  and  from  the 
height  to  which  they  suppose   themselves  to 
have  attained,  seem  to  look  down  with  compas- 
sion upon  the  aged. 

(4)  From  these  observations  it  follows,  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  a  Christian  teacher  to  exhibit 
the  doctrine  of  moral  depravity  without  regard 
to  the  fear  or  the  favour  of  man,  after  life  exam- 
ple which  the  inspired  teachers  have  set  him — 
the  ancient  prophets,  Jesus,  and  the  apostles. 
The  times  have  changed  nothing  belonging  to 


this  doctrine,  nor  can  they.  Human  nature  is 
the  same  now  that  it  has  been  in  every  preced- 
ing age;  and  the  inculcation  of  this  doctrine  is 
not  less  important  in  an  enlightened  than  in  an 
unenlightened  period.  It  is  by  this  doctrine 
alone  that  the  necessity  of  an  entire  moral  re- 
novation of  the  human  heart  can  be  placed  in  a 
strong  light;  here  man  learns  to  understand 
himself  aright,  and  to  think  humbly  with  regard 
to  himself;  here  he  learns  to  see  clearly  the 
difficulties  and  mighty  hindrances  which  lie  in 
the  way  of  conversion,  and  attains  to  the  con- 
viction that  he  needs  help,  and  that  without  di- 
vine assistance  he  can  do  nothing.  Truly  and 
beautifully  has  Seneca  said,  Initium  est  salutis, 
notitia  peccati.  Nam  qui  peccare  se  nescit,  cor- 
rigi  non  vult.  Deprehendas  te  oportet  antequam 
cmendes,  Ep.  28.  This  is  the  great  principle 
upon  which  the  inspired  teachers  proceeded  in 
all  their  instructions.  Christ,  for  example,  took 
this  course  in  his  conversation  with  Nicodemus, 
however  strange  the  doctrine  might  have  ap- 
peared to  the  latter.  And  there  is  no  better  way, 
none  which  is  more  capable  of  vindication  on 
psychological  grounds. 

(5)  But  in  order  that  the  teaching  of  this 
doctrine  may  attain  its  end,  it  is  not  enough  to 
set  forth  the  mere  dogma,  and  to  prove  it  con- 
nectedly from  the  holy  scriptures,  and  then  to 
speak  of  it  in  the  abstract;  for  in  that  case  the 
wholesome  and  necessary  application  is  easily 
neglected  by  the  hearer.  On  the  contrary,  it 
ought  rather  to  be  spoken  of  in  the  concrete; 
at  least,  the  abstract  statement  should  always 
be  applied  to  particular  concrete  cases,  and  es- 
pecially to  ourselves.  This  is  the  wise  mode  of 
teaching  exhibited  in  the  Bible.  Vide  s.  77, 
III.  2.  In  the  popular  exhibition  of  this  doc- 
trine, therefore,  the  teacher  should  begin  with 
making  his  hearer  observant  of  himself,  and  en- 
deavour to  convince  him  of  his  own  depravity, 
or  of  the  preponderance  of  appetite  over  reason 
in  himself,  as  learned  from  his  own  experience. 
This  is  the  easiest  way  to  bring  the  contemner 
of  this  doctrine  to  silence.  For  example,  let  the 
teacher  in  his  instructions  go  over  all  the  points 
which  Paul  has  cited  Rom.  vii.  7 — 23,  as  proof 
of  the  moral  corruption  of  man,  without  at  first 
remarking  that  this  is  taught  in  the  Bible.  The 
hearer  must  confess  that  he  finds  it  in  himself 
exactly  as  described — that  he  is  not  what  he 
ought  to  be,  and  what  his  own  moral  feeling 
teaches  him  that  he  must  be,  in  order  to  please 
God.  When  he  is  brought  to  this  conviction, 
then  let  him  be  shewn  that  the  doctrine  of  scrip- 
ture corresponds  with  his  own  experience.  In 
this  way  he  will  acquire  regard  for  the  Bible,  as 
he  will  see  that  it  gives  no  ideal  description  of 
man,  but  represents  him  as  he  actually  is.  Then 
he  will  be  constrained  to  acknowledge:  "Yes! 
I  too  am  actually  so;  it  is  as  if  I  myself  were 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


297 


here  described."  Has  any  one  come  to  this 
point,  there  is  hope  that  he  may  be  inclined  to 
employ  the  means  of  recovery  prescribed  in  the 
scriptures,  and  especially  in  the  Christian  doc- 
trine; particularly  if  he  is  shewn  how  and 
wherefore  they  have  so  beneficial  an  effect;  and 
if  is  made  to  consider,  that  our  own  good  in- 
tentions and  all  the  means  by  which  we  attempt 
to  help  ourselves  are  inefficacious.  In  this  way 
is  the  feeling"  of  the  need  of  help  and  of  a  Re- 
deemer to  be  excited  in  man ;  and  thus  does  the 
knowledge  of  our  moral  depravity  and  inability 
lead  to  Christ,  as  to  him  through  whom  alone  it 
can  be  removed.  But  all  this  instruction  will 
be  in  danger  of  failing  of  its  effect,  unless  the 
hearer  perceives  that  the  teacher  himself  has  a 
personal  interest  in  the  matter,  that  he  speaks 
from  his  own  internal  conviction,  and  that  he 
has  experienced  on  his  own  heart  the  efficacy  of 
the  means  prescribed,  and  shews  their  effect  in 
his  life  and  walk. 

(6)  None  of  the  profound  and  learned  inves- 
tigations of  philosophers  and  theologians,  re- 
specting the  nature  of  human  depravity,  the 
mode  of  its  propagation,  &c.,  should  have  any 
place  in  the  practical  and  popular  exhibition  of 
this  doctrine.  It  is  enough  for  the  teacher  to 
stop  with  the  simple  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and 
merely  teach,  (a)  that  all  men  have  been  ac- 
tually so,  ever  since  our  first  parents  transgress- 
ed the  divine  command ;  and  (&)  that,  according 
to  the  Bible,  the  ground  why  all  their  posterity 
are  such  lies  in  our  first  parents ;  but  that  (c) 
we  owe  the  improvement  of  our  condition,  and 
the  restoration  of  our  lost  holiness  and  happi- 
ness to  Jesus  Christ,  since  he  redeems  or  frees 
us-from  sin  and  its  evil  consequences,  and  turns 
this  evil  to  our  good ;  Rom.  vii.  25.  For  more 
on  this  point,  vide  the  article  on  Christ. 

SECTION  LXXXI. 

EXPLANATION  OF  THE  IDEA  WHICH  IS  COMMONLY 
CONNECTED  IN  THEOLOGY  WITH  THE  EXPRES- 
SION "ACTUAL  SINS;"  AND  OF  THE  DIFFER- 
ENT DEGREES  OF  SIN. 

WE  have  thus  far  treated  of  the  moral  corrup- 
tion of  human  nature,  and  its  causes ;  we  have 
also  given  a  history  of  this  doctrine ;  s.  74 — 80. 
We  now  proceed  to  consider  particular  sinful 
actions,  whose  source  is  found  in  this  same  mo- 
ral depravity.  Vide  s.  73,  ad  finem.  We  shall 
treat  this  subject  under  the  two  following  divi- 
sions— viz.,  (1)  The  nature  of  particular  sinful 
actions,  and  their  different  kinds  and  divisions, 
s.  81 — 84;  (2)  The  different  state  which  arises 
»in  man  on  the  commission  of  sin,  s.  85 — 87. 

I.  Additional  Explanation  of  the  idea  of  Sin. 
We  have  before  shewn,  under  s.  73,  I.,  what 
is  meant  by  the  terms  sin  and  law ;  and  this  will 

38 


be  presupposed  in  the  remarks  which  follow.' 
Since  now  we  must  regard  this  natural  depravity 
as  a  sinful  state,  and  since  we  must  regard  par- 
ticular sinful  actions  as  the  consequence  and  re- 
sult of  this  state,  theologians,  since  the  time  of 
Cassianus,  have  adopted  the  division  of  sin  into 
peccatum  originale  and  peccatum  actuale.  Vide 
s.  79,  No.  4,  ad  finem,  and  Morus,  p.  118,  supra. 
Morus  has,  indeed,  omitted  the  special  consi- 
deration of  the  doctrine  de  peccato  actuali  in  his 
Dogmatik,  and  assigned  the  discussion  of  it 
wholly  to  the  department  of  Morals.  But  the 
general  theory  of  actual  sins  belongs  to  the  pro- 
vince of  Dogmatical  theology,  and  is  commonly 
introduced  by  theologians  into  this  department. 

Actual  sins  are,  moreover,  commonly  denomi- 
nated peccata  sensu  strictiori.  By  actions,  how- 
ever, theologians  do  not  mean,  in  treating  of  this 
subject,  those  merely  which  are  external — i.  e., 
which  are  committed  by  means  of  the  body  and 
its  organs ,-  but  also  those  which  are  internal — 
i.  e.,  those  which  take  place  merely  in  the  soul, 
and  are  performed  in  thoughts,  desires,  &c. 
Hence  it  has  been  common  to  subdivide  actual 
sins  into  external  and  internal,  of  which  we  shall 
say  more  hereafter.  Jlctualis  is  a  term  which 
belongs  to  the  later  Latin,  and  was  first  used  by 
Macrobius ;  it  answers  to  the  older  term  actu- 
osus,  active,  consisting  in  action;  or  to  activus, 
which  is  sometimes  employed  in  the  same  sense. 
Hence  Cicero  says,  vita  actuosa,  virtus  actuosa, 
Nat.  Deor.  i.  40 ;  instead  of  which  Macrobius 
writes,  virtutes  actuates.  Seneca  has,  activa 
philosophia,  Ep.  95,  and  Quinctilian  opposes 
activum  (the  practical)  to  speculativum,  (the  the- 
oretical.) But  sinful  actions  are  denominated 
peccata  actualia  in  opposition  to  native  depravity, 
because  they  involve  an  actus  transitorius,  such 
as  exists  in  all  human  actions ;  they  have  a  be- 
ginning and  an  end.  But  original  sin  has  in 
this  life  no  end,  but  continues  as  long  as  man 
remains  upon  the  earth.  It  is  not  an  act,  but  a 
state.  The  application  of  the  term  sin  to  this 
state  is  indeed  inconvenient,  because,  according 
to  the  definition  given  of  sin,  native  depravity 
cannot  be  literally  so  called ;  a  more  appropriate 
name  would  be,  hereditary  evil.  But  since  the 
former  term  is  now  common  among  theologians, 
and  the  thing  denoted  by  it  is  accordant  both 
with  reason  and  scripture,  it  must  be  understood, 
and  its  ground  must  be  known. 

In  explanation  of  the  subjective  definition  of 
sin  given  s.  73,  I. — viz.,  a  free  action  which  is 
not  conformed  to  the  law  of  God,  or  which  devi- 
ates from  this  law,  let  the  following  additional 
remarks  be  considered.  When  we  would  judge 
respecting  any  action,  internal  or  external,  whe- 
ther it  is  sinful  or  not,  our  decision  must  depend 
upon  the  three  following  conditions — viz., 

(1)  That  the  man  who  commits  the  action 
had  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  law,  (notitia 


298 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


legis.}  And  this  presupposes  (a)  that  the  law 
was  actually  given  to  man;  (6)  that  it  was 
known  by  this  individual,  or  at  least,  that  it 
should  have  been  known  by  him,  and  that  so  it 
is  his  own  fault  if  he  remained  unacquainted 
with  it ;  and  (c)  that  he  understood  the  sense  of 
the  law,  or  might  have  understood  it.  Is  any  one 
of  these  conditions  wanting,  the  act  contravening 
the  law  is,  indeed,  an  evil,  (foolish,  hurtful  in 
its  tendency,  &c.,)  but  not  sin.  Vide  s.  73,  I. 
Cf.  Rom.  iv.  15;  v.  13,  djtopT'ta  ovx  fJOoyfttat 

(JlYl  QVtOS  VOfJLOV. 

(2)  That  the  action  does  not,  in  fact,  agree 
with  the  law.  The  determination  of  this  matter 
has  often  in  particular  cases  more  difficulty  than 
one  would  think.  The  over-anxious  and  scru- 
pulous man  often  regards  certain  actions,  both 
internal  and  external,  as  sinful,  while  they  are 
not  forbidden  in  the  divine  law  ;  and  in  this  way 
he  needlessly  disquiets  himself.  Another  man 
mistakes  on  this  subject  through  indifference 
and  carelessness.  But  afar  more  common  fault 
is,  to  allow  self-love  to  pronounce  too  light  and 
partial  a  sentence  upon  our  own  actions,  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  judge  the  actions  of  others 
too  severely.  Vide  Matt.  vii.  3 — 5.  Nor  is  the 
obligation  of  the  law  the  same  for  all.  Some 
laws  are  not  universally  obligatory,  but  binding 
only  on  certain  individuals,  and  in  particular 
cases.  The  same  action  may  be  sin  in  one  man, 
and  not  in  another.  One  does  it  with  a  convic- 
tion that  it  is  not  wrong,  and  so  sins  not;  the 
other  is  doubtful,  or  convinced  in  his  heart 
that  it  is  wrong,  and  yet  does  it,  and  sins. 
This  may  be  applied  to  the  so-called  d§ta<|>opa, 
indifferent  things,  fastings,  amusements,  card- 
playing,  dancing,  &c.  Vide  1  Cor.  viii.  and  ix., 
and  Rom.  xiv.  23.  The  further  discussion  of  the 
subject  of  sin  ex  conscientia  errante  sive  erronea 
belongs  to  the  department  of  theological  Morals. 

(3)  That  in  the  commission  of  the  action, 
man  had  the  use  of  \\isfree-will,  (to  avte f-outftov, 
or  ttev&pa  rfpoatpfffts.)  An  action  which  we 
have  been  compelled  to  do  against  our  will,  or 
which  we  have  done  without  consciousness, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  our  own  action.  This  is 
true  not  only  of  evil,  but  of  good  actions.  In 
order,  now,  that  the  action  of  a  man  may  be  free 
and  so  imputable,  he  must  in  doing  it  (a)  be  in 
a  state  in  which  he  can  exercise  his  understand- 
ing, and  determine  his  will  according  to  that 
which  his  understanding  approves  ;  for  this  is 
essential  to  freedom.  Therefore  no  infant,  no 
idiot,  no  insane  person,  no  sleeper  or  dreamer, 
can  commit  sin,  because  he  has  not  the  use  of 
his  understanding.  The  shameful  words  and 
deeds,  the  blasphemy,  &c.,  which  we  often  see 
and  hear  in  delirious  persons,  are  not  sins,  be- 
cause they  are  not  free  actions  ;  and  if  they  are 
afterwards  disposed  to  trouble  themselves  on  ac- 
count of  what  they  may  have  said  or  done  in 


such  a  state,  they  ought  to  be  set  at  rest.  In 
order  that  a  man's  action  may  be  free,  (6)  his 
power  to  act  must  not  be  hindered  by  external 
circumstances.  If,  therefore,  in  any  case  a 
man  is  compelled  by  some  external  necessity 
to  act  wholly  against  his  will,  or  if  he  is  barely 
restrained  in  acting,  so  that  he  cannot  proceed 
wholly  according  to  his  own  will  and  intent, 
then  his  action  is  not  free,  or  at  least  not  per- 
fectly free,  and  so  is  not  imputable,  or  is  not 
wholly  so.  Everything  depends  here  upon  the 
intention.  A  man  designs  to  do  an  evil  deed, 
but  is  prevented  from  accomplishing  his  pur- 
pose by  external  circumstances,  and  so  does 
not  sin  indeed  externally,  but  he  does  in  his 
heart,  and  in  the  judgment  of  God  and  of  his 
own  conscience  is  deserving  of  punishment. 
The  case  is  the  same  as  to  the  imputation  of  a 
good  act,  the  execution  of  which  has  been  pre- 
vented by  external  circumstances.  Vide  Matt, 
v.  28,  coll.  s.  82. 

II.  The  different  degrees  of  Sin. 

In  common  life  sins  are  distinguished  into 
gross  and  great  sins,  and  light  and  trifling  sins, 
and  the  latter  are  judged  deserving  of  less  pu- 
nishment than  the  former.  This  difference  is 
founded  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself.  For 
whoever  sins,  acts  against  the  obligation  which 
rests  upon  him  to  fulfil  certain  duties;  but  this 
obligation  has  different  degrees,  according  to 
the  difference  of  the  powers  of  the  acting  sub- 
ject, and  of  his  motives  to  action.  Hence  it 
follows  that  one  commits  greater  sins  who  has 
more  power  and  stronger  motives  for  doing 
right  than  one  with  whom  these  powers  and 
motives  were  weaker.  Again :  the  less  the 
motives  and  inducements  to  sin,  and  the  more 
the  reasons  which  were  calculated  to  deter  from 
the  commission  of  it,  so  much  the  worse  is  the 
sin,  and  so  much  the  more  deserving  of  punish- 
ment. The  motives  tending  to  withhold  from 
sin  are  to  be  judged  of  from  the  peculiar  situa- 
tion, the  circumstances,  the  mode  of  thinking, 
and  the  knowledge  of  each  individual ;  also, 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  person  or  thing 
with  respect  to  which  the  sin  is  committed,  (e. 
g.,  sins  against  parents,  to  whom  we  are  under 
greater  obligations  than  to  others;)  and  also 
according  to  the  consequences  which  flow  from 
the  sin.  The  consideration  of  this  matter,  how- 
ever, properly  falls  into  the  department  of  theo- 
logical morals. 

In  entire  conformity  with  these  principles 
does  the  holy  scripture  decide  respecting  the 
different  degrees  of  sin,  and  their  desert  of  pu- 
nishment. Vide  Matt.  v.  22;  John,  xix.  11, 
wv  djtopf/a;  Luke,  xii.  47,  48;  Matthew, 
xi.  22—24;  1  Tim.  i.  15;  2  Peter,  ii.  20,  21. 
But  since  this  difference  of  degree  in  sin  de- 
pends upon  so  many  things,  which  are  not 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


299 


always  obvious,  and  cannot  be  duly  estimated 
by  others ;  upon  the  dispositions  and  intentions 
concealed  in  the  heart  of  him  who  acts;  upon 
his  knowledge,  his  temptations,  his  powers  and 
capacities;  it  is  often  impossible  for  us  in  par- 
ticular cases  to  form  a  correct  judgment.  God 
only,  who  knows  the  heart  of  man,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  he  acts,  can  judge  truly  and 
decisively  respecting  his  actions.  To  him,  there- 
fore, should  this  decision  be  left.  Vide  Rom. 
xiv.  4,  av  Tfif  ft  o  xplvtav  a'M.o'tpiov  olxi-t^v ;  James, 
iv.  12;  Matt.  vii.  1,  seq.  On  this  account,  it  is 
our  wisdom,  as  well  as  our  duty,  although  con- 
trary to  the  common  disposition  of  men,  to  judge 
ourselves  with  all  possible  strictness,  but  the 
faults  of  others  with  forbearance  and  toleration. 
This,  too,  is  according  to  the  direction  of  Christ, 
Matt.  vii.  1 — 5,  coll.  Luke,  xiii.  2 — 5.  Baurn- 
garten  has  discussed  this  subject  minutely  in  his 
"Diss.  de  gradibus  peccatorum  ;"  Halae,  1744, 
]y0te  i. — The  philosophers  both  of  ancient 
and  modern  times  have  been  almost  entirely 
agreed  that  there  is  a  difference  of  degree  in 
sins ;  with  the  exception  only  of  the  stoics,  who 
maintained  the  paradoxical  opinion,  that  all  sins 
are  alike.  Vide  Cicero,  Parad.  iii. ;  Seneca, 
Ep.  66;  Cicero,  De  finibus  honor,  et  malor.  iv. 
27,  seq.  They  assumed  that  all  virtues  were 
equal ;  and  hence  it  followed,  by  way  of  contrast, 
that  all  vices  were  equal ;  and  hence,  that  all  the 
virtuous  and  all  the  vicious  were,  in  their  view, 
on  the  same  level — e.  g.,  one  who  killed  a  slave 
•without  a  cause  committed,  in  their  view,  an 
equal  sin  with  one  who  abused  his  father.  In 
this  doctrine  they  were  opposed  chiefly  by  the 
peripatetics.  But  although  they  maintained 
this  equality  of  virtues  and  of  vices,  they  yet 
ascribed  to  them  a  different  extent  and  limita- 
tion, so  that  some  were  capable  of  palliation, 
others  unpardonable;  because  some  deviated 
more  than  others  from  the  law ;  and  so  with  re- 
gard to  the  virtues,  which  were  judged  of  by 
them  according  to  their  different  utility.  Hence 
we  see  that  in  substance  they  agreed  with  others, 
and  only  differed  from  them  by  this  striking 
proposition,  which  they  selected  on  account  of 
its  strangeness.  All  which  they  mean  to  affirm 
is,  that  one  transgression  is  as  much  a  trans 
gression  as  another;  and  all,  in  respect  to  their 
internal  nature,  are  alike,  because  they  are  all 
violations  of  the  rule,  and  so  are  opposite  to  the 
virtues.  And  the  same  is  taught  by  the  text, 
James,  ii.  10,  11.  But  this  internal  nature  of 
virtues  and  vices  cannot  be  made  the  standard 
by  which  their  greatness  is  determined,  but  the 
consequences  which  result  from  them,  the  pur 
pose  and  intention  of  the  soul  from  which  they 
flow,  and  sometimes  even  the  mere  "so  it 
seems  good"  of  the  lawgiver.  Vide  Tiedemann, 
System  der  Stoischen  Philosophie,  th.  iii.  s. 
151—156. 


Note  2. — Some  theologians  have  maintained 
that  sin,  or  rather  the  guilt  of  sin,  is  infinite  in 
the  philosophical  sense,  (culpam  sive  reatum 
peccatorum  esse  infinitum.)  They  resort  to  this 
statement  in  order  to  explain  more  easily  the 
nfiniteness  of  the  satisfaction  made  by  Christ, 
and  also  the  eternity  of  the  punishments  of  hell. 
Whoever,  they  say,  breaks  the  laws  of  the 
Infinite  Being,  brings  upon  himself  infinite 
guilt.  But  this  statement,  taken  in  the  strict 
philosophic  sense,  is  incorrect.  For  (a)  it 
would  follow  from  this  that  there  was  no  differ- 
ence of  objects ;  for  the  infinite  is  always  like  to 
tself,  and  cannot  be  increased  or  diminished. 
(6)  An  action  which  is  directed  against  a  parti- 
cular object,  does  not,  of  necessity,  partake  of 
the  nature  of  this  object.  Whether  the  object 
is  finite  or  infinite  is  a  matter  of  indifference 
with  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  action,  and 
makes  no  alteration  in  its  character.  A  finite 
action  cannot  become  infinite,  or  involve  infinite 
guilt,  merely  because  it  relates  to  an  infinite  ob- 
ject. If  it  could,  then  every  good  action  agree- 
ing with  the  divine  law  must  be  infinite,  and 
have  an  infinite  worthiness ;  and  so  the  know- 
ledge which  man  has  of  God  must  be  infinite 
because  it  relates  to  an  infinite  being,  (e)  This 
whole  opinion  rests  upon  a  comparison  of  divine 
and  human  things  carried  too  far,  so  as  to  give 
rise,  as  in  innumerable  other  cases,  to  mistake. 
We  look  upon  the  crimes  committed  against 
rulers  and  magistrates  as  greater  than  those 
committed  against  others,  and  we  punish  them 
more  severely;  and  this  with  justice.  But  the 
reason  of  this  lies  not  so  much  in  the  personal 
character  or  worth  of  the  injured  object,  as  in 
care  for  the  public  welfare  or  security,  which  is 
more  endangered  by  any  indignity  done  to  the 
magistracy  than  to  a  private  person.  Hence 
this  crime,  in  order  to  deter  others  from  com- 
mitting it,  must  be  punished  more  severely 
than  others.  But  this  principle  cannot  be  ap- 
plied in  its  whole  extent  to  God  ;  although  such 
human  representations  are  often  applied  to  him. 
For,  properly  speaking,  God  cannot  be  in- 
jured by  men;  they  cannot  frustrate  any  of  his 
plans,  nor  set  aside,  disturb,  or  throw  effectual 
hindrances  in  the  way  of  any  of  his  counsels. 
Vide  Eberhard,  Apologie  des  Sokrates,  th.  i.  s. 
374,  f. 

SECTION  LXXXII. 

DIVISIONS  OF  SIN  IN  RESPECT  TO  THE  LAW,  TO 
THE  KNOWLEDGE  AND  PURPOSE  OF  HIM  WHO 
COMMITS  IT,  AND  TO  THE  ACTION  ITSELF. 

I.  7n  respect  to  the  Law. 

As  the  law  contains  both  precepts  and  prohibi- 
tions, it  follows  that  actions  deviating  from  it 
may  be  of  two  kinds — viz.,  («)  actions  forbid- 
den by  the  law,  sins  of  commission,  (peccata 


300 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


commissions ,-)  (6)  declining  or  refusing  to  per- 
form actions  required  by  the  law,  sins  of  omis- 
sion, (peccata  omissionis.}  The  latter  kind,  as 
well  as  the  former,  are  mentioned  in  the  Bible, 
and  declared  to  be  equally  sins,  James,  iv.  17, 
"To  him  that  knoweth  to  do  good,  (i.  e.,  who 
has  power  and  opportunity  to  perform  it,)  and 
doeth  it  not,  it  is  sin  ;"  or,  every  omission  of 
good,  to  perform  which  we  are  obliged  by  the 
divine  law,  is  sin.  Cf.  Luke,  xii.  47 ;  Matt.  vii. 
19.  A  man,  therefore,  who  guards  merely 
against  sins  of  commission,  so  that  he  cannot  be 
charged  with  any  open  violation  of  the  divine 
will,  does  not  deserve  the  name  of  an  observer 
of  the  divine  law.  To  this  character  he  can  lay 
claim  only  when  he  has  not  to  condemn  himself 
for  omitting  the  good  which  the  law  required 
him  to  perform.  Thus,  not  only  does  he  sin 
who  does  what  is  forbidden  by  God,  but  he  too 
who  omits  to  do  what  God  requires.  It  is,  how- 
ever, a  common  error  of  men  to  regard  sins  of 
omission  less  than  those  of  commission,  because 
they  are  less  externally  visible.  Some  theolo- 
gians, too,  have  maintained  that  sins  of  omission 
were  less  heinous  and  punishable  than  those  of 
commission.  But  this,  as  a  general  proposition, 
and  applied  to  all  cases,  is  false.  To  neglect  to 
use  the  powers  and  faculties  given  us  is  often  as 
injurious,  sometimes  more  so,  than  the  abuse  of 
them  in  sins  of  commission.  But  because  the 
evil  done  in  sins  of  commission  is  often  more 
immediate  and  obvious  than  in  sins  of  omission, 
where  the  effect  is  more  slow  and  is  often  lost 
in  obscurity,  we  are  easily  led  to  regard  the  lat- 
ter as  less  than  the  former.  In  the  eyes  of  God, 
the  thief  and  the  murderer  may  be  less  vile  than 
the  hardhearted  rich  man,  who  refuses  to  relieve 
his  dying  neighbour,  and  suffers  him  to  perish 
of  hunger;  although  the  former  is  severely  pu- 
nished by  men,  while  the  latter  remains  unpu- 
nished, and  even  may  enjoy  the  highest  repute 
and  honour  in  the  view  of  men.  Christ  teaches 
this,  Matt.  xxv.  41 — 46,  where  those  who  have 
not  fed  the  hungry  and  clothed  the  naked  are 
consigned  by  the  Judge  of  the  world  to  the 
place  of  torment,  as  well  as  other  offenders. 
He  applies  the  term  xaxorto^lv  to  the  omission 
of  a  good  action,  Mark,  iii.  4 ;  Luke,  vi.  9. 

II.  In  respect  to  the  Knowledge  and  the  Will  of  him 
who  sins. 

(1)  In  respect  to  knowledge.  In  case  9f  an 
illegal  action,  one  either  knows  the  law  or  he 
does  not;  hence  arises  the  division  of  sins  into 
those  of  ignorance  and  those  of  knowledge, 
(peccata  ignorantias,  and  peccata  cum  scientia 
recti  commissa.'}  Sin,  or  transgression  of  the 
divine  law,  always  presupposes  a  knowledge  of 
this  law ;  for  without  the  knowledge  of  the  law 
there  can  be  no  sin.  Vide  s.  81,  I.  The  sin 
of  ignorance  is  not  found,  therefore,  in  the  case 


of  one  who  is  wholly  ignorant  of  the  divine  law, 
or  who  has  had  no  opportunity  of  becoming  ac- 
quainted with  it;  in  short,  when  his  ignorance 
is  without  any  fault  on  his  part.  Hence  Christ 
says,  John,  xv.  22,  24,  "Had  I  not  told  it  unto 
you,  (that  I  was  a  divine  teacher,)  ye  would 
not  have  sinned,  (in  rejecting  me;)  and  had  I 
not  done  such  great  miracles,  (by  which  they 
are  furnished  with  the  means  of  judging  cor- 
rectly respecting  me,)  they  had  not  had  sin." 
An  ignorance  of  this  kind,  which  is  wholly 
without  criminality,  is  called  by  the  schoolmen, 
ignorantia  invincibilis;  and,  however  various  are 
the  explanations  which  they  give  of  it,  they  are 
agreed  in  saying,  that  it  must  be  excused,  and 
cannot  be  imputed.  In  particular  cases,  how- 
ever, it  is  very  difficult  to  judge  respecting 
others,  whether  the  ignorance  of  any  one  is,  or 
is  not,  without  any  fault  on  his  part;  for  what 
seems  to  one  easy  to  be  known,  so  that  he  can 
hardly  conceive  how  it  should  appear  dark  or 
difficult,  is  attended  in  the  view  of  another  with 
insuperable  difficulties  and  hindrances.  Hence 
we  ought  to  be  very  cautious  in  judging.  God 
only  can  determine  infallibly  whether,  and  how 
far,  ignorance  is  attended  with  criminality.  As 
soon,  however,  as  any  one  neglects  the  means 
within  his  reach  of  acquiring  knowledge  of  the 
law,  his  ignorance  is  no  longer  innocent;  he 
commits  actual  sin,  and  is  liable  to  punishment. 
In  order  to  a  sin  of  ignorance,  it  may  therefore 
be  considered  as  essential  that  the  person  should 
have  been  able  to  know  the  law,  and  that  his 
own  negligence  and  forbearing  to  inquire  is  the 
only  cause  of  his  ignorance. 

Nearly  related  to  these  are  sins  committed 
through  error,  (per  errorem  commissa;)  hence 
they  are  often  classed  with  sins  of  ignorance. 
Sins  of  error  are  those  which  are  committed 
(a)  when  one  erroneously  supposes  that  a  law 
exists,  when  in  fact  there  is  none — e.  g.,  when 
one  supposes  it  is  his  duty  to  persecute  heretics 
and  errorists ;  (6)  when  one  misunderstands  the 
law,  or  (c)  when,  through  error,  he  fails  in  the 
application  of  the  law  to  particular  cases;  or 
(d)  when  he  judges  erroneously  respecting  the 
obligation  under  which  he  is  laid  by  the  law. 
The  only  question  now  is,  whether  such  an  error 
is  without  fault,  or  not;  whether  it  was  in  our 
power  to  avoid  it.  These  different  kinds  of  sin 
are  distinguished  in  the  scriptures,  and  are  al- 
ways there  judged  of,  according  to  the  principles 
here  laid  down — e.  g.,  Luke,  xxiii.  34,  Father, 
forgive  them,  (there  was,  therefore,  sin  in  this 
case;  for  they  had  had  opportunity  to  become 
better  instructed ;  and  yet  there  were  many 
things  whic  diminished  their  guilt;  and  so 
Christ  adds,)  for  they  KNOW  NOT  what  they  do. 
Acts,  iii.  17,  xata  o/ywiav  f rtpaff-r'? •  and  Paul 
says,  respecting  himself,  1  Tim.  i.  13,  God  had 
forgiven  him  for  persecuting  Christians,  6V  e. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


301 


Sins  in  general  are 
sometimes  called  a/yvoj^uafo.,  Heb.  ix.  7.  Heb. 
ruj»?,  Lev.  iv.  2, 13,  where  sins  of  ignorance  of 
every  kind  are  spoken  of  at  length.  The  fur- 
ther discussion  of  this  subject  belongs  to  theo- 
logical morals. 

(2)  In  respect  to  the  will.  Here,  again,  it  must 
be  presupposed,  that  without  the  free  determina- 
tion of  the  will  no  sin  can  exist.  Such  an  act 
does  not  depend  upon  me,  and  is  not  to  be  re- 
garded as  mine.  Vide  s.  81,  I.  ad  finem.  In 
order  to  estimate  correctly  the  sinfulness  of  hu- 
man actions,  and  their  liability  of  punishment, 
regard  must  be  had  to  the  motives  and  induce- 
ments which  act  on  the  human  will,  and  the  re- 
lations of  men  with  regard  to  them,  and  the 
situation  in  which  the  offender  is  placed.  Ac- 
cording to  these  circumstances  must  the  degree 
of  the  sinfulness  of  actions  be  judged  and  esti- 
mated. Sins  may  be  divided,  in  respect  to  the 
intention  with  which  they  are  committed,  into 
the  following  classes — viz., 

A.  INVOLUNTARY  SINS,  when  one  transgresses 
the  law  of  God,  without  having  formed  a  proper 
resolution  or  purpose  of  so  doing,  (si  absit  con- 
silium  peccandi.~)  Among  these  are: — 

(a)  Sins  of  precipitancy,  "ywa?,"  as  Cicero 
says,  (Officiis,  I.  8,)  "repentina  aliquo  motu 
animi  accidunt,"  in  opposition  to  deliberate  sins, 
prepense  and  aforethought.  Sins  of  this  kind  are 
committed  when  persons  act  so  precipitately  that 
they  do  not  once  think  of  thelaw  forbidding  the 
action  which  they  perform,  or  do  not  duly  con- 
•sider  the  reasons  which  lie  against  it.  They 
ought  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  sins 
which  are  committed  through  levity.  In  order 
that  a  trespass  committed  by  me  should  be 
through  mere  precipitancy,  I  must  not  have 
sought  the  opportunity  to  sin  ;  the  time  between 
the  resolution  and  the  action  must  have  been 
very  short,  and  the  feeling  which  has  carried 
me  away  must  have  been  very  strong.  The 
sin,  too,  must  be  followed  by  deep  repentance, 
and  a  firm  resolve  to  avoid  the  same  in  future. 
Such  sins  of  precipitancy  ought  not,  however, 
to  be  lightly  regarded,  because  they  often  plunge 
us  into  great  calamity,  and,  if  often  repeated, 
cease  to  be  sins  of  precipitancy.  Sins  of  this 
nature  are  mentioned  in  Gal.  vi.  1,  where  Chris- 
tians are  exhorted  to  be  on  their  guard  against 
them,  and  to  endeavour,  in  the  spirit  of  meek- 
ness, to  restore  those  who  have  committed  them. 
Vide  also  Psalm  Ixxiii.  2,  coll.  ver.  23,  seq. 

Sins  of  weakness,  (pcccata  infirmitatis.} 
These,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  can 
take  place  only  when  one  knows  that  what  he 
does  is  against,  the  law,  but  yet  is  not  physically 
able  to  forbear  doing  it.  They  are  seen  in  per- 
sons who  are  not  sufficiently  confirmed  in  good- 
ness, who  have  not  a  settled  habit  of  doing 
right,  and  whose  passions  are  very  violent. 


Sins,  however,  cannot  be  said  to  be  committed 
from  mere  weakness,  unless  he  who  commits 
them  has  used  on  his  part  a  proper  watchful- 
ness, and  has  resisted  his  evil  desires,  and 
found,  after  all,  that  it  was  impossible  for  him 
wholly  to  exclude  them  from  his  mind,  or  to 
fulfil  his  duties  and  his  good  intentions.  This 
is  the  case  of  which  Christ  speaks,  Matt.  xxvi. 
41,  "The  spirit  is  willing  (rtpc&i^ov)  ;  but  the 
fash  (i.  e.,  the  body,  by  which  the  soul  is  so 
much  influenced)  is  weak  (cw&evijj) ;"  i.  e.,  as 
weak  men,  whose  spirit  dwelt  in  a  disordered 
body,  they  were  not  able  to  execute  the  good 
purposes  for  which  they  had  a  willingness. 
The  general  maxim  contained  in  this  passage  is 
the  following:  men  are  often  hindered  by  sense 
and  passion  from  the  execution  of  their  best 
purposes,  and  yield  to  the  inducements  to  sin. 
The  scriptures,  therefore,  always  presuppose 
in  these  sins  a  certain  goodness  of  heart,  and 
the  serious  purpose  of  avoiding  sin,  and  deep 
repentance  on  account  of  it  when  it  has  been 
committed.  Men,  therefore,  who  are  totally 
corrupt,  and  in  whom  all  moral  sense  is  sup- 
pressed, cannot  commit  sins  of  weakness; 
though,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  entirely 
true,  according  to  the  common  affirmation  of 
some  theologians,  that  the  pious  only  and  the 
truly  regenerate  can  commit  sins  of  weakness 
and  precipitancy,  and  that,  as  some  will  say, 
all  the  sins  of  the  unrenewed  are  to  be  regarded 
as  sins  of  design,  (Germ.  Bosheitssiinden.) 
For,  as  even  the  pious  man  is  frequently  borne 
away  by  the  violence  of  passion  to  the  inconsi- 
derate commission  of  deeds  which  are  against 
his  own  will  and  purpose;  this  must  certainly 
be  much  oftener  the  case  with  unrenewed  men ; 
and  unless  they  are  in  a  high  degree  corrupt  and 
vicious,  it  cannot  be  affirmed  with  certainty  re- 
specting them,  that  they  always  sin  from  sheer 
wickedness,  and  that  they  never  fight  against 
sin  and  endeavour  to  resist  it.  For  a  man  who 
is  addicted  to  a  particular  vice,  and  who  often 
commits  one  sin,  may  yet  have  in  him  much 
which  is  good,  and  strive  with  earnestness  and 
zeal  against  other  sins  to  which  he  is  tempted. 
Now,  little  as  sin  can  in  any  case  be  approved 
or  exculpated,  it  is  yet  true  that  many  very 
gross  outbreakings  of  sin  in  particular  cases 
and  persons  are  to  be  considered  as  sins  of 
weakness  and  precipitancy,  and  that  the  Om- 
niscient Being  often  passes  a  different  judg- 
ment, with  regard  ^p  the  morality  of  such  ac- 
tions, from  that  wmch  men  commonly  form,  or 
are  able  to  form.  This  is  the  case,  for  exam- 
ple, with  theft,  suicide,  homicide,  infanticide, 
and  other  similar  crimes,  which,  on  account  of 
their  consequences,  need  to  be  severely  punish- 
ed by  human  courts. 

B.  VOLUNTARY   SINS,  peccata  voluntaria,   or 
proserefica,    (from    rfpoac'pffftj,   proposifum,   con- 
2  C 


302 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


silium.)  These  are  committed  with  a  determi- 
nation of  breaking  the  law  of  God. 

(a)  When  any  one  knows  the  law,  and,  be- 
fore he  sins,  distinctly  recollects  it,  or  might 
easily  recollect  it,  and  yet  proceeds  to  sin,  then 
his  sin  is  voluntary,-  so  also,  when  he  delights 
himself  in  the  sin  which  he  has  committed,  ap- 
proves of  it,  and  wishes  for  an  opportunity  to 
repeat  it,  notwithstanding  he  is  convinced,  or 
might  be,  that  the  act  is  opposed  to  the  divine 
law. 

(6)  A  sin  does  not  cease  to  be  voluntary  and 
deliberate,  because  he  who  commits  it  may  have 
been  urged  on  by  the  command,  the  threat,  the 
solicitation,  or  the  contempt,  of  men.  For  in 
this  case  it  is  in  my  power  to  leave  the  sin  un- 
done; and  if  I  commit  it,  I  form  the  resolution 
of  breaking  the  law  of  God  in  order  to  escape 
an  evil  threatened  me  by  man.  Vide  Matt.  x. 
28.  An  exception  is  of  course  made  with  re- 
gard to  proper  physical  compulsion — e.  g.,  if  one 
strikes  another  with  my  hand,  against  my  own 
will,  the  action  in  such  a  case  is  no  more  mine. 

(c)  It  is  not  necessary  that  every  voluntary 
sin  should  be  a  gross  one;  even  the  smallest 
violation  of  the  law  which  takes  place  with  de- 
liberation is  a  voluntary  sin;  and  it  may  even 
be  that  an  action  which  is  not  in  itself  sinful, 
and  which  is  only  regarded  as  such  from  an 
unenlightened  conscience  may  become  a  volun- 
tary sin  by  being  deliberately  performed ;  for 
the  person  in  such  a  case  forms  a  resolution  to 
break  the  law  of  God — e.  g.,  when  one  regards 
card-playing  as  forbidden,  and  yet  plays.  Vide 
s.  81,  I.  2. 

(rf)  The  highest  degree  of  voluntary  sin  is 
that  in  which  one  sins  with  willingness, from 
mere  wickedness,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  sin  it- 
self, (peccatum  frivolum,  or  exovawv.)  Every 
such  sin  is  indeed  voluntary;  but  every  volun- 
tary sin  does  not  spring  from  pure  malice  or 
evil.  Such  a  sin  exists  only  when  one  violates 
the  law  without  being  tempted  to  it  by  external 
solicitations  or  opportunities.  There  are,  there- 
fore, many  voluntary  sins  which  do  not  result 
from  this  pure  evil,  and  which  are  not  commit- 
ted with  this  perfect  cordiality;  but  which  may 
be  even  reluctantly  performed,  through  fear  of 
persecution,  contempt,  or  some  other  cause.  In 
such  a  case,  we  have  the  sin  of  purpose,  not  of 
mere  evil.  Should  one  in  opposition  to  his  own 
convictions  renounce  religion  at  a  time  of  per- 
secution, or  when  irreligious  opinions  were  pre- 
valent, he  would  sin  voluntarily ;  but  for  him  to 
do  this  without  the  influence  of  persecution,  of 
danger,  or  of  any  solicitation  from  without, 
would  be  to  sin  cordially  and  from  entire  wick- 
edness. Paul  names  this  sinning  txovaiw,  Heb. 
x.  26,  where  he  speaks  of  just  such  a  denial  of 
the  faith,  and  justly  declares  it  to  be  one  of  the 
most  heinous  and  unpardonable  of  crimes. 


(e)  When  from  the  frequent  repetition  of  a 
sin,  a  habit  is  formed,  this  sin  thus  made  habi- 
tual is  denominated  a  vice;  e.  g.,  the  vice  of 
drunkenness,  &c.  The  term  vice  is  used  in  two 
senses — viz.,  sometimes  to  denote  the  habit  it- 
self of  acting  against  the  divine  law  ;  sometimes 
to  denote  the  particular  actions  which  originate 
in  such  a  habit.  Thus  when  it  is  said,  a  man 
is  guilty  of  a  great  vice,  the  meaning  is,  that  he 
has  committed  a  sinful  action  which  with  him 
is  habitual.  Hence  every  vicious  man  is  a  sin- 
ner— i.  e.,  a  transgressor  of  the  divine  law ;  but 
every  sinner  is  not  of  necessity  vicious.  Cf. 
Michaelis,  Von  der  Siinde,  s.  337,  seq.  and 
Toellner,  Theologische  Untersuchungen,  th.  i. 
b.  2,  Num.  7.  , 

Note. — As  the  sacred  writers  always  proceed 
on  the  principle  that  God,  as  ruler,  has  a  right 
to  prescribe  laws  to  men,  and  that  men,  as  his 
subjects,  are  always  bound  to  obey ;  they  de- 
scribe those  who  knowingly  and  wilfully  trans- 
gress his  authority,  as  enemies,  rebels,  and  in- 
surgents, and  their  crimes,  as  rebellion,  enmity, 
&c. ;  so  Psalm  viii.  3;  Rom.  viii.  7;  James,  iv. 
4.  On  the  contrary,  the  virtuous  man  is  de- 
scribed in  the  Bible  as  obedient  and  submissive 
(OMJJI),  who  .willingly  and  cheerfully  bows  to 
*lhe  authority  of  God.  Humility  often  stands 
for  piety,  and  pride  for  wickedness, — intentional 
and  deliberate  sins;  and  the  proud  are  those 
who  commit  them.  Vide  Ps.  cxix.  21,  51 ; 
xxv.  9.  Why  are  the  virtuous  called  humble 
and  obedient?  All  virtue  should  proceed  from 
religious  motives,  from  thankful  love,  and  a 
spirit  of  obedience  towards  God. 

(3)  In  respect  to  the  actions  themselves,  or 
the  acting  subject,  sins  are  divided  into  internal 
and  external.  We  act  either  with  our  souls 
simply,  or  with  them  in  connexion  with  the 
body,  of  which  the  soul  makes  use  as  its  organ. 
This  division  is  found  in  the  New  Testament, 
Matt.  ix.  4;  Rom.  iii.  13,  seq.;  2  Cor.  vii.  1, 
(jnokva/jios  uopxoj  xai  rtvfv^uar'oj.)  Peccata  actu- 
alia  intsrna,  are  those  which  are  committed 
merely  in  heart,  or  in  thought.  They  are  also 
called  actiones  (pravas}  animi,  and  are  compre- 
hended by  Paul  under  the  term  s'pya,  Gal.  v.  19, 
seq.  coll.  Rom.  i.  28 — 31.  Among  these,  how- 
ever, we  are  not  to  include  those  evil  desires 
that  rise  involuntarily  and  without  guilt  in  the 
hearts  of  men;  which  are  rather  the  disease  of 
the  soul  than  its  guilt.  They  are  committed 
only  when  the  desires  after  forbidden  things 
rising  in  the  heart  are  cherished,  entertained, 
delighted  in,  and  executed ;  in  short,  when,  as 
James  says,  (ch.  i.  15,)  sin  is  conceived  in  the 
heart.  Cf.  s.  78,  IV. 

Peccata  actualia  EXTERNA,  are  those  unlawful 
actions  which  one  commits  with  the  body  and 
its  members.  They  are  divided,  according  to 
the  different  manner  in  which  the  disposition  of 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


303 


the  soul  is  made  known  through  the  body,  into 
peccata  or  is  or  linguae,  (Matt.  v.  22 ;  Rom.  iii. 
14;  James,  iii.  2,)  gestuum  and  operis.  The 
external  or  bodily  actions  of  men  are,  however, 
only  so  far  sinful  and  liable  to  punishment,  as 
they  depend  on  the  soul  or  the  will,  Matt.  xv. 
18 — 20;  otherwise,  they  cannot  be  denominated 
sins.  Vide  No.  II.  2,  of  this  section.  Hence 
Christ  calls  the  heart  of  man  the  treasury 
(^ffavpoj)  of  good  and  evil,  where  good  and 
evil  actions  lie  concealed,  and  are  prepared,  be- 
fore they  are  externally  exhibited ;  Matthew, 
xii.  34,  35,  coll.  Mark,  vii.  21.  The  body  is 
merely  the  instrument  or  subject,  which  obeys 
the  commands  of  the  soul.  Hence  it  is  plain 
that  it  is  false  to  consider  internal  sins  as  less 
heinous  and  deserving  of  punishment  than  ex- 
ternal sins,  as  is  commonly  done.  This  mistake 
results  from  the  fact  that  internal  sins  are  con- 
cealed from  the  view  of  men,  and  cannot  there- 
fore be  punished  by  them.  We  deceive  our- 
selves here  also,  by  conceiving  of  the  relation 
between  men  and  God  as  about  the  same  as  that 
which  subsists  between  man  and  his  fellow 
man,  especially  like  that  between  subjects  and 
a  human  ruler,  where  thoughts  are  not  liable  to 
punishment,  so  long  as  they  remain  mere 
thoughts,  and  are  unknown  to  other  men.  But 
to  God  the  mere  thoughts  of  men  are  as  much 
known  as  their  outward  actions.  Vide  1  Cor. 
iv.  5,  and  s.  22;  and  he  can  therefore  bring 
them  into  judgment  for  the  one  as  well  as  for 
the  other.  Hence,  in  the  Bible,  the  very  signi- 
ficant epithet,  xapSioyviotfT^j  (iS  npn)  is  applied 
to  God.  It  is  also  obvious  that  in  very  many 
cases  internal  sins  are,  in  the  sight  of  God, 
more  heinous  and  ill-deserving  than  external. 
For  example :  one  man  occupies  his  fancy  with 
shameless  and  unchaste  images.  He  commits 
internal  sin,  although  no  other  man  can  reproach 
him  for  it,  or  punish  him,  because  it  is  done 
merely  in  heart.  Another  man,  ordinarily 
chaste,  is  borne  away  by  passion  at  one  time 
actually  to  cgmmit  fornication  or  adultery,  and 
thus  brings  upon  himself  shame  or  punishment 
from  man,  while  the  other  goes  free.  Both 
have  sinned.  But  which  of  the  two  sins  is,  in 
the  sight  of  God,  of  the  darkest  character  and 
the  most  deserving  of  punishment,  the  internal 
or  the  external1?  The  decision  in  this  case  is 
not  difficult;  and  if  we,  like  the  omniscient  God, 
knew  the  heart,  we  should  all  decide  in  the 
same  manner  with  regard  to  offences  of  this  na- 
ture. Hence  Christ  says,  Matt.  v.  28,  whoever 
looks  upon  a  woman  to  lust  after  her  hath  com- 
mitted adultery  with  her  already  in  his  heart. 
Cato  pronounced  justly  a  similar  judgment: 
Furtum  sine  ulla  quoque  attrectatione  fieri  posse, 
sola  MENTE  atque  ANIMO,  ut  furtum  fiat,  ADNI- 
TENTE  ;  Gellius,  xi.  18,  ad  finem. 


SECTION  LXXXIII. 

OF  SOME  OTHER  DIVISIONS  OF  SIN    AND  SINS  OF 
PARTICIPATION. 

I.  Some  minor  divisions  of  sins. 

BESIDES  the  divisions  of  sin  already  mention- 
ed, s.  82,  there  are  also  many  others  which  are 
either  wanting  in  exactness  and  philosophic  cor- 
rectness, or  are  of  less  consequence,  as  they 
cast  but  little  light  upon  the  doctrine  itself,  and 
only  furnish  some  contingent  characteristics  of 
particular  kinds  of  sin.  Some  of  them  are  also 
liable  to  great  abuse.  Still,  as  they  are  fre- 
quently found  in  the  writings  of  the  schoolmen 
and  of  modern  theologians,  it  is  necessary  to 
understand  them  as  matters  of  history. 

(1)  The  division  of  sins  in  respect  to  the 
object  of  the  law  against  which  the  sin  is  com- 
mitted into  those  which  are  committed  against 
God,  against  one's  neighbour,  and  against  one- 
self, is  a  very  common  division,  but  far  from  be- 
ing accurate  and  just.  For  the  object  of  every 
sin,  if  the  formale  of  it  is  considered,  is  God. 
The  obligation  to  obey  the  law  issues  from  him 
as  the  supreme  Ruler  and  Lawgiver.  Again; 
every  one  who  commits  a  sin,  of  whatever  kind 
it  may  be,  sins  in  each  case  against  himself. 
For  in  the  commission  of  it  he  most  injures 
himself. 

Note. — We  may  here  notice  the  division  of 
sins  which  is  found  among  the  schoolmen,  into 
peccata  philosophica  (those  committed  against 
the  laws  of  nature),  and  peccata  theologica, 
(those  committed  against  the  revealed  will  of 
God.)  But  no  characteristics  can  be  given  by 
which  these  two  kinds  of  sinning  can  be  distin- 
guished from  each  other;  and  the  guilt  and  ill 
desert  of  both  must  be  necessarily  equal,  since 
God  is  no  less  the  author  of  the  laws  of  nature 
than  of  those  of  Revelation.  We  may  learn 
something  of  the  great  abuse  of  this  division, 
of  which  some  of  the  Jesuits  since  the  close  of 
the  seventeenth  century  have  been  chargeable, 
from  church  history  and  theological  ethics. 

(•2)  Sins  have  been  divided,  in  respect  to 
their  greater  or  less  guilt  and  desert  of  punish- 
ment, into  mortalia  or  non-venalia;  (unpardon- 
able), and  venalia  (pardonable)  ; — sins  unto 
death,  and  venial  sins.  The  phrase  sin  unto 
death  is  taken  from  1  John,  v.  16,  where,  how- 
ever it  has  an  entirely  different  meaning  from 
that  which  is  given  to  it  in  this  connexion — viz., 
punishment  with  death  at  a  human  tribunal,  a 
crime  worthy  of  death,  a  capital  crime.  But  this 
phrase,  as  used  by  theologians,  is  taken  in  the 
Hebrew  sense,  and  denotes  sins  which  draw 
after  them  death — i.  e.,  divine  punishment — e. 
g.,  John,  viii.  21,  24,  arto$aveia$t  ev  Ty  a^apt/a 
vuuiv.  The  term  peccatum  veniale  is  found  even 


304 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


in  Augustine.  Very  different  opinions,  however, 
are  entertained  by  theologians  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  this  division ;  and  there  has  been  much 
controversy  about  it,  especially  between  the  the- 
ologians of  the  Roman  and  the  protestant  church. 
In  order  that  this  term  may  be  understood  in  a 
sense  conformed  to  the  Bible,  it  must  be  ex- 
plained in  the  following  way;  every  sin,  as  such, 
deserves  punishment,  ($dvatov  artoxvzt,  James, 
i.  15,)  nor  do  the  least  remain  unpunished. 
The  pious  man,  therefore,  either  does  not  sin  at 
all,  or  if  he  sins,  deserves  punishment,  (death.) 
But  if  any  one  has  sinned  through  ignorance, 
heedlessness,  human  weakness,  or  precipitancy, 
he  may  hope  for  the  pardon  (veniani)  of  his  sin, 
since  he  did  not  commit  it  with  deliberate  pur- 
pose. Vide  s.  82.  Heinous  sins  remain  al- 
ways deserving  of  punishment;  but  those  who 
repent  of  their  sins  and  with  all  their  hearts 
turn  from  them,  receive,  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  scriptures,  pardon  from  God,  through 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ;  and  the  Christian  knows, 
that  through  his  faith  his  sins  are  truly  forgiven 
him.  Vide  Rom.  viii.  1,  ov8tv  xatdxpipa.  1 
John,  i.  9,  coll.  ii.  1 ;  Ps.  ciii.  8—18. 

(3)  As  the  phrase  to  cry  to  Heaven  is  used  in 
the  Bible  with  reference  to  particular  sins,  some 
have  thence  taken  occasion  to  introduce  the  di- 
vision of  sins  into  clamantia  and  non-clamantia. 
The  texts  are,  Gen.  iv.  1 0 ;  xviii.  20 ;  Ex.  iii.  7 ; 
James,  v.  4,  coll.  Is.  xxii.  14.  The  sins  men- 
tioned in  these  passages  have  been  comprised  in 
the  following  distich : — 

"  Clamitat  ad  ccelum  vox  sanguinis  et  Sodomorum, 
Vox  oppressorum,  merces  detenta  laborum." 

But  this  crying  to  Heaven  is  not  given  in  the 
Bible  as  the  definite  mark  of  any  particular  sins, 
and  it  may  be  spoken  of  many  others  besides 
those  to  which  it  is  actually  applied.  It  depends 
merely  upon  the  circumstances.  It  is  prosopo- 
poeia, and  is  used  to  denote  great  and  aggravated 
offences,  which  have  terrible  consequences,  but 
which  are  not  punished  in  this  world,  either  be- 
cause they  remain  undiscovered,  or  because,  on 
account  of  great  public  corruption,  they  are  not 
regarded  as  sins.  Respecting  such  sins,  the  He- 
brew says,  they  cry  to  God,  or,  they  call  to  God 
for  revenge — i.  e.,  they  are  punished  by  God 
with  peculiar  severity,  although  overlooked  by 
men.  Among  sins  of  this  nature,  e.  g.,  is  per- 
jury, respecting  which  it  is  expressly  said,  Ex. 
xx.  7,  that  God  will  not  forbear  to  punish  it, 
although  the  phrase  crying  to  Heaven  is  never 
used  with  respect  to  it  in  the  Bible.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  said,  respecting  the  blood  of 
Christ,  Heb.  xii.  24,  that  it  speaks  better  things 
than  the  blood  of  Mel;  it  calls  upon  God  for 
favour  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  or  it  results 
in  this,  that  God  does  pardon;  while  Abel's 
blood  called  on  God  to  punish,  or  was  followed 


by  this  consequence,  that  God  punished  the 
murderer.  In  connexion  with  these  texts,  vide 
Sir.  xxxv.  18,  "The  tears  of  the  widow  cry 
over  themselves  (to  Heaven)  against  him  who 
extorts  them." 

II.  Participation  in  the  sins  of  others. 

In  1  Tim.  v.  22,  Paul  makes  use  of  the  lan- 
guage xoivwtiv  apaptiais  aMw>rpt<uj.  A  sin  of 
participation  is  committed  by  any  one,  when  the 
unlawful  action,  though  not  performed  imme- 
diately by  him,  is  yet  done  mediately  through 
him,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  i.s  occasioned, 
aided,  and  abetted  by  him.  Everything,  there- 
fore, by  which  I  give  to  my  fellow  man  oppor- 
nity,  inducement,  or  occasion  to  sin,  is  a  sin  of 
participation.  The  guilt  which  rests  upon  me 
is  greater  or  less,  in  proportion  as  I  could  have 
foreseen,  or  did  actually  foresee  and  approve, 
the  sins  which  my  fellow  man  has  committed 
in  consequence  of  these  opportunities  and  in- 
ducements which  I  placed  in  his  way.  In  a 
great  variety  of  ways  can  one  give  to  another 
occasion  to  sin; — by  command,  by  bad  advice 
and  counsel  (John,  xviii.  14;  2  Sam.  xvi.  21), 
by  praising  wicked  deeds,  by  concealment,  by 
omitting  to  place  all  possible  resistance  in  the 
way  of  the  sin,  or  by  failing  to  give  needful  admo- 
nition, warning,  or  correction,  (1  Sam.  iii.  13.) 
The  mere  participator,  however,  has  not  always 
equal  guilt  with  the  one  who  himself  directly 
commits  the  sin.  The  guilt  of  the  one  may  be 
greater  or  less  than  that  of  the  other,  or  that  of 
both  may  be  equal;  and  this  will  be  according 
to  the  circumstances  in  each  particular  case. 
The  more  full  discussion  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject belongs  properly  to  the  department  of 
morals. 

There  is  one  class  of  sins  of  participation 
which  deserves  more  particular  notice  here,  al- 
though the  consideration  of  it  at  large  belongs 
to  theological  morals — viz.,  scandals,  so  called. 
We  subjoin  only  a  few  remarks.  'SxdvSa'Kov 
(tf'pi'D)  is,  literally,  anything  by  which  one  is 
made  to  fall,-  it  then  signifies  anything  by 
which  one  is  injured — e.  g.,  snares,  plots; 
finally,  in  a  moral  sense,  it  denotes  not  only 
every  deliberate  and  designed  solicitation  of  an- 
other to  evil,  but  also  everything  by  which  one 
gives  to  another  occasion  to  sin,  even  in  a  more 
indirect  way,  and  if  he  had  no  intention  of  so 
doing — e.  g.,  the  bad  example  which  one  sets 
before  another.  This  term  is  sometimes  used 
in  the  discourses  of  Jesus  to  signify  temptation 
to  apostasy  from  Christianity — e.  g.,  Matt, 
xviii.  6;  John,  xvi.  1  ;  but  it  is  also  used  by 
Christ  in  a  wider  sense — e.  g.,  Matt.  xvii.  27, 
where  it  denotes  the  inducement  to  disobey  ma- 
gistrates, which  one  offers  to  another  by  his 
conduct;  and  in  general  axavSa^eiv  is  with 
him  to  give  occasion  to  sin,  tt^enipt,  Matt.  v. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


305 


29,  30.  Such  an  offence  or  scandal  may  be 
committed  either  in  word  or  in  external  deed. 
Actions  and  words  may  in  themselves  be  right 
and  innocent ;  but  if  one  can  foresee  that  by  them 
another  may  be  led  into  sin,  it  is  his  duty  to  re- 
frain from  them.  On  these  principles,  Paul 
judges  respecting  the  eating  of  meats  regarded 
as  unlawful,  and  of  flesh  offered  to  idols,  in  pre- 
sence of  persons  who  had  conscientious  scruples 
respecting  it,  Rom.  xiv.  20 — 25;  1  Cor.  viii. 
10 — 13.  The  maxims  which  Paul  lays  down 
in  these  places  are  very  important  and  worthy 
of  being  laid  to  heart,  because  they  are  applica- 
ble to  all  similar  cases.  The  accountability 
and  ill-desert  of  a  person  guilty  of  such  an  of- 
fence is  different,  in  proportion  to  the  deed  it- 
self and  its  consequences.  The  easier  it  is  to 
avoid  the  seductive  action,  the  more  important 
the  office  and  station  of  the  one  who  does  it ; 
the  more  unlawful  the  action  is  in  itself,  and 
the  greater  the  evil  done  by  it,  so  much  the 
greater  and  more  deserving  of  punishment  is 
the  offence. 

Scandals  or  offences  are  sometimes  divided, 
in  respect  to  the  subject,  into  those  given  and 
those  received — a  division,  however,  which  is  in 
many  respects  inconvenient;  it  is  further  treated 
of  in  theological  morals.  Scandals  given  are 
those  actions  of  an  injurious  tendency,  to  the 
omission  of  which  one  is  obligated,  either  from 
the  nature  of  the  actions  themselves,  or  from  the 
particular  circumstances  of  the  case.  To  com- 
mit an  action  in  such  a  case  is  axavSahi^ew  tiva 
(active),  Matt,  xviii.  6.  Scandals  received  are 
such  actions  as  may  prove  temptations  to  some 
one,  but  which  are  either  in  themselves  good 
and  according  to  duty,  or  at  least  indifferent  in 
their  moral  character.  In  the  first  case,  one 
may  give  offence  or  occasion  sin  without  being 
accessory  to  it,  and  so  without  sin  on  his  part. 
In  the  second  case,  it  is  a  duty  to  abstain  from 
the  action,  according  to  the  advice  of  Paul,  as 
we  have  seen  above.  This  scandalum  acceptum 
is  exav&alwiSfptu,  ev  tlvi,  Matt.  xi.  6 ;  xiii.  57  (the 
first  case)  ;  Rom.  xiv.  21,  (the  second  case.) 

In  judging  of  sins  of  participation  and  of 
scandals,  moralists  often  mistake  by  carrying 
the  matter  too  far  in  theory,  and  thus  weaken- 
ing the  effect  of  their  rule ;  as,  on  the  other 
hand,  men  in  common  life  are  apt  to  judge  too 
lightly  and  indulgently  respecting  such  sins.  In 
order  to  guard  against  this  latter  fault,  which  is 
often  very  injurious,  it  is  well  to  reverse  the 
case,  and  see  how  we  should  judge  respecting 
participation  in  good,  virtuous,  and  noble  ac- 
tions, and  how  careful  we  should  be  to  make 
out  our  title  to  reward  in  consequence  of  this 
participation.  In  this  way  many  incautious 
decisions  respecting  these  sins  would  be  pre- 
vented. 

39 


SECTION  LXXXIV. 


OF  THE    BLASPHEMY  AGAINST   THE    HOLY    GHOST, 
OR  THE  SIN  AGAINST  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

THE  latter  phrase  (the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost),  which  is  introduced  into  theology,  is 
both  unscriptural  and  very  inconvenient,  on  ac- 
count of  its  indefiniteness  and  vagueness.  For 
there  are  many  sins  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
which  are  not  yet  blasphemy  against  him.  Vide 
Acts,  vii.  51 ;  1  Thess.  iv.  8.  The  blasphemy 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  (jSxaa^ju'a,  or  Adyo$  si?  rtvev- 
jtta  oiytov)  is  the  sin  which  is  intended  in  this 
discussion;  and  this,  too,  is  the  scriptural  mode 
of  expressing  it.  The  proof-texts  properly  re- 
lating to  this  subject  are,  Matt.  xii.  31,  32; 
Mark,  iii.  28 — 30;  Luke,  xii.  10;  with  which 
many  compare  the  texts  Heb.  vi.  4 — 6 ;  x.  29  ; 
1  Pet.  iv.  14;  John,  xv.  22—24,  &c.,  although 
their  reference  to  this  subject  is  disputed  by 
others. 

I.  Historical  Observations. 

Even  among  the  ancients  the  explanations 
given  of  this  subject  were  very  diverse,  and 
often  very  indefinite  and  unsettled.  Athanasius 
wrote  a  whole  dissertation  on  this  subject;  Ep. 
4,  ad  Serapion.  In  this  he  states,  among  other 
things,  the  opinion  of  Origen,  that  "  all  the  sins 
committed  after  baptism  were  sins  against  the 
Holy  Ghost."  But  in  the  writings  of  Origen 
now  extant,  he  places  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  denial  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  by  means  of  which  he  performed  mira- 
cles (works  of  the  Holy  Spirit.)  So  Theognos- 
tus  of  Alexandria,  Hilarius,  and  Ambrosius, 
although  the  latter  in  one  place  explains  him- 
self differently.  In  the  Pastor  of  Hermas  this 
sin  is  explained  to  be  blasphemy  in  general. 

Since  the  fourth  century,  two  explanations 
have,  however,  found  the  most  approbation ;  and 
although  they  are  both  very  differently  modified, 
yet  the  most  diverse  representations  can  be  ar- 
ranged under  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  gene- 
ral classes.  (1)  The  explanation  of  Chrysos- 
tom  (Horn.  42,  in  Matt.),  to  which  Hieronymus 
also  assents,  (Comm.  in  Matt.  12.)  According 
to  them,  one  commits  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  who  asserts  that  the  miracles  performed 
by  Christ  through  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
were  done  by  the  agency  of  an  evil  spirit.  (2) 
The  other  is  the  opinion  of  Augustine.  He 
is  not  indeed  always  consistent  with  himself  in 
his  views  respecting  the  kind  of  sin  which 
should  be  regarded  as  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost.  But  he  makes  the  principal  character 
of  this  sin  to  be  the  obstinate  impenitence  of  the 
sinner  till  the  close  of  his  life,  and  from  this 
circumstance  he  explains  it,  that  this  sin  is  not 
forgiven. 

2c2 


306 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


To  one  or  the  other  of  these  explanations  most 
of  the  theologians  of  the  Western  church  have 
attached  themselves,  at  least  in  general.  The 
reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century  came  out  of 
the  school  of  Augustine,  and  generally  adopted 
his  views  on  this  subject.  Hence  the  following 
description  of  this  sin  was  the  most  common 
among  the  Lutheran  theologians  of  the  sixteenth, 
seventeenth,  and  a  part  of  the  eighteenth  centu- 
ries— viz.,  it  is  committed  when  any  one  recog- 
nises the  Christian  doctrine  as  divine,  and  in- 
wardly approves  it,  but  yet  denies  it  against 
his  own  convictions,  opposes  and  blasphemes 
it,  and  perseveres  in  this  deliberate  contempt  of 
all  the  means  of  grace,  through  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  acts  upon  his  heart,  even  till  the  close  of 
life. 

Against  this  view,  however,  many  difficulties 
have  been  urged,  (a)  It  is  said  that  in  the  texts 
of  scripture  above  cited  the  ordinary  operations 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  are  not  intended,  but  the 
extraordinary.  (6)  That  every  sin,  persevered 
in  until  death,  is  followed  by  condemnation ;  and 
that  this  cannot  therefore  be  a  distinguishing 
characteristic  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 
For  these  reasons  other  theologians  prefer  the 
opinion  of  Chrysostom  and  Hieronymus — e.  g., 
most  of  the  Arminian  theologians,  and,  after 
them,  Stackhouse,  Tillotson,  and  other  English 
divines.  These  again  were  followed  by  most 
of  the  German  Lutheran  theologians  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  after  Pfaff,  Schubert,  Baum- 
garten,  and  others,  had  assented  to  this  view. 
For  the  opinions  of  the  theologians  of  the  Rom- 
ish church  on  this  point,  vide  Mart.  Gerbert, 
De  peccato  in  Sp.  S.,  S.  Blasii,  1760;  and  Hirt, 
De  logomachiis  circa  Doctrinam  de  Spiritu 
Sancto  obviis,  where  the  opinions  of  the  Lu- 
theran theologians  are  carefully  collected.  Vide 
Noesselt's  "Biicherkenntniss"  for  an  account 
of  an  almost  innumerable  multitude  of  other 
works  on  this  subject — e.  g.,  those  of  Feuerborn, 
Musaeus,  Schubert,  Zellner,  Hauber,  Flatt  (a 
prize  essay,  1770),  Buchwitz,  Sernler  (1768), 
&c. 

II.  Scriptural  Representation. 

The  Pharisees  and  Scribes  attributed  the 
miracles  which  Jesus  wrought  to  confirm  and 
establish  his  divine  mission,  to  the  devil,  with 
the  malicious  purpose  of  rendering  Jesus  sus- 
pected in  the  view  of  the  people,  upon  whom 
his  miracles  had  produced  a  great  impression, 
as  being  a  magician,  standing  in  alliance  with 
the  devil.  It  was  this  wicked  calumny  which 
led  Jesus  to  make  the  declaration  respecting  the 
unpardonableness  of  the  blasphemy  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  express  informa- 
tion of  Mark,  c.  iii.  30.  The  following  remarks 
may  serve  to  explain  this  declaration  of  Jesus : — 

(a)  Bxatj^jiua  is  any  slander  or  calumny 


which  aims  to  disgrace  or  dishonour  any  one, 
whether  it  be  God  or  created  beings,  angels  and 
men,  2  Pet.  ii.  10,  11 ;  Mark,  vii.  22.  In  this 
passage  it  is  used  in  the  widest  sense,  and  so 
includes  both.  (It  is  inaccurately  rendered  by 
Luther,  in  Mark,  iii.  28,  blasphemy  against 
God.}  Therefore  Christ  says,  "All  other  sins, 
and  even  blasphemies  (against  God  and  men), 
may  be  forgiven  to  men  (if  they  seek  forgive- 
ness in  the  appointed  way);  but  for  that  sin 
alone,  which  is  committed  by  blasphemy  against 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  no  forgiveness  to  be  expect- 
ed. It  is  the  most  heinous  of  all  sins. 

(6)  The  phrase  Son  of  man  is  sometimes  ap- 
plied to  the  Messiah,  considered  in  his  whole 
character  (^mi/^pcortoj)  ;  it  is  however  borrowed 
from  his  inferior  nature,  and  relates  chiefly  to 
his  humanity.  The  contemporaries  of  Jesus 
were  especially  offended  by  the  humiliation  of 
the  Son  of  man,  which  was  so  contradictory  to 
their  expectations  respecting  the  Messiah,  Matt, 
xi.  6 ;  1  Cor.  i.  23.  Blasphemy  directed  against 
the  Messiah  was  indeed,  in  all  cases,  a  great 
offence ;  but  in  the  ignorant  and  misguided 
multitude  it  was  by  no  means  so  great  a  sin  as 
in  those  who  led  them  astray ;  and  hence  in 
their  case  there  was  hope  of  pardon.  They 
were  among  those  who  knew  not  what  they  did, 
Luke,  xxiii.  34. 

(c)  The  case  was  very  different  with  the 
Pharisees ;  they  blasphemed  against  the  Holy 
Ghost,  since  they  knew  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
acted  through  Christ,  but  yet  denied  it,  and  cast 
contempt  upon  his  agency.  The  support  and 
guidance  of  the  Son  of  man  is  constantly  as- 
cribed by  Christ  and  the  apostles  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Vide  Matt.  iii.  16 ;  John,  iii.  34;  Acts, 
x.  38.  It  is  upt,  however,  the  personal  dignity 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  God,  which  is  here 
spoken  of,  nor  does  Christ  design  to  say  that  a 
sin  against  one  divine  person  is  greater  than 
against  another, — for  which  no  reason  can  be 
supposed ;  nor  would  he  intimate  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  superior  to  himself  and  the  Father; 
for,  according  to  his  instructions,  they  are  equal 
in  dignity;  but  he  speaks  only  of  the  operations 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  his  manifestation, 
which  was  so  plainly  exhibited  in  Christ.  For 
the  work  of  God  and  the  work  of  the  devil  are 
here  opposed  to  each  other,  and  in  Mark,  iii.  29, 
30,  rtvfvpa  ayiov  and  rtvsvpa  axd^aptov  and  in- 
stead of  the  phrase,  to  cast  out  devils  by  the  spi- 
rit of  God,  which  is  found,  Matt.  xii.  28,  we 
find  the  phrase,  by  the  finger  of  God,  used  in 
Luke,  xi.  20.  The  sin  here  described  is  there- 
fore called  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
because  it  is  committed  against  those  divine 
operations  which  are  especially  ascribed  to  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  his  ceconomic  work.  But  it 
does  not  follow  that  the  personal  dignity  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  greater  than  that  of  the  Father 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


307 


or  the  Son.  The  Pharisees,  therefore,  committed 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  not  only  by  ob- 
stinately denying,  against  their  own  convictions, 
the  miracles  which  Jesus  performed  in  proof  of 
his  divine  mission,  and  which  they  knew  in 
their  hearts  to  be  performed  through  divine 
agency,  but  by  giving  them  out  as  imposture 
and  the  effect  of  an  evil  spirit,  with  whom  Jesus 
stood  in  alliance,  in  order  thus  to  render  his 
doctrine  suspicious.  This,  considering  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  the  Pharisees  were,  shew- 
ed a  high  degree  of  wickedness,  and  was  actual 
blasphemy  against  God — a  designed  and  deli- 
berate blasphemy,  too,  which  they  were  by  no 
means  disposed  to  repent  of  or  to  retract.  Here 
two  questions  arise — viz., 

( 1 )  Can  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  be  still 
committed  at  the  present  time  ?    Those  who  adopt 
the  opinion  of  Augustine  commonly  affirm  that 
it  can.     But  among  those  theologians  who  have 
explained  these  texts  after  the  manner  of  Chry- 
sostom  and  Hieronyrnus,  the  opinions  on  this 
subject  vary,     (a)  Some  of  them  maintain  the 
affirmative.     They  think  that  whoever  denies 
the  miracles   of  Christ,  casts  contempt  upon 
them,  or  gives  them  out  as  deception,  impos- 
ture, or  magic,  still  commits  this  sin,  although 
(as  they  sometimes  cautiously  add)  no  one  can 
undertake  to  decide  whether  it  has  been  commit- 
ted by  another,  (b)  But  the  other  side  was  taken 
long  ago  by  some  Arminian  theologians,  (e.  g., 
by  Limborch.)   They  maintained  that  only  eye- 
witnesses of  Christ's  miracles,  as  the  Pharisees 
were,  could  be  guilty  of  this  sin,  because  no 
others  had  equal  advantages  for  attaining  to  a 
full  and  undoubting  conviction  of  their  certainty. 
Those  in  our  times  who  pursue  the  general 
course  of  the  Pharisees,  deny  and  ridicule  events 
respecting  the  historic  truth  and  credibility  of 
which  they  are  in  doubt,  or  which  they  suppose 
never  to  have  taken  place.     Hence  it  is  con- 
cluded that  this  sin  can  no  more  be  committed, 
because  miracles  are  no  longer  performed.     So 
Pfaff  reasoned,  and  after  him  many  protestant 
theologians,     (c)  There  is  still,  however,  one 
case  in  which  the  same  sin  which  was  commit- 
ted by  the  Pharisees  may  be  still  committed — 
viz.,  where  one  is  fully  convinced  of  the  historic 
truth  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  and  that  they  were 
done  through  the  divine  power,  and  yet,  in  total 
opposition  to  his  own  convictions,  and  with  the 
same   malicious  purpose  which  the  Pharisees 
had,  pronounces  them  to  be  imposture  and  de- 
ception, the  effect  of  magic  or  other  wicked  arts. 
This  would  in  reality  be  the  same  case  with 
that  of  the  Pharisees.     For  the  circumstance  of 
having  seen  the  miracles  oneself  is  of  no  special 
consequence,  and  it  is  enough  if  one  be  con- 
vinced of  their  truth.     When  the  conviction  of 
the  truth  of  the  miracles  is  equally  strong  in 
one  who  has  not  seen  them  and  in  one  who  has, 


the  same  degree  of  guilt  would  seem  to  be  ne- 
cessarily involved  in  denying  them.  Such  a 
case  indeed  will  seldom  occur,  but  the  possibi- 
ity  of  it  must  be  admitted. 

(2)  Why  does  Christ  affirm,  that  this  sin  cannot 
be  forgiven  ?  and  what  does  he  mean  by  this  decla- 
ration ?  The  theologians  who  adopt  Augustine's 
hypothesis,  understand  here  a  real  impossibility, 
in  the  proper  and  philosophical  sense,  and  derive 
t  from  the  nature  of  the  sin  itself,  as  being  con- 
tinued to  the  end  of  life;  respecting  which  vide 
supra.  Those  who  follow  the  other  hypothesis 
have  different  opinions  on  this  subject.  Some 
understand  a  real  impossibility,  but  do  not  enter 
upon  the  question,  why  it  is  impossible.  Others 
take  the  ground,  that  this  language  means  only 
that  this  sin  is  forgiven  with  great  difficulty. 
So  most  of  the  theologians  of  the  Romish  church 
who  adopt  this  hypothesis;  also  many  of  the 
Arminian  theologians  and  commentators;  like- 
wise Heumann,  Pfaff,  and  other  protestants. 
These  again  are  divided  in  their  opinions,  since 
some  suppose  that  Christ  spoke  conditionally, 
meaning  that  this  sin  could  not  be  forgiven  if  it 
were  not  repented  of;  and  others,  that  Christ  here 
uses  the  language  of  feeling,  which  is  accord- 
ingly to  be  understood  hyperbolically,  and  not 
literally  Vide  Koppe,  Quo  sensu  peccato  in 
Spiritum  Sanctum  venia  a  Christo  negata  fue- 
rit;  Gott.  1781. 

On  this  question  we  will  give  our  own  judg- 
ment. The  words  of  Jesus  are,  ovx  d<j&»j<j£T'cu- 
£tj  "tov  atwva — OVT!E  tv  tov'tcp  tc>  atwvt,  ovfs  fv 
p&hovti  (i.  e.,  according  to  the  usus  loquendi 
of  the  Jews,  neither  here  nor  hereafter) ;  tVo^oj 
'cv  aicoWov  xpt'fffcoj,  or,  according  to  another 
reading,  a^ap-rux?,  (he  incurs  the  guilt  of  a  sin 
never  to  be  pardoned,  and  for  which  he  must 
endure  the  pains  of  hell.)  The  meaning  cannot 
be,  that  God  cannot  forgive  such  a  sin.  For 
one  who  has  sinned  in  a  manner  ever  so  aggra- 
vated, may  yet  repent  and  reform,  and  then  he 
surely  receives  forgiveness ;  and  this  is  truly 
said  respecting  blasphemy  against  God  of  any 
other  kind.  It  is  obvious  that  Christ  here  speaks 
with  feeling  and  righteous  indignation ;  this  is 
proved  by  all  his  words;  and-on  this  account  it 
is  unwarrantable  in  us  to  give  these  terms  an 
universal  sense,  and  to  apply  them  to  every 
similar  case.  This  Koppe  has  well  shewn  in 
the  Essay  before  mentioned.  But  although 
Christ  spoke  with  feeling,  it  does  not  follow 
that  he  went  too  far,  or  affirmed  anything  which 
is  not  in  strict  accordance  with  truth.  For  the 
feeling  which  Christ  exhibits  is  never  accom- 
panied either  by  error  or  sin.  The  case  properly 
stands  thus  :  (a)  all  experience  shews  that  a 
man  who  has  arrived  at  such"  a  point  of  wicked- 
ness seldom  comes  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth 
or  to  repentance ;  hence  Paul  says,  with  regard 
to  such  sinners,  aSlvatov  yap,  x.  t.  >.. ;  Heb.  vi. 


308 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


4 — 6.  Vide  other  texts  cited  at  the  beginning 
of  this  section.  (6)  But  Christ,  as  one  who 
knows  the  heart,  was  most  firmly  convinced 
that  those  whom  he  addressed  would  never  re- 
pent of  that  deliberate  blasphemy,  but  would 
persevere  in  it  to  the  end.  The  reason  why  he 
spoke  so  decidedly  was,  that  he  knew  what  was 
in  man,  and  did  not  need  that  any  one  should 
teach  him ;  John,  ii.  25 ;  xvi.  30.  In  this  way, 
the  theories  of  Augustine  and  of  Chrysostom 
somewhat  agree  on  this  point ;  and  we  have  also 
a  plain  reason  why  Christ  speaks  so  decidedly 
in  this  case,  while  yet  we  cannot  do  so  in  simi- 
lar cases. 

SECTION  LXXXV. 

OF  THE  STATE  INTO  WHICH  MEN  ARE  BROUGHT  BY 
THE  COMMISSION  OK  SIN,  AND  THE  DIFFERENT 
KINDS  AND  NAMES  OF  IT. 

1.  The  stale  of  sinners  in  respect  to  their  conduct 

and  disposition. 

THOSE  in  whose  hearts  evil  desires  no  more 
prevail,  but  rather  virtuous  feelings  and  a  dis- 
position inclined  to  moral  good,  are  called  up- 
right, virtuous,  (probe*,  honestos ;}  but  those 
who  are  thus,  out  of  regard  to  God — i.  e.,  from 
obedience  to  the  known  will  and  command  of 
God,  and  from  thankful  love  to  him — are  called 
pious  (pios),  religious;  although  this  distinction 
is  not  always  observed  in  common  discourse. 
The  latter  is  the  state  which  we  are  required 
to  possess  by  the  precepts  of  Christianity.  A 
short  summary  of  Christian  doctrine  on  this 
point  is  contained  in  the  first  epistle  of  John. 
The  Bible  recognises  no  other  virtue  or  holi- 
ness than  that  which  springs  from  religious 
motives;  religious  virtue,  we  are  there  taught, 
is  the  only  virtue  which  has  true  worth  in 
the  sight  of  God  ;  and  this  we  are  taught  even 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Those  who  possess 
this  religious  virtue  are  there  called  Dv?ns,  a^i', 
D^Vpn,  D"1"^"1,  8ix(uoi,  ayiot,  rtpa? i$,  svasfifLS,  SovTtot 
®£ov,  x.  t.  ?u ;  one  of  the  opposite  character  is 
called  owfj3>j$,  a§ixo$,  x.  t.  1*.  But  one  who  acts 
according  to  his  corrupt  desires,  and  does  so  ha- 
bitually, is  called  in  scripture  the  servant  or  slave 
of  sin ;  it  is  said  of  him  that  he  lives  to  sin,  he 
serves  it,  he  obeys  it,  he  is  sold  under  sin,  and  it 
rules  over  him.  Vide  Ps.  xix.  14;  Rom.  vi.  1, 

2,  6, 12, 16,  20 ;  vii.  14,  24 ;  xiv.  24 ;  John,  viii. 
34,  seq. ;  2  Pet.  ii.  19.     He  only  who  is  placed 
in  a  state  in  which  he  can  govern  his  desires, 
and  subject  his  appetites  to  reason  enlightened 
by  divine  instruction,  is  a/ree  man,  (John,  viii. 
34 ;)  whoever  cannot  do  this  is  a  slave  of  sin. 

The  state  of  all  who  are  devoted  to  sin  is  not, 
however,  alike.  Every  vicious  man  is,  in  his 
own  way,  a  servant  of  sin;  but  all  are  not  so  in 
the  same  way.  Three  principal  classes  may  be 


in  general  here  distinguished,  (a)  Some  adopt 
the  appearance  of  virtue  and  piety ;  they  give  a 
saintly  appearance  even  to  their  crimes,  in  order 
to  obtain  the  advantages  connected  with  good- 
ness. These  are  hypocrites,  and  their  fault  is 
called  vnoxpwis,  -iptf,  3j3,  TOID  ;  opposite  to  which 
are  TON,  rmr.N,  dtoj^ta,  truth,  sincerity.  This  is 
one  of  the  most  shameful,  aggravated,  and  dan- 
gerous crimes — the  hatefulness  and  destructive- 
ness  of  which  are  more  fully  considered  in  the 
department  of  Morals.  Cf.  Matt.  vi.  and  xxiii. ; 
Luke,  xi.  37—54;  2  Tim.  hi.  5.  (6)  Others 
have  no  hesitation  in  acting  out  before  the  world 
the  ungodly  desires  and  purposes  of  their  hearts. 
Such  are  called  ungodly,  improbi,  0,81x01,  dofjSsij* 
DTtih,  because  they  do  not  fear  nor  regard  God 
or  his  law ;  opposite  to  these  are  those  who  fear 
God — i.  e.,  act  with  reverential  regard  to  his 
commands,  (c)  Those  sinful  and  godless  men 
who,  by  long  custom  in  sinning,  have  esta- 
blished a  fixed  habit  of  it,  are  called  vicious, 
wicked,  scelcratos.  Cf.  s.  82,  II.,  ad  finem. 

II.  The  state  of  sinners  in  respect  to  the  conse- 
quences which  sin  involves. 

The  different  kinds  of  sinners  noticed  above 
are  all  unhappy,  and  in  the  judgment  of  God 
deserving  of  punishment.  The  feeling  of  their 
danger  and  misery  is  not,  however,  alike  with 
them  all ;  and  some  live  even  in  entire  insensi- 
bility. In  this  observation  we  have  the  ground 
of  the  divisions  of  the  various  states  which  have 
been  commonly  made  by  theologians,  and  which 
are  founded  in  experience;  though  the  passage 
from  one  to  the  other  of  these  states  is  very 
easy. 

(1)  Some  men  very  plainly  see  the  unlawful- 
ness of  their  actions,  and  the  evil  consequences 
springing  from  them ;  they  often  form  the  pur- 
pose of  renouncing  sin  and  living  better ;  but  the 
power  of  the  evil  inclinations  which  have  ob- 
tained  the   mastery   over   them  is   so   strong, 
that  they  allow  themselves  to  be  continually 
hurried  away  into  sin.     Such  are  in  constant 
restlessness,  fear,  and  anguish,  on  account  of 
their  sins ;  and  their  state  is  denominated  by  the- 
ologians, in  comformity  with  scriptural  phrase- 
ology, conditionem  sive  statum  servilem  or  servi- 
tutis,  a  state  of  slavery ;  and  this  is  taken  from 
John,  viii.  34 ;  Romans,  vi.  20,  and  chap.  vii. 
Men  in  this  state  are  like  slaves,  who,  at  least 
sometimes,  if  not  always,  wish  to  be  free,  and 
make  attempts  for  their  own  deliverance,  and 
yet  always  remain  slaves. 

(2)  Others  lead  a  sinful  life,  without  having 
an  earnest  desire  to  free  themselves  from  the 
dominion  of  sin.     They  pay  no  regard  to  their 
unlawful  actions,  and  have  no  scruples  about 
them,  either  from  ignorance  or  levity,  or  because 
they  hope  to  remain  unpunished,  and  from  many 
other   reasons,  often   those  which   are   in  the 


/ 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


309 


highest  degree  foolish.  This  is  called  the  state 
of  security — i.  e.,  freedom  from  care,  like  the 
Latin  securus ,- — status  securitatis,  or  liber tatis 
carnalis,  because  those  who  are  in  it  feel  free  to 
follow  their  sinful  appetites,  (oap|.)  This  state 
is  far  more  dangerous  than  the  preceding  one; 
and  with  such  sinners  reformation  is  far  more 
difficult.  Cf.  Malt.  xxiv.  38;  Ephes.  iv.  17— 
19;  Jude,  ver.  4,  seq.  The  state  of  such  is 
therefore  compared  with  that  of  the  sleeping  or 
of  the  dead,  Ephes.  v.  14.  They  live  for  sin, 
but  are  dead  to  goodness;  while  it  ought  to  be 
the  reverse. 

Note. — Theologians  distinguish  between  this 
State  and  that  of  spiritual  liberty  or  security. 
They  give  the  latter  name  to  the  state  of  the 
pious,  the  whole  disposition  of  whose  heart  is 
so  renovated  as  to  be  conformed  to  the  precepts 
of  Christianity,  who  by  divine  assistance  control 
their  evil  desires,  and  are  sure  of  the  pardon  of 
their  sins.  Vide  John,  viii.  36 ;  Rom.  v.  1 ;  vi. 
18.  For  true  spiritual  freedom  consists  in  being 
free  from  the  power  and  dominion  of  sin,  and 
also  from  its  punishment;  and  we  owe  both  to 
Christ.  These  are  the  blessed  godly  ones  (Gott- 
seligen,  in  'he  proper  sense  of  the  term) — i.  e., 
those  who  are  blessed  in  the  conviction  which 
they  feel  of  the  forgiveness  of  God,  who  inter- 
nally and  from  the  heart  enjoy  a  happiness  in 
which  they  cannot  be  disturbed  even  by  out- 
ward calamities.  Happy  and  unhappy  (selig 
and  unselig)  are  terms  which  apply  properly  to 
the  internal  state — the  well  or  ill-being  of  the 
soul ;  fortunate  and  unfortunate,  {glucklich  and 
ungliicklich,}  more  to  the  external  state. 

(3)  Others  still  come  into  a  state  of  hardness 
or  obduracy.  This  state  exists  when  any  one 
remains  insensible  and  indifferent  under  the 
most  powerful  motives  to  repentance,  so  that 
they  cease  to  make  any  impression  on  him.  It 
springs  (a)  from  the  frequent  repetition  of  sin, 
and  from  the  settled  habit  of  sinning.  This 
produces  a  gradual  diminution  of  the  power  of 
the  motives  to  abandon  sin,  and  at  length  an 
entire  cessation  of  their  efficacy.  (&)  But  those 
are  in  peculiar  danger  of  coming  into  this  state 
who  have  had  placed  before  them  the  most 
urgent  and  moving  inducements  to  religion  and 
virtue,  but  have  yet  neglected  and  despised  them 
all.  It  is  in  the  very  nature  of  the  human  soul 
that  these  motives,  at  each  repetition  of  sin,  lose 
something  of  their  energy,  and  that  at  length  an 
entire  indifference  must  ensue,  rendering  the 
conversion  of  one  who  has  brought  himself  into 
such  a  state  morally  impossible.  This  state  is 
called  by  theologians,  statum  indurationis  per- 
fedum.  It  is  described  by  Paul,  Heb.  vi.  4, — 
6,  and  Is.  vi.  10,  "  Who  have  eyes,  but  see  not; 
ears,  but  hear  not" — i.  e.,  who  are  deaf  and  in- 
sensible to  all  the  motives  to  holiness  which  are 
held  before  them,  and  which  they  clearly  under- 


stand, and  who  therefore  cannot  be  heakd — i.  e., 
renovated  and  made  happy.  Cf.  John,  xii.  40; 
Acts,  xxviii.  26,  27;  2  Cor.  iv.  4;  iii.  14;  also 
Exod.  vii.  13. 

The  words  and  phrases  used  in  the  Bible  to 
denote  this  state  are,  (1)  -02,  /3apw£5^at,  j3apv$. 
These  words  are  literally  employed  to  signify 
what  is  heavy  and  inactive  ,•  they  are  then  used 
with  reference  to  the  members  of  the  body  and 
the  organs  of  sense,  as  heavy  tongues,  hands, 
ears,  denoting  their  inactivity,  and  the  difficulty 
of  their  use;  Zech.  vii.  11;  Gen.  xlviii.  10; 
Matt.  xxvi.  43 ;  lastly,  they  are  applied  to  the 
soul,  indicating  stupidity  of  the  understanding, 
and  slowness  of  belief;  1  Sam.  vi.  6;  2  Chron. 
xxv.  19;  sometimes  also  the  qualities  of  the 
will,  and  sometimes  those  of  the  understanding 
and  will  both, — an  inertness  of  soul,  and  an  in- 
capacity to  the  right  use  of  its  essential  powers. 
(2)  n^p,  literally, hard;  Hiphil,  rr^pn,  crxtojpwEtr, 
tfxtoypwfc&cu,-  hence  the  term  ffx^poxapSi'a,  from 
which  obduratio  is  taken.  The  state  of  mind 
now  under  consideration  is  often  indicated  by 
this  tfxx>?pw£c&cu.,  as  Heb.  iii.  8,  15,  seq. ;  Rom. 
ii.  5 ;  and  by  nrp  in  the  Old  Testament,  Exodus, 
vii.  3 ;  Ezek.  iii.  7.  (3)  The  words  which  ori- 
ginally signify  fat,  denote  also  this  state  of  in- 
sensibility and  unfeelingness — e.  g.,  ip^n,  pin- 
gue  fieri,  rta^wfcrjku.,  Is.  vi.  10,  and  Matt.  xiii. 
15;  as  likewise  the  Latin  pinguis  is  synony- 
mous with  hcbes,  stupidus,  tardus — e.  g.,  inge- 
nium  pingue  is  the  same  as  dull  and  obtuse. 
The  fat  of  the  body  of  animals  is  without  sensa- 
tion; and  this  observation  was  much  more  fa- 
miliar to  nations  offering  sacrifices,  and  so 
having  much  to  do  with  the  slaughter  of  ani- 
mals, than  to  us;  and  hence  this  phraseology 
was  so  current  among  them.  (4)  The  words 
which  indicate  deep  sleep,  in  which  all  external 
sensation  ceases;  xatdw&t,  Rom.  xi.  8,  an- 
swering in  the  LXX.  to  the  Hebrew  nnnnn.  (5) 
One  of  the  most  common  words  used  in  the 
New  Testament  on  this  subject  is  Ttwpwcrt?,  and 
rtwpoco,  Ttwpoio^at — e.  g.,  Rom.  xi.  7,  25  ;  2  Cor. 
iii.  15  ;  Mark,  vi.  52,  xapSux,  jtejtu^^tv^.  This 
word  is  properly  taken  from  rtwpoj,  which  means, 
having  a  hard,  indurated  skin,  (as  in  the  hands 
of  workmen;)  callous,  without  feeling;  and  so 
rttopcocrc-5  figuratively  denotes,  according  to  Hesy- 
chius,  the  same  as  %  txvtuc&^/a,  and  is  synony- 
mous with  ffxto?poxap6<,'cu  All  these  words 
which  signify  hardheartedness  are  sometimes 
used  in  reference  to  the  understanding,  (called 
uS,)  sometimes  in  reference  to  the  will,  and 
often  with  reference  to  both.  A  soft  heart  is, 
accordingly,  susceptibility  for  reasons  and  con- 
viction, the  open  ear  of  the  soul.  A  hard  heart 
is  the  opposite,  and  indicates  a  want  of  know- 
ledge and  capacity — the  remiss  use  of  them, 
inactivity. 

With  regard  to  this  sfrrlus  indurationis  there 


310 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


has  been  a  great  difficulty,  which  may  be  stated 
as  follows: — From  what  has  been  already  said, 
it  appears  that  when  a  man  comes  into  this 
state,  he  alone  is  to  blame,  and  has  all  the 
guilt  of  it  resting  upon  himself.  This  is  taught 
in  the  scriptures  in  many  of  the  passages  al- 
ready cited.  Still  there  are  other  texts  of  scrip- 
ture in  which  God  seems  to  be  made  the  author 
of  this  obduracy  of  men,  and  of  sin  in  general, 
and  its  consequences — e.  g.,  Exod.  iv.  21,  "I 
will  harden  Pharaoh's  heart:"  xiv.  17,  seq. ;  Is. 
Ixiii.  17;  Deut.  ii.  30;  Josh.  xi.  20;  Ezek.  xx. 
25 ;  and  in  the  New  Testament,  John,  xii.  40, 
tfftix^Qxt*  o^atyiovj  avfwv  xal  rtfrtiopcoxf  xap- 
SMV.  Rom.  ix.  18,  also  i.  24.  These  and  simi- 
lar texts  were  explained  by  the  severe  particu- 
larists  of  the  reformed  church,  also  by  the  Jan- 
senists  and  many  of  the  stricter  Thomists  of  the 
Romish  church,  to  mean,  that  God  is  the  effi- 
cient cause  of  these  effects ;  that  from  such  men 
he  withdraws  or  withholds,  for  some  reason  to 
us  inscrutable,  a  certain  supernatural  or  irre- 
sistible grace,  without  which  they  cannot  be- 
come holy  or  happy;  and  that  he  does  this  by 
his  unconditional  decree.  This  interpretation 
resulted  from  ignorance  of  the  usus  loquendi  of 
the  sacred  writers.  Let  the  student  consider  the 
following  particulars — viz., 

(a)  Even  in  modern  languages  we  often  use 
expressions  by  which  we  ascribe  to  an  indivi- 
dual the  remote  consequences  of  his  actions, 
even  when  he  did  not  design  to  produce  these 
consequences,  and  perhaps  employed  all  the 
means  in  his  power  to  guard  against  them — e. 
g.,  after  I  have  often  exhorted  some  one  to  re- 
pent, and  all  without  effect,  except  that,  in  di- 
rect opposition  to  my  intentions,  he  becomes, 
through  my  repeated  warnings,  only  the  more 
unfeeling,  I  then  say,  I  have  preached  him  deaf, 
I  have  made  him  harder  and  more  wicked  by  my 
efforts.  Thus,  Isa.  vi.  10,  "Make  hard  this 
people  (by  preaching),  and  let  their  ears  be 
deaf."  Vide  Michaelis1  note  on  Exod.  iv.  21. 
We  speak  in  the  same  way  when  our  good  pur- 
poses have  miscarried.  But, 

(6)  In  the  ancient,  and  especially  the  Orien- 
tal languages,  this  mode  of  speech  is  far  more 
current  than  in  modern  languages.  It  is  alto- 
gether appropriate  to  the  whole  manner  of 
thinking  and  speaking  in  the  ancient  world ; 
but  it  has  by  degrees  become  foreign  to  the  sci- 
entific dialect  of  the  modern  world,  although  it 
has  not  wholly  fallen  into  disuse  in  common 
life.  Hence  it  often  has  a  strange  appearance 
to  the  learned,  while  to  the  unlearned  it  sounds 
more  natural.  The  simplicity  of  that  early  age 
of  the  world  often  ascribes  everything  which 
takes  place  under  the  inspection  and  special 
guidance  of  Providence,  whether  it  be  good  or 
evil,  directly  to  God  himself,  and  regards  him 
as  the  author  and  efficient  cause  of  every  event 


and  of  its  consequences,  because  nothing  takes 
place  without  his  permission  and  foreknow- 
ledge. Vide  s.  58,  II.  1,  and  especially  s.  70, 
note,  ad  finem.  Thus,  God  performs  miracles 
in  order  to  induce  Pharaoh  to  let  Israel  go; 
Pharaoh  does  not  comply  ;  and  the  oftener  the 
miracles  are  repeated,  the  more  hard-hearted 
does  he  become.  Now  it  is  said  that  God  hard- 
ened Pharaoh,  rendered  him  unfeeling,  and  even 
by  those  very  means  which  should  have  render- 
ed him  feeling;  and  at  the  same  time,  the  cala- 
mity which  now  befals  him  is  regarded  as  a  pu- 
nishment which  God  inflicts  upon  him.  This 
last  opinion  plainly  shews  that  it  was  not  the 
belief  that  God  acted  irresistibly  upon  Pharaoh  ; 
for  in  that  case  how  could  he  be  punished? 
This  language  is  then  to  be  understood  in  a 
manner  perfectly  consistent  with  the  personal 
guilt  of  Pharaoh.  Cf.  Rom.  i.  26;  ix.  17;  2 
Thess.  ii.  11.  In  the  same  way,  the  good  ac- 
tions of  men  are  ascribed  to  God  ;  and  from  the 
misunderstanding  of  the  texts  in  which  this  is 
done  originated  the  doctrine  respecting  superna- 
tural and  irresistible  grace,  as  from  the  misun- 
derstanding of  the  other,  the  doctrine  of  judicial 
hardness.  The  mode  of  thinking  and  speaking 
now  referred  to  is  found  also  among  the  Greeks, 
and  indeed  in  all  ancient  writings;  it  occurs  in 
Homer  as  well  as  in  the  Bible,  and  also  in  the 
Arabic  writers.  In  Homer  it  is  said  that  the 
Deity  infuses  good  and  evil  into  the  heart,  (1^- 
]3<m,ft  seapSt'^;)  that  he  inspires  wisdom  and 
folly,  (Odyss.  xxiii.  11,  seq.;)  that  he  infatu- 
ates and  deceives  men,  deprives  them  of  their 
reason,  so  that  they  may  act  foolishly,  deludes 
their  senses,  Zfv$  ^pf'raj  fttatfo,  II.  ix.  377,  xix. 
137;)  tempts  them  to  evil,  (Odyss.  xxiii.  222;) 
and  is  the  cause  of  the  wickedness  of  men. 
For  he  does  everything.  II.  xix.  87,  90,  seq.  ; 
Odyss.  xvi.  280,  297,  298  ;  II.  ix.  632,  seq. 


Qvpov 


A.\\T)KTOV  T£  KCLKOV  TE 

arriSsfffft  Sfoi  Siaav. 


Shall  there  be  evil  in  a  city,  and  the  Lord  hath 
not  done  it?     Amos,  iii.  6. 

JVofe.—  The  text,  Rom.  ix.  18,  ov  §fai  !te«, 
ov  8s  £&«  ax^pvvfc  means,  according  to  many, 
he,  treats  hardly,  like  Job,  xxxix.  16,  (artosx^- 
pvm  texva;)  and  the  principal  reason  for  this 
is,  the  contrast  of  ttefiv.  This  interpretation, 
however,  does  not  agree  with  ver.  19  ;  and  the 
whole  passage  alludes  too  plainly  to  the  pas- 
sage in  Exodus  respecting  Pharaoh  to  admit  of 
this  interpretation.  This  language  is  therefore 
to  be  understood  here  also  in  the  common  sense, 
and  the  verse  may  be  thus  explained  —  viz., 
"The  good  and  the  evil  which  befal  men  de- 
pend alike  upon  the  divine  will.  Some  (who 
are  pleasing  to  him,  as  his  children)  he  causes 
to  prosper:  others  he  hardens  —  i.  e.,  he  suffers 
them  to  feel  the  consequences  of  their  obstinacy, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


311 


insensibility,  and  indifference  to  his  oft-repeated 
commands;  as  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh,  ver.  17." 
The  same  thing  which  is  called  fsxtypvvew  here, 
is  called  Evfct|a0&at  opy^v,  ver.  22.  Vide  Rahn, 
ad  loc.  Rom.  ix.  17— 23;  Halae,  1789. 

SECTION  LXXXVI. 

WHAT  PUNISHMENT  IS,  AND  WHAT  IS  THE  OBJECT 
OF  IT;  HOW  THE  DIVINE  PUNISHMENTS  ARE 
NAMED  IN  THE  BIBLE,  AND  WHAT  WE  ARE 
THERE  TAUGHT  RESPECTING  THEIR  NATURE? 
ALSO  THE  VARIOUS  DIVISIONS  OF  THE  DIVINE 
PUNISHMENTS. 

IN  our  treatment  of  this  whole  subject  we 
must  proceed  on  the  ground  of  what  has  been 
already  said  on  the  divine  laws  and  punish- 
ments in  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of  divine 
justice,  s.  30,  31.  Supposing  the  student  al- 
ready acquainted  with  these,  we  proceed  to 
make  some  additional  observations,  and  a  more 
immediate  application  of  what  has  been  already 
said. 

I.   What  is  Punishment,  and  what  is  its  object  ? 

"Punishment  is  an  evil  (suffering,  something 
awakening  unpleasant  sensations)  which  the 
superior  inflicts  upon  those  placed  under  him, 
on  account  of  some  trespass,  (the  theologian 
calls  it  szn;)  and  this,  for  the  sake  of  maintain- 
ing the  authority  of  his  laws  for  the  good  of  his 
subjects,  or  to  promote  their  improvement  and 
welfare."  This  is  the  general  notion  of  pu- 
nishment, which  is  also  to  be  applied  to  the  di- 
vine judgments,  though  with  a  careful  separa- 
tion of  every  human  imperfection.  The  follow- 
ing points  need  to  be  carefully  considered  : — 

(1)  The  one  who  punishes  another  must  in 
all  cases  be  the  supreme  magistrate,  whether  it 
be  God  or  man.     For  no  one  has  the  right  to 
punish  who  has  not  the  right  to  give  laws,  and 
this  is  the  peculiar  province  of  the  supreme  ma- 
gistrate.  Vide  s.  73,  I.   All  punishments  there- 
fore depend  upon  the  law,  and  one  can  inflict 
punishment  only  upon  those  over  whom  he  pos- 
sesses the  power  of  legislation.     Consequently 
the  right  of  punishment  belongs  to  God. 

(2)  In  order  to  be  punished,  one  must  be  sub- 
ject to  a  law,  and  have  broken  it,  and  in  such  a 
way,  too,  that  his  transgression  can  be  imputed 
to  him.     And  this  may  be  when  he  has  either 
committed  unlawful  actions  himself,  or  contri- 
buted to  those  of  others.     But  it  is  only  when 
the  trespass  can  thus  be  imputed  to  a  person  that 
punishment  can  be  inflicted  upon  him. 

(3)  The  objects  of  punishment  are,  all  unlaw- 
ful actions.     In  human  judicatories  the  external 
actions  only  are  the  objects  of  punishment;  be 
cause  the  knowledge  of  men  extends  no  further 
than  these ;  but  at  the  bar  of  God  not  only  these 


but  also  internal  actions,  evil  thoughts,  designs, 
and  desires,  are  liable  to  punishment.  Vide  s. 
82,  ad  finem. 

(4)  The  guilt  of  a  person  has,  therefore,  its 
ground  in  his  relation  to  the  law  transgressed 
by  him,  and  to  its  author.     On  account  of  this 
relation  he  deserves  the  punishment  which  is 
threatened  against  transgressors — i.  e.,  he  must 
take  upon  himself  the  evil  connected  with  the 
transgression  of  the  law.     The  guilty  person 
(qui  culpam  sustinef)  is  called  in  the  scriptures 
ofyfihf-'fr^,  6  f'^cof  c^uapT'i.av,  ?vo^oj  fo^uov,  vrtobixos 
^£9,  ttxvov  opyjjj — one  who  must  give  account, 
&c.   Vide  Morus,  p.  110,  s.  4,  note  1.   All  men 
are  described  in  the  Bible  as  being  such  ;  and 
the  sacred  writers  insist  upon  it  with  great  ear- 
nestness, that  men  should  look  upon  themselves 
as  subject  to  the  penalty  of  the  law,  as  the  only 
way  for  them  to  become  disposed  to  accept  of 
the  means  of  improvement  offered  to  them,  and 
to  comply  with  the  prescribed  conditions.   Vide 
s.  80. 

(5)  The   last  end  of  punishments.     This  in 
general   may  be  best  stated  as  follows:  they 
aim  at  the  welfare  and  reformation  of  the  sub- 
ject;  or  it  is  their  object  to  support  the  autho- 
rity of  the  law  for  the  welfare  and  improvement 
of  those  placed  under  it.     This  subject  is  treat- 
ed more  at  large  in  s.  31,  II.  2,  where  the  opi- 
nion of  Michaelis,  that  the  only  object  of  pu- 
nishment is  to  deter  men  from  sin  is  further  con- 
sidered.    The  imperfections  which   cleave  to 
human  punishments  must  necessarily  be  sepa- 
rated from  divine;  nor  should  human  punish- 
ments ever  be   made   the   standard  by  which 
divine  punishments  are  to  be  judged  of. 

Note. — Some  modern  philosophers  have  as- 
serted that  God  cannot  punish,  and  that  divine 
punishments  ought  never  to  be  spoken  of,  be- 
cause what  are  so  called  are  to  be  regarded  as 
benefits,  and  have  benevolent  ends  and  results. 
But  merely  because  punishments  tend  to  pro- 
mote the  good  of  men,  and  are  designed  to  se- 
cure the  most  benevolent  results,  they  do  not 
cease  to  be  evils,  and  become  the  same  with 
what  are  ordinarily  denominated  benefits.  The 
pain  which  is  felt  in  sickness  is  beneficial ;  it 
makes  one  mindful  in  time  of  danger,  leads  to 
caution,  and  so  is  often  the  means  of  preserving 
life ;  still  it  is  an  evil  which  we  endeavour  to 
avoid,  and  the  approach  of  which  we  fear. 
Thus  it  is  with  punishments.  And  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  injurious  to  undertake  to  oblite- 
rate from  the  minds  of  the  great  multitude  of 
unconverted  men  the  fear  of  divine  punishment. 
Too  great  caution' cannot  be  used  against  that 
miscalled  philosophy  which  does  this;  for 
wherever  it  has  found  entrance,  either  in  an- 
cient or  modern  times,  it  has  always  destroyed 
religion,  morality,  and  civil  order.  Vide  s.  156. 


312 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


II.  Scriptural  names  of  Divine  Punishments,  and 
the  nature  of  these  punishments. 

(1)  Many  of  these  names  bear  the  impress 
of  the  simplicity  of  the  popular  phraseology  of 
the  earliest  times.  They  are  sometimes  derived 
from  injured  and  irritated  rulers,  who  give  free 
scope  to  their  anger,  and  take  revenge  for  the 
injury  done  them;  sometimes  from  judges,  who 
hold  judgment  over  the  guilty,  pronounce  sen- 
tence upon  them,  and  execute  it.  It  would  be 
a  great  mistake,  however,  for  any  one  to  charge 
the  scriptural  writers  with  entertaining  gross 
anthropomorphic  ideas  on  this  subject  merely 
because  they  sometimes  use  expressions  of  this 
nature.  They  only  retained  the  common  terms 
in  use  among  men,  while  they  always  under- 
stood them  in  a  refined  and  elevated  sense.  It 
is  not  with  them,  as  in  Homer,  where  even  the 
gods  fear  that  Jupiter,  when  he  is  enraged,  will 
punish  the  innocent  and  guilty  alike,  II.  xv. 
137.  Nothing  like  this  is  taught  in  the  scrip- 
tures. That  the  sacred  writers  connected  ideas 
worthy  of  God  with  those  popular  expressions 
which  they  made  use  of  is  evident  from  the  New 
Testament,  in  which,  notwithstanding  the  most 
just  conceptions  of  the  divine  nature  are  un- 
questionably contained,  still  the  terms  in  com- 
mon use  with  regard  to  the  Divine  Being,  such 
as  the  revenge,  the  oath,  the  curse  of  God,  often  ap- 
pear. The  same  is  true  in  the  Old  Testament, 
in  the  books  of  Moses  and  in  the  Psalms. 

Expressions  like  these,  it  may  also  be  said, 
make  a  far  stronger  impression  upon  the  uncul- 
tivated mass  of  mankind,  depending  as  they  do 
upon  their  senses,  than  terms  more  abstract; 
they  take  firmer  hold  upon  them,  and  sink 
deeper  and  more  easily  into  their  hearts,  than 
terms  which  represent  the  thing  less  plainly  to 
the  senses.  For  this  reason,  terms  of  this  na- 
ture are  employed  by  the  sacred  writers,  espe- 
cially when  they  have  to  do  with  men  of  the 
character  now  described  ;  they  alternate,  how- 
ever, such  expressions  with  others ;  and  in  this 
we  ought  to  imitate  them. 

The  following  are  among  the  names  which 
they  employ — viz.,  ^s,  jinn,  npn,  opyjj,  £1^0$, 
Psalm  vii.  12;  Romans,  v.  9,  coll.  s.  31,  ad 
init. ;  nxjfr,  Deut.  i.  27;  opj,  exSixyais,  Isaiah, 
Ixiii.  4 ;  Luke,  xxi.  22.  The  opposites  of  these 
are  the  love,  the  favour,  the  friendship  of  God, 
ntri,  ]n,  aydrty,  t'fooj,  #api$,  x.  t.  "k.  With  refer- 
ence to  announcing  or  threatening  the  divine 
punishments,  the  sacred  writers  frequently  em- 
ploy words  which  literally  mean  to  rebuke,  in- 
crepare,  which  the  irritated  man  commonly 
does ;  especially,  ->yj,  my  a,  erti-tipdu,  titi-tipta, 
Jnde,  9,  seq.  Again :  the  words  which  signify 
cursing,  imprecation,  are  used  to  denote  the 
same  thing  as  nV?r>,  xatdpa,  rnxr,  &c.,  Deut.  ix. 
26,  seq. ;  Gal.  iii.  20.  Opposite  to  this  is  rons, 


jti>,  Deut.  xxviii.  15  ;  Gal.  iii.  13. 

As  vocabula  media  (used  with  reference  either 
to  benefits  or  punishments)  all  the  nominajudi- 
cii  and  verba  judicandi  are  often  employed ; 
more  frequently,  however,  with  reference  to  di- 
vine punishments,  as  EJECT,  jn,  01,  xpiaig,  xpitua, 
xatdxpi/jia,  Gal.  v.  10;  Rom.  ii.  3.  The  words, 
too,  which  designate  a  judicial  declaration,  are 
often  employed  to  denote  threatenings  and  pu- 
nishments; so  even  -on,  xdyo$,  /'^a  Qsov. 
Among  the  vocabula  media  belong  also  all  the 
verba  intuendi  and  aspiciendi,  such  as  rtn,  trttt- 
Sttv,  and  especially  np2,  to  which  the  word 
irtivxtrttfo^ai  answers  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  in  the  Vulgate,  visitare;  in  the  good  sense, 
to  behold  any  one  with  a  cheerful  face,  is  to  shew 
him  kindness  or  favour — e.  g.,  Psalm  viii.  5; 
Luke,  i.  68,  78 ;  in  the  bad  sense,  to  behold  any 
one  with  an  angry  face,  is  to  punish  him ;  hence 
rn;??  and  irUGxortri  signify  often  punishment — 
e.  g.,  Isaiah,  x.  3 ;  1  Peter,  ii.  12.  In  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  the  terms  ipir,  ip',  rtcu- 
8svtiv,  castigare,  and  jtatSsta,  are  used  to  denote 
the, fatherly  discipline  and  chastisement  of  God, 
which  is  the  proper  idea  to  be  entertained  of  the 
divine  punishments,  and  the  ends  for  which  they 
are  inflicted.  Cf.  s.  31,  II.  Finally,  all  the 
Hebrew  words  which  properly  signify  sin  and 
guilt  are  often  used  to  denote  punishment — e.  g., 
jiiy,  nsan,  01.  Vide  s.  73,  II.  2,  ad  finem;  ex- 
actly as,  in  Homer,  "A-ty  signifies  crime,  and 
also  its  guilt  and  punishment,  II.  xix.  91.  Cf. 
136,  137. 

A(dj  Suyarrjp  "Art]  r|  Trairaj  darai, 

— Jlte,  the  daughter  of  Jupiter,  who  brings  every 
one  into  guilt.  Cf.  II.  ix.  50,  seq.,  and  s.  30,  31. 
Note. — Some  modern  philosophers  and  theo- 
logians object  to  the  phrase,  the  anger  of  God; 
and  many  young  religious  teachers  carefully 
avoid  it,  and  pronounce  their  older  brethren 
who  still  employ  it  very  unenlightened.  But 
they  do  this  without  any  good  reason.  Anger, 
in  general,  is  the  expression  of  strong  disappro- 
bation. In  this  men  indeed  are  liable  to  err; 
they  may  express  their  disapprobation  with  re- 
gard to  things  which  do  not  deserve  it,  or  more 
strongly  than  is  proper,  and  often  quite  unjusti- 
fiably ;  their  anger,  therefore,  may  be,  and  often 
is,  wrong  and  sinful.  But  it  is  by  no  means 
necessary  that  anger  should  be  so ;  there  may 
be  a  righteous  anger,  as  is  often  said  in  common 
life,  when  one  expresses  his  deep  and  lively 
displeasure  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  perfectly 
conformable  to  the  subject,  the  end,  and  the  cir- 
cumstances. Nor  can  a  good  moral  being  ex- 
ist, or  even  be  conceived  to  exist,  without  such 
anger.  God,  as  the  most  perfect  and  holy  moral 
being,  has  certainly  the  greatest  displeasure 
against  sin;  and  as  he  is  the  supreme  moral  go- 
vernor of  the  world,  he  expresses  it  in  a  very 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


313 


impressive  manner.  He  therefore  is  said  to 
burn  with  anger,  but  his  anger  is  always  just. 

(2)  The  divine  judgments  are  inflicted,  ac- 
cording to  the  Bible,  (a)  in  the  present  life;  (6) 
by  death  (although  this  was  strictly  a  punish- 
ment for  sin  only  in  the  case  of  the  first  man, 
and  with  regard  to  all  others  is  only  a  conse- 
quence of  the  sin  of  Adam;  vide  s.  76,  III.  and 
s.  80,  ad  finem);  (c)  after  death.  All  these  pu- 
nishments, according  to  the  Bible,  stand  con- 
nected with  the  sin  of  our  first  parents.  For 
from  that  arose  the  moral  corruption  which  is 
communicated  to  all  mankind.  This  is  the 
source  of  actual  sins,  and  these  bring  punish- 
ment in  their  train.  Vide  s.  76,  seq.  From  this 
evil  the  second  Head  of  our  race  has  freed  us. 

That  the  representations  given  in  the  Bible 
respecting  the  divine  punishments  and  their  end 
agree  perfectly  with  what  sound  reason  recog- 
nises on  this  subject  is  very  evident  from  the 
description  it  contains  of  the  nature  of  these 
punishments.  They  are  (a)  always  just  and 
proper^  vide  the  texts  quoted  s.  31 ;  moreover, 
Rom.  ii.  2,  x^ifio,  ®?ov  ftyft  xa^'  ahrjcttiav.  Vide 
also  those  texts  which  speak  of  the  drtpocycoTto- 
X^-4/ta  &sov.  (j3)  They  have  the  welfare  of  men 
for  their  object.  This  is  the  last  end  for  which 
they  are  inflicted ;  (vide  the  texts  cited ;)  and  if 
this  object  is  not  attained  with  any  particular 
offender,  he  himself  is  alone  in  fault;  and  his 
punishment  then  serves  for  the  good  of  others, 
who  learn  wisdom  from  his  example,  (y)  They 
are  certain,  and  will  be  inevitably  inflicted  ;  they 
are  not  mere  empty  threats ;  no  one  will  be  able 
to  escape.  Vide  Rom.  ii.  3,  coll.  Heb.  xii.  25, 
and  especially  Heb.  iv.  12,  13.  This  follows 
from  the  divine  veracity;  these  punishments 
must  be  maintained  in  order  to  uphold  the  au- 
thority of  the  Divine  Being,  and  to  prevent  an 
universal  carelessness  and  indifference  about 
sin.  (6)  The  divine  punishments  are  also  de- 
scribed as  terrible ;  as  in  these  expressions :  Our 
God  is  a  consuming /ire ;  it  is  a  terrible  thing  to 
fall  into  his  hands,  &c.  Heb.  x.  30,  31 ;  xii.  29. 
For  in  order  that  these  punishments  may  attain 
their  end,  they  must  be  sufficiently  severe  to 
terrify  the  transgressor,  and  must  meet  him 
in  the  point  where  he  can  be  most  strongly 
affected. 

III.  Divisions  of  Punishments. 

(1)  A  very  ancient  division  of  punishments 
is  into  po2nam  damni  and  sensus,  in  reference  to 
the  evil  itself  which  is  inflicted  on  any  one  by 
punishment,  (a)  By  punishment,  a  certain 
good  is  withdrawn.  The  judgments  of  men 
respecting  their  true  welfare  and  their  real  inte- 
rests are  very  diverse;  and  consequently  the 
withdrawal  of  their  supposed  advantages  is  va- 
riously estimated  and  felt.  To  one  person, 
riches  appear  a  great  advantage;  to  another, 
40 


not;  and  so  while  the  former  will  regard  the 
loss  of  them  as  the  greatest  evil,  the  latter  will 
not  suffer  in  the  least  from  their  loss.  It  is  not 
here,  then,  of  so  much  consequence,  whether 
the  advantages  are  real  or  only  apparent,  as  in 
what  estimation  they  are  held  by  him  from 
whom  they  are  withdrawn.  This  withdraw- 
ment  now  is  called  pozna  damni,  or  sometimes 
poena  negativa.  (6)  When,  in  addition  to  this, 
positively  unpleasant  feelings  are  caused  and 
pains  inflicted,  this  is  called poena  sensus.  These 
two  parts  of  punishment  are  commonly  con- 
nected. These  unpleasant  sensations  have  their 
proper  seat,  either  in  the  body,  and  are  commu- 
nicated through  the  senses  to  the  soul,  or  they 
are  confined  to  the  soul,  and  have  their  origin 
there.  The  latter  are  felt  the  most  keenly,  and 
are  the  most  dreadful. 

(2)  In  respect  to  the  connexion  of  punishment 
with  crime,  punishments  are  divided  into  natu- 
ral, and  positiv e  or  arbitrary.  The  former  are 
such  as  result  from  the  internal  nature  of  mo- 
rally bad  actions  themselves ;  the  latter  are 
such  as  stand  in  no  natural  and  necessary  con- 
nexion with  wicked  actions,  but  which  are  con- 
nected with  them  merely  by  the  good  pleasure 
(arbitriuni)  of  the  lawgiver.  These  two  kinds 
of  punishment  have  been  already  explained,  s. 
31,  as  well  as  the  doctrine  respecting  the  natu- 
ral and  positive  laws  of  God,  s.  30. 

In  this  place  we  shall  add  a  few  remarks  re- 
specting the  natural  punishments  inflicted  by 
God  upon  men,  especially  in  this  life;  in  the 
following  section  we  shall  farther  discuss  the 
subject  of  positive  punishments. 

There  has  been  some  dispute  among  philoso- 
phers (into  which  we  do  not  mean  to  enter  fully 
now)  whether  the  natural  evil  consequences  of 
sin  ought  to  be  called  punishments;  and  the 
propriety  of  this  is  by  some  denied.  Judging 
from  the  common  conceptions  on  this  subject, 
and  the  common  phraseology  founded  on  these, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  we  may  and 
ought  to  consider  the  evil  consequences  result- 
ing from  the  transgression  of  the  divine  com- 
mandments as  punishment.  So  we  say,  for  ex- 
ample, with  respect  to  a  liar,  in  whom  at  length 
no  one  places  any  confidence,  or  with  respect  to 
the  voluptuary  or  drunkard,  who  brings  infamy 
and  disease  upon  himself,  and  in  all  such  cases 
that  sin  punishes  itself.  Again,  if  the  leges  na- 
turales  are  properly  called  laws.,  (and  Vhatever 
is  true  of  law  in  any  case  is  true  of  them,)  how 
can  it  be  doubted  whether  the  consequences  re- 
sulting from  the  transgression  of  these  laws  are 
properly  denominated  punishments  ? 

But  these  natural  punishments  may  be  distin- 
guished into  two  kinds: — 

(a)  Such  as  are  the  necessary  and  inevitable 
evil  consequences  of  the  actions  themselves,  and 
which  would  result  equally  from  these  actions, 
2D 


314 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


were  they  not  forbidden,  and  were  the  actions, 
therefore,  not  sins.  They  are  called  physical 
punishments.  Among  these  are  all  the  sick- 
nesses and  pains  which  arise  from  intemper- 
ance of  every  kind ;  the  poverty  which  comes 
from  idleness;  the  grief,  sorrow,  and  shame, 
which  are  the  results  of  a  dissipated  life;  &c. 
It  is  in  order  to  guard  against  the  necessary  evil 
consequences  of  sin,  and  so  to  diminish  them, 
that  the  divine  law  is  given ;  and  in  this  way  it 
is,  that  what  were  before  mere  evils  now  become 
sins.  Vide  s.  73,  I. 

(6)  Punishments  which  result  from  the  rela- 
tion of  human  actions  to  the  law,  or  which  have 
respect  to  the  moral  character  of  men.  These 
are  called  moral  punishments.  These  moral 
consequences  of  sin  fall  principally  and  most 
heavily  upon  the  soul.  Hence  they  are  also 
called  spiritual  punishments.  Among  these  are, 
e.  g.,  the  reproaches  of  conscience,  telling  us 
that  we  have  violated  the  law  of  God,  rendered 
ourselves  unworthy  of  his  favour,  and  disquali- 
fied for  his  blessings;  also  restlessness  of  soul, 
and  fear  of  punishment,  from  the  consciousness 
of  guilt  or  ill-desert — the  fear  of  God.  Rom. 
iii.  19,  23 ;  1  John,  i.  8,  seq. ;  iii.  14,  seq.  These 
are  the  most  fearful  and  terrible  of  all  punish- 
ments. 

This  distinction  between  the  different  kinds 
of  natural  punishment  is  very  important,  espe- 
cially in  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  of  Christ. 
Vide  s.  Ill,  II.  From  thence  it  appears, 

(a)  That  the  natural  and  physical  evil  conse- 
quences of  certain  wicked  actions  cannot  wholly 
cease,  even  after  pardon  has  been  bestowed  upon 
men,  and  they  have  repented,  or  after  they  have 
appropriated  the  merits  of  Christ.  For  we  have 
no  right  to  suppose  that  God  will  remove,  in  a 
miraculous  manner,  the  necessary  physical  con- 
sequences of  sinful  actions.  From  experience 
we  see  that  God  does  not  do  this  in  the  present 
life.  E.  g.,  if  any  one  has  brought  upon  him- 
self, by  his  excesses,  prolonged  sickness  or  po- 
verty, he  will  not  become  at  once  well  in  body 
and  estate  merely  by  reforming  his  courses  ;  but 
he  must  continue  to  feel  the  necessary  conse- 
quences of  his  errors  and  crimes,  just  as  the  con- 
sequences of  the  sin  of  Adam — death  and  other 
temporal  calamities — continue  to  be  felt  by  all 
his  posterity,  even  by  those  who  are  renewed 
and  pardoned.  Vide  Rom.  viii.  10,  18 — 23. 
Nor  does  the  Bible  anywhere  teach  us,  that  in 
some  miraculous  way  God  will,  even  in  the  fix- 
ture life,  remove  all  the  natural  and  lasting  con- 
sequences of  actions ;  it  is  therefore  highly  pro- 
bable that  some  portion  of  these  consequences 
will  continue  even  hereafter.  But  these  natural- 
ly evil  consequences,  (as  well  those  which  are 
temporal  as  those  which  continue  in  the  future 
life,)  from  which  we  are  not  entirely  freed  by 
the  death  of  Christ,  are  yet  mitigated,  and  lose 


the  terror  of  punishment,  to  those  who  are  par- 
doned and  sanctified.  This  experience  in  the 
present  life  teaches  us,  and  the  holy  scriptures 
assure  of  the  same.  Vide  Rom.  viii.  1,  and  v.  1, 
3 — 10.  But  the  pcsnae  naturales  spirituals  cease 
entirely  with  the  renewed.  Hence, 

(6)  The  principal  evils  from  which  man  is 
freed  in  this  and  the  future  life,  when  he  is  par- 
doned and  renewed,  are,  the  moral  consequences 
of  sin ;  and  it  is  because  the  believer  is  freed 
from  these,  that  even  the  natural  consequences 
of  sin  are  mitigated  to  him  and  lose  the  terror  of 
punishment.  The  renewed  man  will  never  in- 
deed forget  the  sins  which  he  has  once  commit- 
ted ;  he  will  condemn  them,  and  mourn  over 
them;  but,  as  he  is  sure  of  pardon,  his  disquiet 
respecting  them,  his  fear  of  God  as  a  judge,  and 
the  reproaches  of  his  conscience,  will  either  at 
once  or  by  slow  degrees  entirely  cease ;  peace  of 
soul  will  be  restored,  together  with  a  lively  and 
joyful  feeling  of  his  present  happy  state,  in 
comparison  with  his  former  unhappy  condition. 
This  is  what  the  scriptures  mean  by  the  peace  of 
God  in  the  heart  of  the  man  whose  sins  are  for- 
given. Vide  the  texts  before  cited  from  Rom. 
v.  and  viii. 

SECTION  LXXXVII. 

SOME    REMARKS    ON   "POSITIVE"    DIVINE 
PUNISHMENTS. 

IN  addition  to  what  we  have  already  said  on 
this  subject,  in  stating  the  doctrine  of  divine 
justice,  s.  31,  we  add  here  the  following  re- 
marks : — 

(1)  The  term  arbitrary  punishments  (p&nse 
arbitrarias}  seems  to  be  somewhat  inconvenient, 
and  to  be  liable  to  be  misunderstood ;  it  is  for 
this  reason  objected  to  by  very  many  modern 
writers,  e.  g.,  Steinbart,  Syst.  s.  130 ;  Eberhard, 
Apologie  d.  Sokr.  th.  i. ;  and  the  author  of  the 
"  Apologie  der  Vernunft."  And  if  the  term  ar- 
bitrary must  be  understood  to  denote  a  blind 
caprice,  in  which  no  regard  is  paid  to  rectitude 
and  propriety,  and  to  the  nature  of  the  offence, 
it  could  never,  without  blasphemy,  be  predicated 
of  the  punishments  inflicted  by  God.  But  no 
advocate  of  the  arbitrariness  of  God  in  the  pu- 
nishments he  inflicts  has  ever  understood  it  in 
this  sense;  for  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  even 
a  man  of  common  understanding  and  goodness 
would  punish  in  such  a  manner.  These  evils, 
which  are  called  positive  punishments,  are  not, 
indeed,  founded  in  the  internal  nature  of  the  for- 
bidden actions  themselves ;  they  are  not  the  im- 
mediate natural  consequences  of  these  actions ; 
but  they  are  added  to,  and  conjoined  with,  the 
natural  consequences  of  sin,  by  the  special  ap- 
pointment of  the  legislator;  and  it  is  for  this 
reason  that  they  are  called  arbitrariae.  They  are 
mala  ex  arbitrio — i.  e.,  libero  Dei  (judicis  ac 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  FALL. 


315 


domint)  consilio  sive  institute  extrinsecus  immissa. 
But  they  are  always  determined  by  the  rules  of 
Supreme  Wisdom  and  goodness,  and  have  all 
the  qualities  of  the  other  divine  operations. 
They  are  moreover  resorted  to  by  God,  in  cases 
where  his  object  cannot  be  attained  by  merely 
natural  punishments.  We  should  not,  then,  be 
over-scrupulous  about  the  use  of  this  term,  for 
when  we  hear  it  said  that  God,  the  All-wise  and 
just,  inflicts  arbitrary  punishments,  the  associ- 
ated idea  of  blind  caprice,  acting  without  cause 
or  reason,  falls  away  at  once  and  of  itself.  The 
same  is  true  of  this  term,  as  of  the  expression, 
the  anger  of  God.  Vide  s.  86.  The  arbitrium 
of  God  is  always  wise,  and  never  a  blind  caprice, 
as  it  often  is  with  men,  especially  with  passion- 
ate rulers  and  magistrates.  In  case  this  term 
were  rejected,  we  might  substitute  the  phrase 
free  punishments. 

(2)  That  there  are  positive  divine  punish- 
ments, especially  in  the  future  world,  the  Bible 
teaches  with  sufficient  clearness.  And  indeed, 
from  the  scriptural  doctrines,  that  God  forgives 
sins,  (i.  e.,  removes  their  consequences,)  and  that 
Christ,  the  innocent,  endured  punishment  for  us, 
it  seems  to  follow  that  the  sacred  writers  be- 
lieved in  positive  punishments  and  their  remis- 
sion. A  philosophic  argument  in  behalf  of  po- 
sitive punishments  is  derived  from  the  nature 
and  efficacy  of  natural  punishments,  which  are 
not  sufficiently  great  to  deter  the  sinner  from 
crime,  or  lead  him  to  repentance,  so  that  positive 
punishments  in  addition  to  these  are  necessary, 
in  order  to  produce  this  effect.  It  was  a  great 
object  with  Michaelis  to  establish  this  point. 
The  arguments  brought  in  opposition  to  it  by 
Steinbart,  Eberhard,  and  others,  together  with 
the  arguments  in  its  favour,  were  briefly  stated, 
s.  31. 

But  since  this  subject  is  attended  with  various 
difficulties,  which  can  never  be  entirely  removed 
by  human  philosophy,  owing  to  the  limitation 
of  our  minds,  the  question  arises,  What  eourse 
shall  the  religious  teacher  pursue  on  this  subject, 
and  what  instruction  shall  he  give  respecting  po- 
sitive divine  punishments  ?  In  order  to  come  to 
a  right  decision  on  this  question,  and  to  be  able 
to  answer  it  for  ourselves,  we  must  not  proceed 
upon  empty  speculations  or  ideal  conceptions, 
but  from  the  following  results  of  experience. 
The  history  of  all  ages  teaches  that  the  prevail- 
ing notion  among  men  always  has  been  and 
still  is,  that  God  inflicts  not  only  natural,  bu 
also  positive  and  arbitrary  punishments;  or, 
that  moral  evil  has  not  only  natural  evil  for  its 
consequent,  but  also  such  punishments  as  de- 
pend entirely  upon  the  choice  of  the  lawgiver, 
Hence  sicknesses  and  other  calamities,  which 
stand  in  no  natural  connexion  with  crime,  were 
yet  often  regarded  as  the  punishments  of  it — e 
g.,  the  pestilence  in  the  camp  of  the  Greeks  be< 


ore  Troy  was  so  regarded  in  Homer;  cf.  Iliad, 
xvi.  384,  seq.  Now,  in  what  way  did  this  idea 
btain  so  wide  a  prevalence  among  men,  and  so 
strong  a  hold  upon  them  ?  If  we  make  history 
and  experience  our  teachers,  we  shall  come  to 
he  following  conclusions : — 

(a)  Human  legislators  can  threaten  only  po- 
sitive punishments,  because  they  are  able  to  in- 
lict  no  other.  For  they  are  neither  the  authors 
nor  the  rulers  of  nature,  but  are  themselves,  as 
well  as  those  over  whom  they  rule,  subject  to 
;hat  constitution  which  God  has  given  to  nature. 
Since,  now,  men  are  apt  to  reason  from  the  hu- 
man to  the  divine,  they  were  disposed  to  trans- 
fer to  God  and  his  government  those  procedures 
and  institutions  common  in  human  families  and 
states.  From  hence  it  is  obvious  how  even  hea- 
then nations  should  have  come  so  generally  to 
this  notion.  They  reasoned  thus :  As  men  have 
the  right  to  enact  arbitrary  laws  and  impose  ar- 
aitrary  punishments,  this  right  must  belong  in 
a  far  higher  degree  to  the  supreme  legislative 
power,  which  knows  of  no  limitation.  It  was  by 
such  arguments  that  they  arrived  at  this  idea, 
though  by  such  alone  the  reflecting  mind  is  not 
satisfied.  But, 

(6)  The  true  cause  of  this  universal  belief  lies 
much  deeper.  There  is  on  this  subject  a  certain 
feeling  of  need  in  human  nature  which  cannot  be 
reasoned  away,  and  which  often  exercises  its 
power  even  over  the  speculative  philosopher,  al- 
though he  has  long  suppressed  it  by  his  specula- 
tion. It  is  but  too  clearly  proved  by  daily  ex- 
perience, that  fear  of  the  merely  natural  conse- 
quences of  sin  is  too  inefficacious  to  restrain  men 
from  committing  it.  For  these  natural  punish- 
ments man  has  but  little  regard,  and  he  thinks 
he  can  find  means  to  avoid  them,  or  to  secure 
himself  against  them.  The  end,  therefore,  can 
be  more  surely  answered  by  positive  punish- 
ments. This  result,  built  upon  experience,  al- 
though men  were  only  obscurely  conscious  of  it, 
awakened  in  them  a  feeling  which  made  it  ne- 
cessary for  them  to  believe  that  there  are  posi- 
tive divine  judgments.  Hence  many  even  of  the 
ancient  heathen  lawgivers  took  means  to  give 
to  natural  laws  and  penalties  the  authority  of 
positive,  and  for  this  purpose  they  intimately 
associated  the  civil  and  religious  institutions  of 
their  country. 

(c)  If  there  are  positive  rewards  in  the  future 
world,  as  all  concede,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  posi- 
tive punishments  can  be  denied.     Vide  s.  31. 

(d)  To  any  one  who  makes  the  holy  scriptures 
the  source  of  his  knowledge,  this  subject  cannot 
be  doubtful ;   for  the  scriptures   clearly  teach 
that  there  are  positive  punishments,  and  presup- 
pose them  in  many  of  the  most  important  doc- 
trines. 

But  if  any  one  remains  unconvinced  by  philo- 
sophical arguments  and  by  the  authority  of  the 


316 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Bible,  that  God  actually  appoints  positive  pu- 
nishments, he  must  be  referred  to  the  fact  and 
observation  above  mentioned,  that  this  belief 
cannot  be  taken  away  from  a  people  without 
endangering  its  morality.  Even  if  a  religious 
teacher  should  himself  entertain  doubts  on  this 
subject,  it  would  be  foolish  and  wrong  in  him  to 
communicate  these  doubts  to  the  people,  and 
thus  deprive  them  of  a  belief  for  which  he  can 
substitute  nothing  equally  firm  and  salutary. 
The  history  of  all  ages  teaches  that  nothing  has 
so  injurious  an  effect  upon  the  morality  of  peo- 
ple as  the  persuasion  that  there  are  no  positive 
punishments  which  they  have  to  fear  from  the 
hand  of  God.  When  such  punishments  have 
been  expected,  the  fear  of  them  has  always 
proved  a  mighty  barrier  against  all  the  gross  out- 
breakings  of  sin.  For  a  confirmation  of  these 
remarks  let  the  student  consult  history ;  cf.  also 
s.  156,  II.  Note. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  the  duty 
of  the  religious  teacher  to  rectify,  by  scriptural 
views,  the  false  opinions  which  people  are  apt 
to  form  respecting  the  nature  of  these  positive 
punishments,  and  to  prevent,  as  far  as  possible, 
their  injurious  influence.  In  discharging  this 
duty  he  may  be  aided  by  the  following  scrip- 
tural observations.  From  the  prevailing  false 
ideas  respecting  positive  punishments,  occasion 
is  sometimes  taken  to  condemn  others,  and  to 
pronounce  upon  them  uncharitable  censures,  as, 
on  the  other  hand,  from  the  bestowment  of  posi- 
tive rewards,  many  are  disposed  to  extol  and  to 
imitate  those  upon  whom  they  are  conferred, 
supposing  them  to  be  the  favourites  of  Heaven. 
This  results  from  the  mistake  that  prosperity 
and  adversity  in  this  life  are  proofs  of  the  plea- 
sure or  displeasure  of  God  with  the  conduct  of 
men;  something  as  it  is  with  those  who  stand 
in  favour  or  disfavour  with  human  rulers.  But 
all  such  opinions  have  a  most  unfavourable  in- 
fluence upon  morality  and  upon  the  dispositions 
of  men.  The  teacher  must  therefore  take  pains 
to  shew, 

(a)  That  external  prosperity  and  adversity 
in  this  life  are  not  distributed  by  God  as  reward 
and  punishment  for  the  moral  conduct  of  men, 
(vide  s.  71,  II. ;)  and  that  it  is  therefore  judging 
hastily  to  pronounce  positively  and  decidedly 
that  the  calamities  which  befal  particular  coun- 
tries or  individuals,  from  natural  and  not  moral 
causes,  are  judgments  from  God,  although  they 
may  be  so  overruled  by  the  providence  of  God, 
and  should  be  so  improved  as  to  contribute  to  the 
promotion  of  moral  good  and  to  the  diminution 
of  moral  evil. 

(j3)  That  even  although  positive  divine  re- 
wards and  punishments  should  take  place  in  the 
present  life,  (which  we  are  not  entitled  to  deny 
in  thesi,}  yet  men  are  not  in  a  situation,  nor  in 
any  way  qualified,  to  decide  that  they  are  so  in 


particular  cases,  because  they  have  no  sure  and 
infallible  marks  by  which  they  can  distinguish 
these  from  advantages  and  calamities  which  re- 
sult from  other  causes,  and  have  no  connexion 
with  the  good  or  ill  desert  of  men.  Hence 
Christ  himself  warns  against  such  precipitate 
judgments.  Vide  s.  31,  coll.  Ps.  Ixxiii.  2,  seq. 

(y)  The  Old  Testament  is  often  appealed  to, 
where  much  is  indeed  said  respecting  positive 
rewards  and  punishments  even  in  the  present 
life;  and  by  the  unguarded  application  of  such 
texts  much  injury  may  be  done,  even  by  sincere 
and  well-disposed  religious  teachers.  On  this 
point  instruction  should  be  given  to  the  people 
with  due  discretion,  in  conformity  with  what 
was  said  on  this  point,  s.  31,  ad  finem,  in  the 
note.  It  must  be  shewn  that  the  same  is  not 
true  now  as  was  true  in  that  early  period  of  the 
world,  and  under  the  peculiar  constitution  of 
the  Jewish  religion.  This  matter  can  be  made 
very  plain  to  any  one,  by  remarking  that  then 
there  were  prophets,  who,  as  the  divine  ambas- 
sadors, expressly  declared  that  this  and  that 
physical  evil  was  a  positive  punishment  from 
God  ;  but  that,  as  we  have  no  prophets  now,  we 
are  unable  in  particular  cases  to  pronounce  a  de- 
finite decision  whether  this  and  that  evil  is  or  is 
not  to  be  regarded  as  a  positive  punishment. 

(3)  Still  another  chief  objection,  which  is 
often  urged  against  the  existence  of  positive  re- 
wards and  punishments  in  the  future  world,  is 
this :  God  would  have  named  the  positive  pu- 
nishments which  he  meant  to  inflict,  and  would 
have  settled  the  manner  of  their  infliction  in  his 
laws.  This  is  done,  it  is  said,  by  every  hu- 
mane and  just  legislator  among  men;  and  it  is 
regarded  by  us  as  tyranny  and  despotism  for  a 
ruler  to  inflict  punishment  which  he  has  not 
previously  threatened.  But  this  comparison  of 
human  rulers  and  magistrates  with  God,  and  of 
their  punishments  with  his,  will  not  hold.  For 
(a)  with  human  judges  and  magistrates  this  re- 
gulation is  necessary,  in  order  to  prevent  the 
judge  from  acting  unjustly  or  rashly,  or  from 
inflicting  too  light  or  too  severe  a  punishment 
under  the  influence  of  momentary  feeling.  But 
we  are  secure  from  any  such  danger  when  the  pu- 
nishments to  be  inflicted  are  left  to  the  disposal 
of  an  omniscient,  all-wise,  and  benevolent  Ruler. 
There  is  not,  therefore,  the  same  reason  for  this 
that  there  is  in  the  case  of  men.  (6)  Human 
criminal  codes,  even  those  which  are  most  com- 
plete, contain  only  a  few  species  of  crimes;  nor 
can  they  have  any  respect  in  the  appointment 
of  the  punishment  to  the  motives,  the  state  of 
mind,  and  innumerable  other  circumstances 
which  make  the  crime  greater  or  less.  But  to 
all  these  circumstances  God,  who  is  perfectly 
wise  and  just,  must  have  respect.  How  impos- 
sible, now,  must  it  be  to  give  a  catalogue  of  all 
sins  and  their  punishments,  according  to  their 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       317 


endlessly  diversified  degrees  and  modifications  1 
Who  would  read,  understand,  or  regard  such  a 
catalogue!  Would  it  not  make  many  for  the 
first  time,  and  to  their  great  injury,  acquainted 
with  sins  of  which  they  otherwise  would  have 
known  nothing?  (c)  As  the  future  world  lies 
entirely  beyond  the  circle  of  our  ideas,  it  might 
not  be  even  possible  fully  to  describe  to  us,  in 
our  present  state,  every  kind  of  positive  reward 
and  punishment,  (d)  The  fear  of  a  positive  pu- 
nishment at  present  unknown  makes  a  stronger 
impression  upon  the  sinner,  and  is  more  effica- 
cious in  deterring  him  from  sin,  than  that  of  a 
punishment  definitely  described;  for,  in  the 
former  case,  the  sinner  will  always  fear  the 
worst,  and  expect  that  the  punishment  will 
strike  where  he  is  most  susceptible. 
Note. — The  holy  scriptures,  and  particularly 


Jesus  and  his  apostles,  make  it  a  great  object 
to  unfold  all  the  consequences  of  sin,  and  to 
shew  how  we  can  be  freed  from  them.  Those 
who  are  teachers  of  the  gospel  should  follow 
their  example  in  this  respect.  They  insist  par- 
ticularly upon  the  misery  of  the  soul  arising  from 
sin,  and  upon  the  punishments  of  the  future 
world.  This  entire  misery,  or  the  unhappy 
state  of  both  soul  and  body,  as  produced  by  sin, 
is  called  in  the  scriptures  by  various  names — 
e.  g.,  oto^poj,  (xrtwkfta,  ^avar'oj,  <sxoto$,  x.  H.  X. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  Ill,  prope  ad  finem.  Of  the 
external  evil  consequences  of  sin  which  befal 
men  in  the  present  life  the  sacred  writers  speak 
less  frequently,  partly  because  these  are  not  by 
any  means  so  great  and  terrible  as  the  other, 
and  partly  because  they  are  perfectly  obvious, 
and  fall  under  the  notice  of  every  one. 


PART  II.-STATE  INTO   WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT 
BY  THE  REDEMPTION. 


ARTICLE    X. 

OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 

HIS  important  article  has 
been  treated  in  a  great  va- 
riety of  ways  from  the  ear- 
liest times.  The  teachers 
of  religion  and  the  inter- 
preters of  the  Bible  have, 
for  various  reasons,  been 
dissatisfied  with  the  simple  scriptural 
representation,  and  have  often  predeter- 
mined, by  the  principles  of  some  school 
of  philosophy,  or  by  religious  opinions 
current  at  their  own  time,  what  could 
be  believed  concerning  the  person,  offices,  and 
merits  of  Jesus  Christ.  Any  declarations  of  the 
Bible  in  opposition  to  their  views  have  been 
either  overlooked,  as  if  they  could  not  be  found, 
or,  by  the  help  of  that  artificial  exegesis  which 
makes  anything  out  of  everything,  have  been 
so  explained  as  to  agree  with  their  preconceived 
opinions.  In  this  manner  has  this  article  espe- 
cially been  treated  of  late  in  the  protestant 
church,  particularly  in  the  Lutheran  church  in 
Germany.  And  so  common  has  it  become  to 
pervert  this  doctrine  in  the  universities,  schools, 
and  in  popular  discourses  and  writings,  that  the 
teacher  who  turns  aside  from  the  beaten  path 
must  possess  no  small  degree  of  unprejudiced 
piety.  My  design  is,  to  exhibit,  according  to 
my  honest  conviction,  the,  pure,  unfalsified  doc- 
trine of  the  Bible,  with  its  proof,  and  carefully  to 


distinguish  it  from  ecclesiasticl  distinctions,  and 
from  other  additions  and  alterations. 

The  latter  I  shall  consider  by  themselves,  and 
endeavour  to  illustrate  them  from  history,  and  to 
pronounce  judgment  upon  them  according  to 
their  true  merits. 


CHAPTER  I. 

OF  THE  DIVINE  INSTITUTIONS  FOR  THE  RESTO- 
RATION OF  MEN  IN  A  GENERAL  VIEW;  THE 
EXPECTATIONS,  PREDICTIONS,  AND  TYPES  OF 
THE  MESSIAH,  AND  THEIR  FULFILMENT  IN 
JESUS  OF  NAZARETH. 

SECTION  LXXXVIII. 

OF  THE  INSTITUTIONS  ESTABLISHED  BY  GOD  FOR 
THE  MORAL  RECOVERY  AND  THE  SALVATION  OF 
THE  HUMAN  RACE  IN  A  GENERAL  VIEW ;  AND 
THE  SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINES  AND  REPRESENTA- 
TIONS ON  THIS  SUBJECT  ;  AS  A  GENERAL  INTRO- 
DUCTION TO  WHAT  FOLLOWS. 

I.  What  is  requisite  for  the  moral  recovery  of  man. 
THE  Bible  everywhere  teaches  that  man  is 
debarred  from  the  enjoyment  of  that  happiness 
which  God  intended  for  him,  by  the  want  of 
holiness,  by  sin,  and  deserved  punishment.  Vide 
Art.  IX.  Holiness  gives  the  only  right  of  citi- 
zenship in  the  moral  kingdom  of  God,  (fBaffttoui 
0?ov.)  Now  because  sin  is  universal  among 
men,  all  have  need  of  forgiveness  and  reforma- 
2  D  2 


318 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


tion — the  remission  of  sins  and  regeneration, 
(d<j>mj,  [ittdvoia,  avayevvqats.)  And  since  we 
never  attain  to  perfect  holiness  in  this  life,  what- 
ever advances  we  may  make,  [and  hence  must 
be  disquieted  with  regard  to  our  acceptance  with 
God,]  it  is  equally  essential  that  we  should 
have  some  quieting  assurance  respecting  what 
awaits  us,  in  order  to  the  exercise  of  true  reli- 
gion, as  that  we  should  reform.  These,  then, 
are  the  principal  objects  at  which  Christianity 
aims.  If  men  are  to  be  redeemed,  these  hin- 
drances to  their  happiness  must  be  removed, 
they  must  be  reformed,  and  must  be  forgiven, 
and  a  comforting  assurance  that  they  are  so  must 
be  imparted.  This  is  done  in  two  ways : 

(1)  By  one  method,  the  power  of  sinfutfiffec- 
tions  is  weakened ;  so  that  reason  will  again  at- 
tain to  its  dominion  over  them  ;  by  which  man 
will  be  placed  in  a  situation  to  lead  a  holy  and 
pious  life,  (gtxatwj  xai  fvuejSwj  ^v,  x.  f.  7i.)  This 
means,  however,  must  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
leave  human  freedom  entirely  unimpaired.     Re- 
formation in  a  moral  being  is  effected  by  bring- 
ing the  desires  and  inclinations,  from  which 
actions  spring,  under  the  control  of  the  intelli- 
gent mind.     It  is  for  this  reason  that  in  Chris- 
tianity a  doctrine  is  revealed  to  men  to  be  re- 
ceived and  believed  by  them,  intended  to  en- 
lighten their  minds,  to  teach  them  how  to  avoid 
and  overcome  the  temptations  to  sin,  and  how  to 
live  agreeably  to  the  will  of  God  and  their  own 
destination.     This  doctrine   must  exhibit  the 
motives  for  the  avoidance  of  sin  and  the  practice 
of  virtue  and  holiness  in  a  manner  universally 
intelligible  and  convincing,  equally  designed  to 
illuminate  the  reason  and  affect  the  heart.     But 
it  must  also  shew  in  what  way  man  can  attain 
power  to  enable  him  to  be  holy.     For  any  mere 
doctrine  of  virtue,  or  code  of  moral  precepts,  does 
not  confer  upon  man  the  power  of  becoming  ac- 
tually virtuous.     This,  as  Paul  says,  is  to  <i6i>- 
vatov  tov  vopov.     The  moral  law,  with  all  its 
precepts,  threatenings,  and  promises,  could  not 
by  itself  make  us  holy  and  acceptable.     The 
fault,  however,  does  not  lie  in  the  law,  but  in 
that  weakness  and  imperfection  which  results 
from  our  depravity,  (Sinnlichkeit.)     'Ev  9  tfa$e- 
vst  8ta  ffapxoj.     Now  in  Christianity,  as  we  are 
taught  by  the  sacred  writers,  the  most  perfect 
instruction  of  this  nature  is  given  to  men. 

(2)  But  the  Bible  teaches  us  that  the  reco- 
very of  man  to  happiness  requires  something 
more  than  this  instruction.     This  other  means 
is,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  or,  freedom  from  the 
punishment  of  sin.     Nor  was  it  enough  that 
men  should  be  merely  forgiven;  their  tranquil- 
lity and  happiness  require  that  they  should  be 
able  to  attain  to  an  assurance  and  certain  con- 
viction of  the  fact.     This  can  be  done  through 
the  atonement  of  Christ.     Many  ancient  and 


modern  philosophers  and  religious  teachers  have, 
indeed,  maintained  that  no  such  atonement  is 
necessary,  since  God  forgives  the  sins  of  men 
whenever  they  reform.  But  the  whole  history 
of  the  human  race,  in  ancient  and  modern  times, 
proves  that  an  universal  apprehension,  arising 
from  a  universal  feeling  of  need,  has  prevailed 
among  men,  that  besides  inward  reformation, 
some  other  means  of  propitiating  the  Deity,  and 
averting  the  deserved  punishment  of  sin,  are 
neessary,  and  do  actually  exist. 

The  following  reasons  may  be  given  for  this 
feeling: — viz.  (a)  Although  one  should  be 
guilty  of  no  new  transgressions,  he  cannot  feel 
a  comforting  assurance  that  the  sins  which  he 
has  previously  committed  will  be  forgiven  on  the 
ground  of  his  subsequent  reformation.  Indeed, 
he  can  find  no  reason  to  believe  this,  while  he 
has  reason  enough  to  fear  the  contrary.  For 
how  can  that  which  is  once  done  be  undone,  or 
the  consequences  of  it  be  prevented  ?  (&)  Every 
man,  whatever  his  advances  in  sanctification, 
must  still  confess  that  his  holiness  is  very  im- 
perfect, and  that  he  frequently  sins.  How, 
then,  can  he  hope  to  deserve  the  mercy  of  God 
by  a  holiness  which  is  so  imperfect  and  min- 
gled with  sin?  It  is  the  voice  of  conscience, 
then,  which  has  produced  and  spread  so  widely 
among  men  this  feeling  of  the  necessity  of  an 
expiation.  There  is  not  a  nation  upon  the 
globe,  as  Plutarch  has  observed,  which  has  not 
certain  appointments  for  this  purpose ;  such  as 
offerings,  cleansings,  and  other  religious  rites. 
Cf.  Meiners,  Geschichte  der  Religionem,  s. 
123,  f. 

Now  it  will  be  in  vain  to  endeavour  to  take 
away  this  feeling  from  man,  considering  how 
universal  and  deeply  rooted  it  is,  and  that  it  is 
founded  upon  the  voice  of  conscience,  and  cor- 
responds with  the  most  natural  and  familiar  no- 
tions which  men  form  respecting  God,  and  his 
manner  of  feeling  and  acting.  The  religious 
teacher  who  withholds  from  his  people  the  doc- 
trine of  pardon  through  Christ — who  represents 
it  as  uncertain  and  doubtful,  or  entirely  rejects 
it,  acts  very  inconsiderately  and  unadvisedly. 
He  cannot  substitute  anything  better,  or  more 
consoling.  And  when  the  consciences  of  men 
awake,  he  will  be  unable  to  give  other  grounds 
which  can  prove  so  entirely  sufficient  for  their 
consolation. 

II.  The  different  institutions  which  God  has  ap- 
pointed for  the  restoration  and  moral  perfection 
of  the  haman  race  in  a  general  view. 

(1)  The  means  which  God  employs  for  this 
purpose  are  very  various  and  manifold.  They 
are  designed  partly  to  weaken  the  power  and 
dominion  of  sin;  partly  to  instruct  men,  and  to 
shew  them  the  true  way  to  happiness,  and  give 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       319 


them  power  to  pursue  it.  These  objects  are 
promoted  even  by  the  original  constitution  which 
God  has  given  to  nature,  the  movements  of  con- 
science, the  unhappy  feelings  which  follow  upon 
sinful  actions,  &c. ;  also  by  the  common  and  ex- 
traordinary instruction  which  God  has  given  to 
men,  in  one  way  and  another,  (ytoXr^fpwj  xai 
jtohvtportus,  Heb.  i.  1 ;)  by  the  opportunity 
afforded  us  of  becoming  acquainted  with  the  na- 
ture of  virtue  and  vice — the  happiness  of  the 
good,  and  the  wretchedness  of  the  bad,  by  ob- 
serving the  example  and  profiting  by  the  expe- 
rience of  others ; — in  short,  by  history,  which  is 
one  of  the  best  teachers  of  the  human  race. 

The  history  of  every  nation  is  useful  in  this 
respect ;  but  that  of  the  Jewish  nation  possesses 
uncommon  interest.  Jesus  and  his  apostles 
allude  to  it  constantly  in  their  discourses.  It  is 
indeed  highly  instructive,  and  exhibited  in  such 
a  way  as  to  make  the  deepest  impression  upon 
the  most  numerous  class  of  men.  It  always  re- 
presents God  not  simply  as  a  metaphysical  being, 
but  as  conversant  with  men,  and  acting  after  the 
manner  of  men.  It  presents  clearly  before  our 
eyes  the  attributes  of  God,  the  course  of  his.pro- 
vidence,  and  the  salutary  discipline  he  exercises 
over  men.  Those  religious  teachers  who  en- 
tirely reject  the  use  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
instruction  of  the  common  people  and  of  the 
young,  and  who  would  gladly  see  the  book  itself 
cast  aside,  know  not  what  they  do.  They  de- 
prive themselves  and  their  charge  of  great  ad- 
vantages. It  is,  indeed,  abused  in  various  ways, 
as  it  was  at  the  time  of  Christ;  but  this  does 
not  prevent  its  proper  use.  Respecting  the  use 
of  the  history  of  the  Old  Testament,  vide  1  Cor. 
x.  6,  11;  Rom.  xv.  4,  and  Koppen's  excellent 
work,  "Die  Bibel,  ein  Werk  der  gottlichen  Weis- 
heit;"  and  J.  G.  Miiller,  Von  dem  christlichen 
Religionsunterrichte;  Winterthur,  1809,  8vo. 

But  the  greatest  blessing  which  God  has  be- 
stowed upon  men,  as  the  Bible  everywhere 
teaches,  is  the  appearance  of  Christ  in  the  world, 
his  instructions,  and  his  entire  work  for  the  hu- 
man race;  Rom.  xi.  33,  36.  Still,  we  ought 
not  to  undervalue  or  exclude  the  other  benevo- 
lent institutions  by  which  God  has  benefited 
and  does  still  benefit,  not  only  Christians,  but 
mankind  at  large.  All  these  means  should  be 
considered  as  inseparably  connected,  as  they 
really  are,  and  as  the  scriptures  represent  them. 
Cf.  Jerusalem,  Betrachtungen,  th.  ii. ;  Hess, 
Vom  Reiche  Gottes;  Lessing,  Erziehung  des 
Menschengeschlechts;  Berlin,  1780. 

(2)  These  means  are  universal.  Vide  Morus, 
p.  126,  s.  6.  God  has  not,  indeed,  bestowed 
them  at  all  times,  and  upon  all  nations ;  since 
all  men  in  all  ages  have  not  been  capable  of  re- 
ceiving them  ;  but  he  has  selected  the  most  pro- 
per in  every  age  and  nation ;  so  that  the  know- 


ledge and  worship  of  God,  piety  and  virtue, 
have  never  been  wholly  lost  from  the  earth. 
We  should  not  confine  our  attention  to  the  Jew- 
ish nation,  but  should  search  out  and  thankfully 
admire  the  traces  of  divine  care  over  nations 
called  heathen.  Even  in  the  rnidst  of  their  im- 
perfect knowledge  of  God,  and  of  their  polythe- 
ism, we  often  find  true  religiousness  and  piety, 
which,  notwithstanding  their  erroneous  views, 
are  certainly  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God. 
The  aneient  writers  are  full  of  such  instances. 
The  gracious  care  and  providence  of  God  is  as 
learly  seen  in  raising  up  good  legislators,  prac- 
tical sages,  teachers  of  the  people,  promoters  of 
science  and  morality,  among  the  Greeks,  Ro- 
mans, and  other  people  of  the  earth,  for  their 
improvement  and  moral  good,  as  in  the  institu- 
tions which  he  established  among  the  Jewish 
people  for  the  same  purposes.  These  natural 
means  which  God  employs  redound  as  much  to 
his  glory  as  the  supernatural. 

Paul  therefore  says  expressly,  that  God  has 
given  the  heathen  opportunity  of  knowing  him ; 
that  he  has  not  left  himself  without  a  witness 
among  them  ;  and  that  they,  too,  will  be  inex- 
cusable if  they  leave  unimproved  that  knowledge 
of  God  imparted  to  them  through  nature,  Acts, 
xvii.  27;  Rom.  i.  18,  seq.  Accordingly,  the 
virtue  and  piety  which  the  heathen  practise, 
after  the  measure  of  their  imperfect  knowledge, 
is  represented  in  the  Bible  as  agreeable  to  God. 
The  case  of  the  centurion  Cornelius  is  an  exam- 
ple, Acts,  x.  God  accounted  him  worthy  to  be 
entrusted  with  more  knowledge,  because  he 
proved  himself  faithful  in  the  use  of  that  lesser 
degree  which  he  possessed. 

The  national  pride  of  the  Jews  led  them  into 
the  mistake  that  God  had  a  special  regard  for 
them  ,•  that  they  were  more  agreeable  to  him  than 
other  nations;  that  they  exclusively  were  his 
children;  and  that  the  Messiah  was  designed 
only  for  them.  These  mistakes  are  frequently 
opposed  in  the  New  Testament;  there  is  slj 
0f6j  •x.o.l  TlatYip  rtdvtuv,  Ephes.  iv.  5,  6 ;  1  Tim. 
ii.  5,  seq.  God  has  no  partiality,  (rtpocrwrtoto^ux,) 
Rom.  x.  12;  Acts,  x.  34;  all  have  equal  right 
to  the  divine  blessings,  especially  to  those  con- 
ferred by  Christianity;  John,  x.  16 ;  Ephes.  i.  10 ; 
ii.  14, 18;  Rom.  v.  18,  seq.;  and  the  texts  cited  by 
Morns,  p.  126,  s.  6,  n.  1,  3.  This  universality  of 
the  divine  favours  is  expressly  asserted  even  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  prophets  frequently 
affirm  that  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God  will 
become  universal  among  the  heathen,  and  that 
they  by  no  means  shall  be  excluded  from  it; 
Deut.  xxxii.  31 ;  Isaiah,  ii.  and  Ixvi.  Indeed, 
the  Old  Testament  contains  promises  of  far  bet- 
ter times  in  future  for  the  heathen  than  for  the 
Jews. 

(3)  They  are  appointed  by  God  with  great 


320 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


wisdom  in  reference  to  the  nature  of  man  and 
the  circumstances  of  particular  times.  Such 
means  are  selected  as  allow  the  freedom  of 
man,  and  leave  him  at  liberty  to  choose  or  reject. 
It  is  the  internal  force  of  truth  which  is  made  to 
influence  man,  and  not  external  compulsatory 
means.  Moreover,  God,  like  a  wise  father  and 
teacher,  proceeds  according  to  the  time  and  age 
of  the  human  race  in  general,  and  of  nations  and 
individuals  in  particular.  He  regulates  his  in- 
struction according  to  their  capacity.  He  does 
not  overload  their  infancy  with  such  laws  and 
precepts  as  they  cannot  understand,  but  saves 
the  higher  instruction  for  the  maturer  age  of  a 
more  advanced  generation. 

This  greater  or  less  capability  of  some  gene- 
rations and  nations  in  comparison  with  others, 
should  be  considered  as  one  reason  why  God 
did  not  earlier  disclose  certain  truths  which  are 
peculiar  to  Christianity,  and  why  he  still  with- 
holds them  from  certain  nations  and  countries. 
For  such  nations,  however,  he  provides  in  ano- 
ther way,  and  leads  them  to  that  degree  of  hap- 
piness of  which  they  are  capable.  He  is  not 
confined  to  one  method,  as  is  shewn  in  the 
Introd  uction.  Nor  is  the  education  of  the  human 
race  confined  to  this  life ;  provision  will  doubt- 
less be  made  to  enable  those  who  are  innocently 
deficient  here  to  make  up  their  loss  hereafter. 

Note. — In  the  New  Testament,  the  terms 
#aptj,  #apt$  ®EOV,  &op?a  ©for,  are  used  to  denote 
the  whole  compass  of  means  employed  by  God  to 
bring  men  to  happiness,  as  well  as  any  particu- 
lar means.  Vide  Morus,  p.  122, 125.  The  term 
zaptj  is  used  in  various  senses;  and  as  unscrip- 
tural  ideas  are  often  attached  to  it,  we  shall  here 
briefly  explain  the  scriptural  significations.  It 
corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  in,  and  sometimes  to 
*iL>n,  and  similar  words.  It  signifies  (1)  in  gene- 
ral, the  unmerited  love  and  benevolence  which 
God,  as  the  supreme  Governor,  bears  for  all  his 
creatures  and  subjects,  and  especially  for  men; 
and  so  is  synonymous  with  aydfty,  ^p^crrotf^, 
^tXav^pQrti'a,  Tit.  iii.  4 ;  and  (2)  the  conse- 
quences and  proofs  of  this  gracious  regard  ;  in 
short,  all  undeserved  divine  favours ;  John,  i. 
16,  %dpi$  avti  %dprtos.  These  are  elsewhere  called 
fcopityia,  5cop£a,  x.  f.  x.  Cf.  Rom.  v.  15.  Inas- 
much as  they  are  undeserved,  they  are  contrast- 
ed with  fyetXqfta,  Rom.  iv.  4. 

Hence  arise  various  other  significations,  by 
which  certain  great  favours  are  called  ^api^fj, 
by  way  of  eminence:  as  (a)  the  Christian  doc- 
trine and  institute  in  general,  and  particularly 
that  principal  doctrine  of  Christianity,  the  gra- 
cious forgiveness  of  sin  on  account  of  Christ. 
Xctpi$  xai,  aX^fta,  John,  i.  7;  kdyos  %dprto$,  the 
benevolent  doctrine,  Acts,  xiv.  3 ;  #apij  ®£ov, 
Tit.  ii.  11,  #aptj  XpttfT'ou,  and  %dpi$  simply, 
Acts,  xviii.  27,  seq.  (6)  Certain  employments, 


businesses,  and  offices  in  the  Christian  church, 
and  the  talents,  abilities,  and  gifts  bestowed  by 
God  upon  particular  persons  in  reference  to 
these  offices.  Thus  Rom.  i.  5,  ^aptj  xai  drto- 
a-tohr;'  also  xii.  3.  In  other  texts,  #apttyia  is 
used,  with  which  %dpi$  is  interchanged  as  sy- 
nonymous in  1  Pet.  iv.  10,  and  in  the  epistles 
to  the  Corinthians.  From  these  and  similar 
texts  is  derived  (c)  the  ecclesiastical  usage,  in 
which  gratia  denotes,  by  way  of  eminence,  the 
operations  of  God  upon  the  hearts  of  men  for 
their  improvement  and  conversion.  These  ope- 
rations were  called  actiones  gratix,  and  the  con- 
dition of  a  converted  man  statum  gratix.  The 
Latin  church,  especially  since  the  time  of  Au- 
gustine, has  used  this  word  in  this  sense.  Vide 
Vide  infra,  s.  129. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that  the 
grace  of  God  is  only  his  goodness,  considered  in 
a  particular  relation.  Grace  is  the  goodness  of 
a  superior  to  a  subordinate  person.  The  ruler, 
properly  speaking,  is  gracious  only  to  the  sub- 
ject, and  the  lord  to  the  slave.  The  Bible  con- 
forms to  this  usage.  God,  then,  is  gracious,  in 
the  highest  sense  of  this  word,  because  he  is  the 
supreme  and  necessary  ruler  and  governor  of 
men.  Everything,  consequently,  which  God 
does  for  men,  relating  to  the  body  or  soul,  is  an 
operation  of  his  grace,  actus  gratix  divinx.  And 
this  grace  is  free,  because  no  one  can  compel  it; 
and  the  very  idea  of  grace  excludes  all  merit, 
Rom.  iv.  4. 

III.  The  particular  purpose  of  God  to  restore  the 
human  race  by  Christ. 

The  New  Testament  teaches  that  God  has 
determined  to  bestow  his  favours  upon  men 
through  Christ,  and  to  lead  them  to  holiness  and 
happiness  by  him.  Hence  Christ  is  called 
<W?y6$  £toijff.  Acts,  iii.  15,  coll.  ver.  26.  This 
term  is  explained  by  otVtoj  aco-r^pta?,  Heb.  v.  9, 
coll.  Acts,  xvii.  30,  31.  The  gracious  decree 
of  God  to  pardon,  sanctify,  and  bless  mankind, 
and  the  institutions  he  has  established  for  this 
purpose,  are  called  %dpi$  ffcd-r'jjptos,  Tit.  ii.  11; 
iii.  4.  The  following  particulars  are  implied — 
viz.,  God  designs  to  free  men  from  the  unhap- 
piness  occasioned  by  sin,  (crco^tv ;)  and  also  to 
bestow  upon  them  unmerited  favours,  ^optrovv, 
#api£,  x.  f.  Ju)  These  favours  are  pardon,  sanc- 
tification,  and  eternal  blessedness,  also  informa- 
tion communicated  by  God  respecting  this 
blessedness,  instruction  as  to  the  manner  how 
we  may  attain  to  it,  and  strength  imparted  to  us 
for  this  end.  This  grace  of  God  is  called  % 
%dpi$  ©sov  tv  XpcuT'9  6o£-£itfa>  1  Cor.  i.  4.  It  is 
always  represented  in  the  New  Testament  as 
bestowed  upon  us  through  Christ,  and  on  his 
account.  By  him  God  teaches  us  and  renews 
us;  pardons  us  on  account  of  his  death;  and 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       321 


bestows  upon  us  eternal  blessedness  through 
him  and  for  his  sake.  Everything  proceeds 
from  him,  and  is  referred  to  him.  This  purpose 
of  God  is  also  described  in  the  Bible  by  the 
words  $t%.ri/j.a,  ©sov,  rtp6^£<ytj  rtpoyycocis  and  rtpo- 
opi&u;,  Ephes.  i.  4,  11;  iii.  11.  The  Bible 
says,  too,  that  God  made  this  decree fro7n  eter- 
nity, (?tp6  cuwnov,  or  xai'a/Sotojj  xocr^ov.)  All 
the  divine  decrees  are  of  this  peculiar  nature, 
as  is  implied  in  the  particle  rtpo.  The  passage 
1  Pet.  i.  20  is  very  clear  upon  this  subject. 
From  the  Old  Testament,  the  passage  Ps.  x\. 
7,  seq.,  belongs  in  this  connexion.  This  decree 
is  always  described  as  ihefree  determination  of 
God.  Thus  in  the  passages  cited  it  is  called 
t vdoxt'a  ^c&ifluaT'os.  Not  that  it  would  have  been 
consistent  for  God  to  desert  the  human  race,  and 
leave  it  to  perish;  the  divine  goodness  forbids 
such  a  supposition.  The  simple  meaning  is, 
that  no  external  necessity  compelled  him  to  it, 
and  that  it  is  his  free  grace,  without  any  desert 
or  worthiness  on  the  part  of  men.  Paul  too,  in 
Rom.  ix. — xi.,  speaks  of  the  free  grace  of  God 
in  respect  to  the  new  institute  which  he  esta- 
blished upon  earth  by  Christ. 

The  following  result  may  be  deduced  from 
what  has  been  said : — Christianity  is  founded 
upon  the  principles,  (a)  that  all  men  are  consi- 
dered as  sinners  in  the  sight  of  God ;  to  which 
the  conscience  of  every  one  bears  testimony, 
(vide  No.  I.  ad  finem ;)  and  that  therefore 
(6)  they  are  subject  to  the  punishment  of  sin, 
as  experience  proves.  The  distinguishing  trait 
of  Christianity  is  this :  that  it  promises  to  men 

DELIVERANCE    FROM    SIN,    AND   THE    PUNISHMENT 

OF  SIN,  before  it  requires  of  them  perfect  holi- 
ness, acceptable  to  God.  It  thus  comes  to  the 
relief  of  ignorant,  desponding,  and  feeble  man ; 
inspires  him  with  confidence  in  God,  and  with 
love  to  him ;  acquaints  him  with  his  destination 
to  true  holiness  and  unalterable  happiness,  and 
shews  the  only  way  by  which  he  can  attain  it. 
Any  philosophy  or  system  of  religion  which  re- 
verses this  order,  and  demands  holiness  of  men 
before  it  gives  the  power  to  attain  it;  which  re- 
presents holiness  as  the  procuring  cause  of  for- 
giveness ;  fails  of  its  object,  and  asserts  and 
requires  an  impossibility.  The  great  point  in 
this  pardon  or  amnesty  which  Christianity  pro- 
mises, is  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  Christ  came 
into  the  world  to  bless  sinful  men,  to  free  them 
from  sin  and  death;  1  Tim.  i.  15,  coll.  2  Tim. 
i.  10;  John,  iii.  16, 17.  This  pardon,  however, 
reaches  men  only  when,  under  divine  guidance 
and  assistance,  they  act  according  to  the  con- 
ditions and  precepts  laid  down.  Hence  forgive- 
ness and  eternal  life  are  inseparably  connected 
in  Christianity  with  the  requisition  of  repent- 
ance and  faith  made  active  by  love.  These 
doctrines  are  always  connected  in  the  scrip- 
tures; so  Tit.  ii.  11 — 14. 

41 


SECTION  LXXXIX. 

FORMATION  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  IDEA  OF 
MESSIAH  AMONG  THE  ANCIENT  AND  MODERN 
JEWS;  THEIR  VARIOUS  OPINIONS  RESPECTING 
HIM;  AND  THE  PROOF  THAT  JESUS  WAS  THE 
MESSIAH. 

I.  The  gradual  development  of  the  idea  of  a 
Messiah  among  the  Israelites. 

(1)  THE  idea  of  a  former  happy  condition  in 
the  earliest  ages  of  the  world  is  universal  among 
men,  and  is  found  too  among  the   Israelites 
Vide  s.  56.     But  it  is  quite  as  natural  to  the 
human  mind  to  console  itself  in  the  midst  of 
troubles,  sufferings,  and  the  feeling  of  physical 
and  moral  imperfection,  with  the  hope  of  better 
times  to  come,  and  of  a  future  happy  condition, 
either  in  this  life  or  the  life  to  come,  or  in  both 
together.   Hence  arose  the  fables  of  the  heathen 
respecting  the  return  of  a  golden  age,  the  ex- 
pected dwelling  of  the  gods  upon  earth,  and 
pictures  of  a  similar  nature,  in  which  their 
wishes  and  expectations  were  embodied.  These 
ideas,  like  those  concerning  the  original  golden 
age,  are  held  by  every  nation,  and  are  founded, 
like  those,  in  a  feeling  of  necessity  which  is 
deep  laid  in  the  human  soul.    These  ideas,  ex- 
pectations, and  wishes,  are  found  in  every  na- 
tion; differently  modified,  however,  according 
to  their  particular  situation  and  mode  of  think- 
ing and  representation.     One  people  is  more 
bold  and  confident  in  its  expectations  ;  another 
is  more  moderate,  hoping  and  wishing  rather 
than  determining  and  deciding. 

(2)  The  Jewish  nation,  too,  expected  such  a 
return  of  the  golden  age  to  the  earth ;  and  they 
were  justified  in  this  by  the  declarations  and 
promises  of  their  oldest  prophets.    But  this  ex- 
pectation of  the  Jews  was  peculiar,  and  distin- 
guished from  that  of  others  in  this  respect,  that 
this  period  was  placed  by  them  in  the  times 
when  the  Messiah  should  appear.   These  happy 
times  were  called  N3n  oVij?. 

(3)  But  the  question  here  arises— Is  the  doc- 
trine respecting  the  Messiah,  the  Saviour  of  the 
world,  a  doctrine  really  revealed  by  God  to 
men ;  or  is  it  merely  a  human  opinion,  origi- 
nating among  the  Jews  from  their  accidental 
circumstances, — in  short,  a  Jewish  fable,  em 
ployed  by  Christ  and  the  apostles  for  benevo 
lent,  moral  purposes  1 

FIRST.  The  last  supposition  is  maintained  in 
general  by  those  who  deny  or  question  all  di- 
rect revelation ;  by  all,  indeed,  who  deny  the 
reality  of  miracles;  for  predictions  belong  to  the 
class  of  miraculous  occurrences ;  and  the  objec- 
tions made  to  one  may  be  made  to  the  other. 
Vide  s.  7,  III.,  s.  72,  II.  These  writers  endea- 
vour by  various  hypotheses  to  explain  the  na- 
tural origin  of  this  idea.  Cf.  Stephani,  Gedan- 


322 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


ken  uber  die  Entstehung  und  Ausbildung  der 
Idee  von  einem  Messias ;  Niirnberg,  1787,  8vo. 
Eckermann,  Theologische  Beytrage,  b.  ii.  st. 
1 ;  Altona,  1791,  8vo.  Ziegler,  Entwickelung 
des  wahrscheinlichen  Ursprungs  der  Idee  vom 
Messias,  in  Henke's  Mag.  fur  Religionsphilo- 
sophie,  b.  i.  st.  1,  Abhandl.  2.  Ammon,  Ver- 
such  einer  Christologie  des  alien  Testaments ; 
Erlangen,  1794,  8vo.  Their  principal  opinions 
may  be  compressed  in  the  following  statement — 
viz., 

Many  brave  heroes  and  deliverers  (tfwr'^pfj 
oytyiD)  had  appeared  among  the  Jews  from  the 
earliest  period  of  their  history,  and  had  contri- 
buted to  the  public  weal.  Such  were  the  pro- 
phets and  great  kings.  But  the  advantages 
which  had  been  hoped  for,  both  in  respect  to 
religious  and  moral  improvement,  and  also  in 
respect  to  civil  and  social  welfare,  had  not  as 
yet  been  realized,  and  were  still  expected  in  fu- 
ture time.  By  degrees,  all  wishes,  hopes,  and 
expectations  centred  in  one  person,  who  would 
accomplish  all  which  was  desired.  This  idea 
did  not  become  general,  or  rather,  did  not  take 
its  origin,  among  the  Jews  until  after  the  Baby- 
lonish captivity.  This  person  was  expected  to 
be  the  deliverer  and  helper  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  principally  a  temporal  deliverer,  who  would 
establish  an  earthly  kingdom.  This  idea  pre- 
vailed widely  among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of 
Christ,  and,  by  the  aid  of  the  allegorical  inter- 
pretation then  current,  was  carried  into  the  more 
ancient  of  their  sacred  books.  Now  Jesus,  it 
is  said,  found  this  idea,  and  connected  it,  such 
as  he  found  it,  with  his  doctrine ;  not  consider- 
ing it  himself  (as  many  say)  to  be  really  true. 
He  modified  this  idea,  and  gave  himself  out  for 
a  spiritual  deliverer  of  mankind  by  his  instruc- 
tion. Eckermann,  therefore,  affirms  distinctly, 
that  in  the  whole  Old  Testament  there  are  no 
proper  predictions  of  Christ.  Beytr.  st.  1. 

Remarks  on  this  Explanation. 

(a)  All  accounts  of  the  origin  of  this  idea, 
which  are  exclusive  of  direct  divine  revelation, 
if  not  otherwise  objectionable,  are  merely  con- 
jectural and  hypothetical,  and  cannot  be  histo- 
rically proved.  This  is  the  reason  why  they 
are  so  various  and  contradictory ;  there  is  no 
sure  historical  ground  and  basis  upon  which 
they  can  be  established  and  built;  they  are  mere 
plays  of  the  imagination,  mere  conjectures  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  thing  may  possibly 
have  been.  And  indeed,  many  cases  may  be 
imagined  possible,  no  one  of  which  can  be  proved 
to  be  historically  true,  and  most  of  which  have 
historical  evidence  against  them.  This  discre- 
pancy of  views  among  writers  on  this  subject, 
therefore,  never  will  or  can  cease,  as  long  as 
they  proceed  in  this  way. 

(6)  The  assertion  of  Eckermann  and  others, 


that  the  Old-Testament  descriptions  of  the  Mes- 
siah are  not  descriptions  of  Jesus,  but  of  an 
earthly  king,  is  unfounded.  For  although  the 
Messiah  is  often  compared  to  a  king,  as  even 
God  is,  he  is  also  named  and  described  as  a 
prophet  and  priesi.  And  to  free  men  from  sin, 
to  instruct  them,  and  promote  their  moral  im- 
provement, are  ascribed  to  him  as  the  principal 
part  and  proper  object  of  his  advent.  Psalm 
xxii.,  xl.,  ex. ;  Isaiah,  ii.,  xi.,  liii. 

(c)  The  predictions  of  the  prophets  represent 
the  Messiah  not  as  the  king  and  ruler  of  a  sin- 
gle nation,  as  the  Jewish  kings  were,  but  as  the 
king  and  benefactor  of  all  who  should  be  friend- 
ly to  him.     In  the  predictions  of  the  Jewish 
prophets  he  is  promised  quite  as  much,  and 
even  more,  to  the  heathen  than  to  the  Jews 
themselves.     Vide  the  passages  before  cited. 
The  promises  given  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xii.  3  ; 
xxii.  18,  are  certainly  free  from  any  Jewish  ex- 
clusiveness,  and  are  as  comprehensive  as  pos- 
sible. 

(d)  The  assertion  that  the  idea  of  Messiah 
originated  during  the  Babylonish  captivity,  or 
afterwards,  and  that  the  earlier  Jews  differently 
understood  the  so-named  Messianic  passages  in 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  is  contrary  to  history. 
For  the  idea  respecting  a  Messiah  was  univer- 
sal among  the  Samaritans  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  much  earlier.     And  indeed  it  was  held  by 
the  Samaritans  more  purely  than  by  the  greater 
part  of  the  Jews ;  as  the  Messiah  was  represent- 
ed by  them  as  the  great  Prophet  and  Saviour, 
John,  iv.  25,  42,  seq.     Therefore  this  idea  must 
have  existed  among  the  Jews  before  the  reli- 
gious separation  between  them  and  the  Samari- 
tans; and  consequently  before  the  Babylonian 
exile.     For  the  Samaritans  would  not  certainly 
have  received  it  from  the  Jews  after  the  separa- 
tion.    Whence  then  did  they  derive  it?     They 
admitted  only  the  five  books  of  Moses  from  the 
whole  Old  Testament.    Accordingly,  they  must 
have  grounded  their  expectation  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  Moses,  and  the  interpretation  of  this 
testimony  given  them  by  the  Israelitish  teach- 
ers sent  to  them  from  Assyria,  2  Kings,  xvii. 
27,  seq.     The  Israelites,  therefore,  must  have 
had  the  idea  of  a  Messiah  long  before  the  Baby- 
lonian exile,  and  must  have  found  it,  too,  in  the 
books  of  Moses. 

SECONDLY. — The  whole  opinion  that  the  idea 
of  Messiah  does  not  depend  upon  divine  revela- 
tion, and  that  it  is  not  contained  in  the  oldest 
sacred  records  of  the  Hebrews,  stands  in  the 
most  palpable  contradiction  to  the  clearest  decla- 
rations of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  For  (a)  the 
writings  of  the  prophets  are  acknowledged  by 
them  to  be  of  divine  authority,  and  the  doc- 
trines and  predictions  contained  in  them  are  not 
treated  as  fictions  and  fables,  but  as  truly  re- 
vealed by  God.  And  (6)  it  is  no  less  certain 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       323 


that  they  teach  that  there  are  in  Moses  and  the 
prophets  predictions  respecting  the  Messiah,  or 
benefactor  of  the  world,  and  that  these  were  ful- 
filled in  Jesus.  Jesus  himself  frequently  as- 
serts this  in  the  most  impressive  and  solemn 
manner,  Luke,  xviii.  31—33;  xxii.  37;  xxiv. 
27;  Matt.  xx.  18,  19;  xxvi.  54;  Mark,  ix.  12; 
John,  v.  39,  46.  And  in  this  his  apostles  ex- 
actly follow  his  example.  Acts,  ii.  16,  25 ;  viii. 
18;  x.  34;  xiii.  23,  32;  xxvi.  22,  23;  1  Pet.  i. 
11 ;  2  Pet.  i.  19,  and  the  Pauline  epistles.  The 
apostles  themselves  therefore  believed  this. 

Now  if  Jesus  and  his  apostles  were  merely 
human  teachers,  they  may  possibly  have  erred 
in  this  matter;  as  also  many  of  the  Jewish 
teachers'of  that  time,  who  interpreted  these  pas- 
sages in  the  same  way,  may  have  done.  But 
if  they  were  divinely  commissioned,  what  they 
say  on  this  subject  must  be  believed.  For  I 
am  not  at  liberty  to  proceed  optionally  in  be- 
lieving the  declarations  of  a  man  whom  I  ac- 
knowledge to  be  divinely  commissioned.  I  am 
not  at  liberty  to  make  selection  of  what  I  will 
admit  and  what  reject  at  my  good  pleasure.  I 
must  rather  yield  unconditional  faith  to  each 
and  every  thing  which  he,  as  a  divine  messen- 
ger, teaches  and  declares.  Consistency,  then, 
requires  us  to  go  on  this  principle  in  this  sub- 
ject. Vide  Herder,  Briefe  das  Studium  der 
Theologie  betreffend,  br.  18,  21,  particularly  s. 
303,  f.  349—352,  th.  ii.  Cf.  Herder's  Work, 
"  Vom  Erloser  der  Menschen,  nach  unsern  drey 
ersten  Evangelisten ;  Riga,  1796,  8vo.  [Cf.  es- 
pecially Hengstenberg,  "  Christologie,"  where 
this  whole  subject  is  more  ably  discussed  than 
anywhere  else. — TR.] 

II.  Various  opinions  of  the  Jews  at  and  after  the 
time  of  Christ  respecting  the  Messiah,  and  the 
nature  of  his  kingdom. 

(1)  At  the  time  of  Christ,  and  previously, 
the  current  opinion  of  the  people  in  Palestine, 
and  indeed  of  most  of  the  Pharisees  and  law- 
yers, was,  that  he  would  be  a  temporal  deliverer 
and  a  king  of  the  Jews,  and  indeed,  a  universal 
monarch,  who  would  reign  over  all  nations. 
Thus  they  interpreted  the  passages,  Psalm  ii.  2, 
6,  8;  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6;  Zech.  ix.  4,  seq.  Hence 
those  who,  during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  ac- 
knowledged him  to  be  the  Messiah,  wished  to 
proclaim  him  king,  John,  vi.  15,  coll.  Matt.  xxi. 
8,  9.  The  apostles  themselves  held  this  opi- 
nion until  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  Mat- 
thew, xx.  20,  21 ;  Luke,  xxiv.  21 ;  Acts,  i.  6. 
And  Jesus  himself,  during  his  life  upon  earth, 
proceeded  very  guardedly,  in  order  to  lead  them 
gradually  from  this  deep-rooted  prejudice,  and 
and  not  to  take  it  away  at  once.  Josephus  says 
that  the  enthusiasm  of  the  Jews  in  the  war 
against  the  Romans,  was  very  much  increased 
by  this  belief  of  an  universal  monarchy.  Vide 


Bell.  Jud.  vi.  5.  Suetonius  (Vesp.  c.  4)  and 
Tacitus  (Hist.  v.  13)  speak  of  this  expectation 
spread  throughout  all  the  East  by  the  Jews.  It 
was  expected  that  he  would  institute  new  reli- 
gious rites,  (John,  i.  25 ;)  that  he  would  perform 
uncommonly  great  miracles,  (John,  vii.  31 ;) 
that  he  would  be  born  at  Bethlehem,  of  the  line 
of  David,  and  yet  from  obscure  parents,  (John, 
vii.  42;)  and  that  he  would  never  die,  (John, 
xii.  34.) 

(2)  Some,  but  by  far  the  smallest  number, 
had  purer  ideas  respecting  the  Messiah ;  and  did 
not  so  much  expect  an  earthly  kingdom  as  for- 
giveness of  sin,  instruction,  diffusion  of  truth, 
and,  in  short,  spiritual  blessings.     Simeon  had 
this  correct  view,  (Luke,  ii.  30,  seq. ;)  the  ma- 
lefactor on  the  cross,  (Luke,  xxiii.  43 ;)  and  a 
few  other  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ.     Many 
pious  Jews,  too,  out  of  Palestine,  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have  had  the  same  correct  views.    For 
even  the  common  people  of  Samaria  had  opi- 
nions on  this  subject  comparatively  pure.   Vide 
John,  iv.  25,  seq.     Jesus  approved  these  opi- 
nion-s  as  just  and  scriptural,  and  always  acted 
in  conformity  with  them.    Vide  Luke,  xvii.  20, 
21 ;  John,  xviii.  36—38.     It  is,  then,  very  un- 
just to  charge  him  with  the  intention  of  esta- 
blishing an  earthly  kingdom,  as  is  done  in  the 
work    "  Vom    Zweck    Jesu,1'    Braunschweig, 
1778.    Vide  Koppe  "Progr.  de  sententia  Judae- 
orum  de  Messia  et  futuro  ejus  regno;"  Gott. 
1779. 

(3)  Many  united  both  of  these  opinions,  and 
considered  the  Messiah  as  a  teacher  and  earthly 
king  at  the  same  time,  as  the  supreme  head  of 
church  and  state.     This  appears  to  have  been 
the  opinion  of  the  apostles  and  most  of  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  while  he  lived  upon  the  earth. 
A  multitude  of  Christians  of  the  Judaizing  party, 
during  the  first  and  second  centuries,  believed 
that  Christ  would  return  to  the  earth  to  establish 
a  temporal  kingdom  for  a  thousand  years — an 
opinion   which  has  been    indulged   by  many 
Christians  in  every  age  down  to  the  present 
time. 

(4)  Some  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  previously,  were  free-thinkers,  and  appear 
to  have  rejected  the  whole  notion  of  a  Messiah 
as  a  popular  superstition,  a  fabulous  and  ground- 
less expectation.     Especially  was  this  the  case 
after  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  state  by  the 
Romans.     Many  of  the  Jews  out  of  Palestine, 
especially  the  learned  Grecian  Jews,  appear  to 
have  been  of  this  way  of  thinking.     Accord- 
ingly, there  is  no  mention  of  this  idea  even  in 
the  Book  of  Wisdom,  or  in  all  the  writings  of 
Philo.     And  even  Josephus,  in  his  desire  to 
please  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  appears  to  have 
been  ashamed  of  this  faith  of  his  fathers,  and  so 
always  avoids  the  subject.     They  were  satis- 
fied with  mere  morality,  and  connected  the  Gre- 


324 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


cian  philosophy  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Jew- 
ish religion  and  theology.  This  silence  is  the 
more  remarkable,  especially  in  Philo,  consider- 
ing how  much  he  was  given  to  the  allegorical 
interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(5)  We  find  all  these  different  opinions  re- 
peated in  the  writings  of  the  Jews  who  lived 
after  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  destruction  of 
the  temple, — in  the  Chaldaic  paraphrases,  in 
the  book  Sohar,  in  the  Talmud,  and  in  the  Rab- 
bins, where  so  many  of  the  ancient  traditions 
are  exhibited. 

(a)  The  opinions  of  the  more  modern  Jews 
were  very  various  respecting  the  importance  of 
the  doctrine  itself.  Some  considered  it  to  be 
the  most  important  doctrine  of  their  faith,  and 
expected  that  a  complete  restoration  of  religion, 
morality,  and  happiness,  would  be  effected  by 
the  Messiah.  In  their  view  he  was  to  accom- 
plish, as  it  were,  a  new  political  and  moral 
creation;  so  Maimonides.  Others  considered 
it  as  a  doctrine  of  less  importance,  and  seldom 
mentioned  it.  Many  of  them  appear,  in  reality, 
to  have  rejected  it  altogether,  or  to  have  been 
ashamed  of  it. 

(6)  In  respect  to  the  institutions  of  the  Mes- 
siah, and  the  object  of  his  mission,  they  exhi- 
bited the  same  diversity  as  prevailed  at  an  ear- 
lier period.     Most  adhered  to  the  gross  opinion 
of  the  establishment  of  an  earthly  kingdom,  and 
the  subjection  of  the  DMJ.     Others  made  his 
most  prominent  object  to  be,  the  improvement 
of  doctrine,  the  restoration  of  morals,  and  spiri- 
tual blessedness.   But  these  were  comparatively 
few. 

(c)  Some  of  the  Jews  who  could  not  under- 
stand how  the  Messiah  should  be  described  by 
the  prophets  sometimes  as  king  (Ps.  ii.,  ex. ; 
Is.  xi.,)  and  sometimes  as  inferior,  lowly  and 
despised,  (Ps.  xxii. ;  Is.  liii.,)  invented  the  doc- 
trine of  a  twofold  Messiah,  in  order  to  reconcile 
these  accounts ;  one,  the  inferior,  despised  Mes- 
siah, Joseph's  son,  in  whom  Christians  believe; 
the  other,  David's  son,  who  is  yet  to  come  and 
establish  his  kingdom. 

(d)  Many  of  the  Jews  endeavoured  to  account 
for  the  long  delay  of  the  Messiah  by  the  sinful- 
ness  of  which  their  nation  is  guilty.     The  pro- 
mise, they  say,  was  made  conditionally.     But 
this  hypothesis  derives  no  support  from  the 
Messianic  oracles  in  the  Old  Testament. 

III.  The  method  of  proving  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
is  the  true  Messiah. 

(1)  This  is  proved  from  the  marks  and  de- 
scriptions which  the  Old  Testament  gives  of 
the  Messiah,  all  of  which  meet  in  Jesus  in  the 
most  remarkable  manner.  This  proof  that  Jesus 
is  the  Messiah  promised  in  the  Old  Testament, 
may  be  made  extremely  convincing.  Chris- 
tians, however,  do  not,  as  Collins  supposes,  by 


any  means  rely  solely  on  the  predictions  of  the 
Old  Testament  for  the  Messianic  authority  of 
Jesus,  nor  does  Christ  himself.  Vide  John,  v. 
34,  seq.  For  these  predictions,  though  ever  so 
valuable  and  important  in  themselves,  are  al- 
ways, like  all  predictions,  in  a  certain  degree 
obscure.  The  Old  Testament  is  indeed  very 
instructive  and  useful,  when  rightly  employed, 
but  it  is  not  the  only  ground  on  which  the  con- 
fidence of  Christians  rests.  It  affords  important 
proof  even  for  Christians,  but  not  the  only  proof. 
Vide  vol.  i.  s.  12,  II. 

This  method  of  proof  from  the  Old  Testament 
is  especially  useful  in  convincing  the  Jews,  and 
in  refuting  their  objections.  Thus  Christ  ap- 
plies it,  John,  v.  39 — 47.  All  the  marks  which 
the  Jews  consider  characteristic  of  the  Messiah, 
according  to  their  sacred  books,  agree  exactly 
in  Jesus.  And  all  those  traits  and  minute  cir- 
cumstances which  are  exhibited  in  passages  of 
the  Old  Testament  acknowledged  by  the  Jews 
themselves  to  relate  to  the  Messiah,  meet  in  him 
as  they  do  not  in  any  other  person  known  in 
history.  He  was  born  at  Bethlehem,  of  the  fa- 
mily of  David,  of  which  the  Jews  have  now  for 
a  long  time  had  no  continued  genealogical  ta- 
bles. He  had  a  precursor.  He  confirmed  his 
doctrine  by  the  most  striking  miracles.  He 
died,  was  honourably  buried,  and  rose  again. 
His  garments  were  divided.  Vinegar  was 
given  him  to  drink.  And  many  other  circum- 
stances of  the  same  nature,  greater  and  smaller, 
which  were  predicted  concerning  the  Messiah, 
were  fulfilled  in  Jesus.  Such  passages  are 
therefore  very  frequently  urged  by  the  apostles 
against  the  Jews,  in  order  to  convince  them. 

(2)  Christians  who  acknowledge  the  divine 
authority  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  credi- 
bility of  Jesus  and  the  apostles,  have  an  addi- 
tional and  principal  ground  of  their  belief  of 
this  truth,  in  the  testimony  and  information 
contained  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
Throughout  these  books  Jesus  is  represented  as 
the  greatest  divine  messenger,  Lord  over  all,  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,  (Swf^p,  $w?  T'OV  xotytov,  6 
Kvptoj.)  In  short,  he  is  described  as  the  same 
person  whom  the  Jews  call  Messiah.  If  divine 
wisdom  had  seen  proper  to  raise  him  up  in  an- 
other country,  and  under  other  circumstances, 
his  name  and  the  form  of  his  doctrine  might,  in- 
deed, have  been  different,  while  the  substance 
itself  would  have  continued  the  same. 

According  to  the  constant  representation  of 
the  New  Testament,  God  himself  confirmed  the 
truth  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  He  did  this 
by  John  the  Baptist,  John,  i.  19 — 41 ;  by  voices 
from  heaven  at  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  on 
other  occasions ;  by  angels,  Luke,  i.  30 — 38 ;  by 
Jesus  himself,  who  confirmed  the  truth  of  his 
declarations  by  miracles,  John,  iv.  25,  26 ;  Matt. 
xxvi.  62,  63  ;  and  by  the  apostles  commissioned 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       325 


to  be  his  messengers,  Acts,  ii.  22 — 38;  1  John, 
i.  and  ii.  1 ;  &c. 

Thus  in  all  the  passages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment where  it  is  said  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah, 
or  that  the  Messiah  has  come  in  the  person  of 
Jesus,  the  idea  is  always  implied  that  Jesus  is 
the  promised  Lord  and  Redeemer,  the  Benefactor 
and  Saviour.  In  short,  the  word  Messiah,  which 
grammatically  signifies  king,  becomes  a  doc- 
trinal word,  synonymous  with  Krptoj  and  2w- 
-r-ijp.  And  in  this  way  the  erroneous  views  of 
the  Jews  respecting  the  Messiah  were  correct- 
ed. If  we  would  consider  the  subject  in  this 
light,  and  be  satisfied  with  the  representations 
which  the  New  Testament  gives  of  it,  we  should 
easily  avoid  the  difficulties  with  which  many 
have  been  perplexed  regarding  this  doctrine. 
Vide  Eckermann,  Theol.  Beytr.  st.  1.  We 
should  not  then  declare,  with  this  writer  and 
others,  that  the  doctrine  that  Jesus  is  the  Mes- 
siah belongs  only  to  the  Jews,  and  is  not  an  es- 
sential doctrine  of  pure  Christianity.  The  He- 
brew name  irefo  was  Jewish  or  Israelitish,  but 
the  thing  denoted  by  it  was  intended  for  all,  and 
is  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity. 

Note. — Works  on  some  of  the  subjects  treated 
in  this  section.  For  information  respecting 
the  Jewish  opinions  of  the  Messiah,  vide  Maii 
"Synopsis  Theol.  Judaicze;"  Giess,  1G98, 
4to;  Glassner,  De  gemino  Judaeorum  Messia; 
Helmst,  1739,  4to;  Eisenmenger,  Entdecktes 
Judenthum;  Keil  (Prof.  Lips.),  Hist.  Dogm. 
de  regno  Messiae,  Jesu  et  app.  aetate ;  Lipsiae, 
1781.  On  the  point  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah, 
vide  the  ancient  works  of  Olearius  and  Schott- 
gen,  in  "  Hor.  Hebr."  t.  ii.  The  most  com- 
plete work  after  these  is  that  of  Bishop  Kidder, 
"  Convincing  Proof  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah," 
translated  from  the  English  by  Rambach ;  'Ros- 
tock, 1757,  4to.  [For  a  fuller  account  of  the 
literature  of  this  subject,  cf.  Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s. 
444,  Anmerk.  Vide  especially  the  late  work 
of  Hengstenberg,  Christologie  des  A.  T.— TR.] 

SECTION  XC, 

OF  THE  PRINCIPLES  ON  WHICH  WE  ARE  TO  INTER- 
PRET THE  LITERAL  AND  FIGURATIVE  PREDIC- 
TIONS CONTAINED  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
RESPECTING  THE  MESSIAH,  AND  THE  NEW  IN- 
STITUTE FOUNDED  BY  HIM. 

I.  Brief  History  of  the  manner  in  which  Christians 
have  interpreted  the  Messianic  Predictions. 

THE  allegorical  method  of  interpretation  pre- 
vailed among  the  early  Christian  fathers,  espe- 
cially the  Egyptian  fathers — e.  g.,  Justin  the 
Martyr,  Pantaenus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Ta- 
tian,  and  still  more  after  the  age  of  Origen. 
They  considered  the  Bible,  as  Philo  and  other 
learned  Grecian  Jews  had  done  before  them,  to 


be  a  repository  of  every  kind  of  useful  informa- 
tion, and  especially  of  all  religious  truth.  Any 
truth  of  this  kind  which  they  did  not  find  clear- 
ly exhibited  in  it,  they  introduced  by  means  of 
their  allegorical  interpretation,  exactly  in  the 
same  way  as  the  stoics,  and  many  other  learned 
Grecians,  had  proceeded  with  Homer  and  some 
other  of  their  sacred  books.  On  this  principle 
it  was  that  many  of  these  fathers  endeavoured 
to  find  all  the  perfection  of  Christian  knowledge 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  carried  back  into  it 
the  entire  Christian  system.  But  in  this  they 
deviated  widely  from  the  mind  of  the  apostles, 
who  expressly  say  that  the  patriarchs  saw  the 
promised  blessings  only  from  afar  off,  (Heb. 
xi.  13,)  and  that  there  was  much  obscurity  in 
the  predictions  concerning  Christ,  2  Peter,  i. 
19—21;  1  Peter,  i.  10—12. 

But  this  extreme  was  objected  to  by  many  of 
the  learned  fathers — e.  g.,  Eusebius  the  Eme- 
sene,  Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  Theodorus  of  Mopsu- 
estia.  Some  of  these  fell  into  the  opposite  ex- 
treme, and  allow  few  or  no  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament  to  refer  to  the  Messiah.  Chrysos- 
tom,  Theodoret,  and  others,  took  a  middle  course 
between  these  two  parties.  This  difference  of 
opinion  has  continued  down  through  all  ages  of 
the  Christian  church.  Some  have  seen  the 
Messiah  rarely  or  nowhere,  others  everywhere, 
in  the  Old  Testament;  while  others  still  have 
pursued  a  middle  course.  Vide  Ernesti,  "  Nar- 
ratio  critica  de  interpret,  prophetiarum  Mess,  in 
eccl."  in  Opusc.  Theol. 

II.  Examination  of  the  principles  of  the  theory  of 
accommodation  applied  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  Messianic  Predictions. 

Since  the  time  of  Semler,  about  the  middle  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  an  opinion  has  prevailed 
widely  in  the  protestant  church,  that  the  Old 
Testament  contains  very  few  passages,  or  none 
at  all,  which  treat  literally  and  properly  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  that  all  or  most  of  the  passages 
cited  in  the  New  Testament  are  used  in  the  way 
of  accommodation.  The  following  reasons  have 
been  offered  in  support  of  this  theory.  The  Jews 
at  the  time  of  Christ  were  very  much  given  to 
the  allegorical  interpretation  of  scripture.  Ever 
after  the  time  of  the  exile,  when  the  expectation 
of  a  Messiah  had  become  universal  among  them, 
they  had  eagerly  searched  the  Old  Testament  for 
everything  which  in  the  least  favoured  this  ex- 
pectation; and  had  succeeded,  by  the  help  of 
their  allegorical  interpretation,  in  making  their 
scriptures  seem  to  contain  predictions  respect- 
ing a  Messiah.  Jesus  and  the  apostles  were 
therefore  compelled  to  pursue  the  same  method, 
and  to  use  it  as  a  means  of  gradually  bringing 
the  Jews  to  a  better  knowledge  of  religion. 
Their  pursuing  this  course  does  not  prove  that 
they  themselves  considered  these  passages  as 
2E 


326 


CHRISTIAN 


actual  predictions.  That  they  did  not  so  con- 
sider them  appears  from  the  fact  that  they  pur- 
sued a  different  course  when  teaching  gentiles, 
and  did  not  in  that  case  appeal  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

But  in  this  statement  we  must  carefully  dis- 
tinguish between  what  is  true  and  what  is  erro- 
neous and  exaggerated. 

(1)  The  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  sa- 
cred scriptures  cannot  be  historically  proved  to 
have  prevailed  among  the  Jews  from  the  time 
of  the  exile,  or  to  have  been  common  with  the 
Jews  of  Palestine  at  the  time  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles.     Although  the   Sanhedrim    and    the 
hearers  of  Jesus  often  appealed  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, according  to  the  testimony  of  the  New- 
Testament  writers,  they  give  no  indication  of 
the  allegorical  interpretation.     Even  Josephus 
has  nothing  of  it.     The  Platonic  Jews  of  Egypt 
began,  in  the  first  century,  in  imitation  of  the 
heathen  Greeks,  to  interpret  the  Old  Testament 
allegorically.     Philo  was  distinguished  among 
those  in  that  place  who  practised  this  method, 
and  he  defends  it  as  something  new,  and  before 
unheard  of,  and  for  that  reason  opposed  by  the 
other  Jews;    De  Confus.  Lingu.  p.  347,  seq. 
Jesus  was  not,  therefore,  in  a  situation  where 
he  was  compelled  to  comply  with  a  prevailing 
custom  of  allegorical   interpretation;    for  this 
method  did  not  prevail  at  that  time  among  the 
Jews;  certainly  not  in  Palestine,  where  Jesus 
taught. 

(2)  The  writers  of  tne  New  Testament  them- 
selves make  a  clear  distinction  between  the  alle- 
gorical and  literal  interpretation  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament.  When  they  use  the  allegorical  method, 
they  either  say  expressly,  here  is  allegory,  Gal. 
iv.  24,  or  they  shew  it  by  the  context,  or  by  ore- 
fixing  some  particle  of  comparison — ^e.  g.,  <Zart(p 
xc&w$,  Heb.  vii. ;  John,  iii.  14;  Matt.  xii.  40. 
But  they  express  themselves  very  differently  in 
texts  which  they  quote  as  literal  prophecy  for 
the  purpose  of  proof. 

(3)  If  the  apostles  did  not  allude  to  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  instructions  which  they  gave 
to  gentiles,  it  does  not  follow  either  that  they 
believed  the  Old  Testament  to  be  of  no  use  to 
them,  or  that  they  did  not  seriously  consider 
the  passages  which  they  cited  as  predictions 
in  their  instructions  to  the  Jews  to  be  really 
such.  The  reason  why  the  apostles  omitted  these 
allusions  in  the  commencement  of  the  instruc- 
tion which  they  gave  to  the  heathen  is  the  same 
as  leads  the  wise  missionary  at  the  present  day 
to  omit  them  in  the  same  circumstances.    Their 
gentile  hearers  and  readers  knew  nothing  of  the 
Bible,  and  could  not,  of  course,  be  convinced 
from  an  unknown  book.  The  apostles,  however, 
gradually  instructed  their  gentile  converts  in  the 
contents  of  this  book,  and  then  appealed  to  it  as 
frequently  before  them  as  before  Jews  or  con- 


THEOLOGY. 

verts  from  Judaism.  This  is  proved  by  the 
Epistles  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Thus 
Peter  says  to  the  heathen  centurion,  Cornelius, 
after  the  latter  had  become  acquainted  with  the 
prophets,  "Of  this  Jesus  testify  all  the  pro- 
phets," &c.,  Acts,x.  43,  coll.  Acts,viii.  26—35, 
and  the  epistles  of  Paul. 

(4)  It  cannot  be  shewn,  in  general,  that  Jesus 
and  his  apostles,  in  compliance  with  the  current 
prejudices  of  their  contemporaries,  ever  taught 
anything  or  seemingly  affirmed  anything  to  be 
true  which  they  themselves  considered  as  false. 
No  more  can  it  be  shewn,  in  particular,  that  they 
adopted  and  authorized  any  explanations  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  they  themselves  consider- 
ed as  invalid,  merely  because  they  were  common 
among  their  contemporaries.  Such  compliance 
is  entirely  contrary  to  their  usual  course  of  ac- 
tion ;  (vide  Matt.  v.  19,  23  ;)  nor  can  it  be  at  all 
justified  on  pure  moral  principles,  as  even  mo- 
dern theologians  are  beginning  more  and  more 
to  allow.  When  Christ,  therefore,  says  dis- 
tinctly, Matt.  xxii.  43,  that  David,  by  divine  re- 
velation, called  the  Messiah,  Lord  (Ps.  ex.),  he 
must  have  believed  exactly  as  he  said,  and  so 
have  admitted  a  divine  prediction  respecting  the 
Messiah  in  this  psalm.  The  same  when  he  says, 
John,  v.  46,  "  that  Moses  wrote  concerning  him." 
Hence  it  follows,  that  whenever  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  expressly  assent  to  the  Jewish  expla- 
nations of  the  Old  Testament,  or  build  proofs 
upon  them,  they  themselves  must  have  consi- 
dered these  explanations  as  just. 

Here  everything  depends  upon  the  doctrine 
above  stated  ;  if  Christ  and  his  apostles  were 
mere  human  teachers,  they  may  have  erred  ;  but 
if  they  spake  as  divine  messengers,  they  must  be 
believed  on  their  simple  authority. 

III.  The  principles  of  Interpretation  on  which  Christ 
and  his  Apostles  proceed  in  quoting  from  the  Old 
Testament,  especially  the  Messianic  Passages. 

Undoubtedly  many  of  the  same  principles 
often  appear  in  Jewish  writings,  as  well  as  the 
same  formula  of  quotation,  "thus  is  fulfilled," 
&c.  Vide  Wahner,  Antiqq.  Heb.  t.  ii. ;  Suren- 
hus,  Btj3xoj  xaraM.(vy?i$.  Wetstein  ad  Matt.  i. 
22,  and  Schottgen,  in  s.  89  of  his  book  last  cited. 
Now  if  Christ,  by  his  own  example,  authorizes 
the  principles  which  were  embraced  by  the 
Jews,  he  himself  must  have  considered  them  to 
be  true.  Whether  we  must  on  this  account 
consider  them  as  true,  must  be  determined  by 
the  alternative  above  stated.  The  principles  of 
interpreting  the  Old  Testament  which  many 
modern  commentators  have  adopted,  differ  alto- 
gether from  those  which  Christ  and  his  apostles 
followed;  still  these  modern  principles  must 
not  be  ascribed  to  Christ  and  his  apostles,  but 
we  must  inquire  historically,  What  were  the 
principles  on  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  pro- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       327 


ceedcd?     These  need   not  necessarily  be  the 
same  as  those  which  modern  interpreters  adopt. 

(1)  God  determined /row  eternity  (rtpo  xata- 
jSotoJs  xoapov}  to  send  a  benefactor  and  saviour 
(Sco-r^p,   Messias)   to  bless    the  world   made 
wretched  by  sin.     This  purpose  was  revealed 
very  early,  and  was  from  time  to  time  repeated 
and  rendered  more  plain.     Thus  Christ  and  the 
apostles  declare,  with  the  Jews,  "  that  Moses, 
the  Psalms,  and  the  prophets  spake  concerning 
him."    Vide  s.  89. 

(2)  God  saw  best  to  communicate  his  will  to 
the  patriarchs  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  to  trans- 
mit this  revelation  to  their  posterity  by  means 
of  extraordinary  men,  messengers,  (ais^j;)  thus 
making  the  Israelites,  as  it  were,  the  deposita- 
ries of  the  divine  revelations  for  the  salvation 
of  men  during  the  earlier  ages  of  the  world.   In 
this  respect,  too,  Christ  and  the  Jews  were 
agreed;  and  in  this,  also,  that  God  had  refer- 
ence, in  all  his  instructions  and  ordinances  given 
by  the  prophets,  to  his  great  plan  respecting  the 
Messiah. 

(3)  Consequently,  according  to  the  doctrine 
of  Christ,  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  from 
Moses  downwards,  contain   literal  predictions 
respecting  this  Saviour  of  the  world  and  the 
new  institute  to  be  founded  by  him,  though  all 
these  predictions  are  not  of  equal  clearness. 

(4)  But  to  these  prophets  themselves  every- 
thing which  they  predicted  was  not  perfectly 
plain  and  intelligible.    God  saw  best  to  reserve 
the  more  clear  explanation  of  the  sense  of  many 
of  his  earlier  oracles  to  be  communicated  by 
prophets  at  a  later  period.     Thus  many  of  the 
predictions  respecting  Christ  and  his  apostles 
could  be  more  distinctly  and  justly  interpreted 
in  after  times  than  by  the  prophets  themselves 
who    originally  uttered  them.      This  maxim 
often  appears  in  the  writings  of  the  Jews,  and 
is  expressly  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament ; 
1  Pet  i.  10—12,  and  2  Pet.  i.  19.     Vide  Progr. 
ad  h.  1.     [Vide  the  discussion  of  this  point  in 
the  Bib.  Repository,  No.  I.  Art.  4;  also  No. 
IV.  Art.  4.     Cf.  Woods  on  Inspiration,  Lect.  i. 
p.  33.— TR.] 

(5)  The  duties  and  offices  of  the  Messiah  very 
much  resemble  the  duties  and  offices  of  the  Old- 
Testament  prophets,  priests,  and  kings.     These 
names  are  therefore  frequently  applied  to  him. 
As  a  king  of  the  house  of  David,  he  inherited, 
as  it  were,  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  titles 
of  the  kings,  (e.  g.,  of  David  or  Solomon;)  as 
a  prophet,  those  of  the  Jewish  prophets,  (e.  g., 
of  Moses  and  others;)  and  as  a  priest,  those  of 
the  priests,  (e.  g.,  of  Melchisedec  and  Aaron.) 
The  character  which  they  possessed,  and  the  ac- 
tions which  they  performed  imperfectly,  and  on 
a  small  scale,  he  possessed  and  performed  per- 
fectly, and  on  a  large  scale.     This  canon  of  in- 
terpretation is  held  by  the  Rabbins,  and  is  not 


in  any  way  objectionable.  The  case  is  very 
much  the  same  as  when  the  rights  of  an  empe- 
ror are  proved  by  shewing  from  the  history  of 
the  empire  that  his  predecessors  possessed  them ; 
or  when  the  official  rights  of  a  person  are  esta- 
blished from  the  ancient  privileges  of  the  office, 
and  from  the  history  of  his  predecessors  in  it. 
Cf.  Psalm  Ixxxix.  27,  31—34. 

This  principle  casts  light  upon  the  passages 
of  the  New  Testament,  where  texts  are  cited 
from  the  Old,  which  appear  at  first  sight  to 
treat  of  different  persons  and  objects.  All  the 
texts  in  which  the  rights,  offices,  and  dignities 
of  the  Israelitish  prophets,  priests,  and  kings, 
are  the  subjects  of  consideration,  relate  to  the 
Messiah,  the  greatest  of  their  successors,  and 
are  directly  applicable  to  him.  He  possesses 
all  the  greatness,  distinction,  and  pre-eminence 
ascribed  to  them,  only  in  a  far  higher  degree. 
So  it  is  in  the  writings  of  the  Jews,  and  in  the 
New  Testament,  Heb.  i.  and  ii.,  and  other 
places. 

(6)  The  Jews  generally,  though  not  uniformly, 
asserted  the  pre-existence  of  the  Messiah  before 
his  visible  appearance  upon  the  earth,  although 
the  doctrine  of  his  miraculous  birth  was  not  as 
yet  entirely  clear  to  them.     This  is  seen  in  the 
Chaldaic  paraphrases  and  in  the  writings  of  the 
Rabbins.     Christ  himself  affirms  his  pre-exist- 
ence in  the  clearest  manner,  John,  viii.  58 ;  chap, 
xvii.  seq.     The  writers  just  mentioned  ascribe 
everything  which  was  done  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment for  the  salvation  of  men,  and  particularly 
of  the  Jews,  to  the  Messiah,  as  the  efficient  or 
concurrent  cause.     He  led   them  from  Egypt, 
defended  them  in  their  journey  through  the  de- 
sert, and  spake  to  them  by  the  prophets.    They 
explained  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  which  the  appearance  of  God,  or  of  the  angel 
of  the  Lord,  is  mentioned,  as  applying  directly 
to  the  Messiah.     This  principle,  too,  is  author- 
ized and  adopted  in  the  New  Testament.     Ac- 
cording to  1  Pet.  i.  1 1,  it  was  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
which  inspired  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and   communicated  revelations  through 
them.     According  to  1  Cor.  x.  4,  the  Rock  (a 
common  appellation  of  God)  which  accompa- 
nied the  Israelites  in  the  desert  was   Christ. 
When  they  tempted  God  by  disobedience,  they 
tempted  Christ,  (ver.  9.)   Isaiah,  who  saw  God 
in  his  glory,  (Isaiah,  vi.)  is  said  to  have  seen 
the  glory  of  the  Messiah,  John,  xii.  41. 

Thus  we  see  why  texts  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  treat  of  God  in  general,  and  of  his  works 
among  men,  especially  among  his  own  people, 
are  applied  in  the  New  Testament  directly  to 
the  Messiah. 

(7)  Instruction  by  means  of  allegories,  sym- 
bols, and  symbolical  actions,  is  very  suitable  to 
men;  especially  during  the  childhood  both  of 
individuals   and  nations.     Such  instruction  is 


328 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


exactly  in  the  spirit  of  the  Hebrews,  and  of 
other  oriental  nations.  This  being  so,  it  would 
have  been  a  subject  of  wonder  if  instruction  of 
this  kind  had  not  been  given  respecting  so  im- 
portant an  object  as  the  new  dispensation  to  be 
instituted  by  the  Messiah.  That  such  instruc- 
tion was  given,  the  Jews  have  always  main- 
tained ;  and  it  is  clearly  contained  in  many  pas- 
sages of  the  Old  Testament — e.  g.,  Ps.  xl.  7, 
seq.  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  dis- 
tinctly teach  that  some  of  the  ordinances  ap- 
pointed by  Moses  and  the  other  prophets  by 
divine  command,  were  designed  by  God  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  future  Saviour  of  the 
world,  to  point  to  him,  and  to  be  types  of  him 
and  his  blessings.  Sacrifice,  expiation,  and 
other  ordinances  of  the  Old  Testament,  were 
not  appointed  on  their  own  account,  but  were 
intended  as  images  of  the  more  perfect  ordi- 
nances to  be  expected  in  future  time.  Many 
of  the  expressions  and  images  in  the  discourses 
of  John  the  Baptist  and  of  Christ  respecting 
sacrifices  and  the  sacrificial  lamb,  lead  to  this 
conclusion ;  and  the  correctness  of  it  is  distinctly 
declared  by  the  apostles.  Vide  Col.  ii.  17; 
Rom.  iii.  21 ;  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and 
Heb.  viii.,  ix.,  x. ;  John,  xix.  36. 

But  we  are  very  liable  to  go  too  far  in  the 
illustration  and  development  of  these  allegorical 
predictions ;  and  this  study  frequently  degene- 
rates into  an  idle  amusement.  The  charge  of 
extravagance  in  this  respect  may  be  justly  made 
against  many  of  the  ecclesiastical  fathers,  and 
many  protestant  theologians  of  later  times,  espe- 
cially against  Cocceius  and  his  followers,  at  the 
close  of  the  seventeenth  century.  The  best  way 
to  avoid  such  mistakes  is  to  admit  of  no  allego- 
rical predictions  except  such  as  are  mentioned 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  to  extend  the  resem- 
blance no  further  than  it  is  carried  there. 

But  we  must  not  suppose,  because  some  have 
made  this  subject  ridiculous  by  their  extrava- 
gance, that  the  New  Testament  does  not  author- 
ize the  belief  of  allegorical  predictions.  Such 
a  supposition  is  most  obviously  untrue;  and  the 
only  reason  why  any  have  supported  it  is,  that 
they  would  prefer  that  an  idea  so  inconsistent, 
as  it  seemed  to  them,  with  the  spirit  and  ideas 
of  our  own  age,  should  not  be  found  in  the  New 
Testament.  That  the  design  of  God  relating 
to  the  future  was  not  always  made  known  im- 
mediately on  the  establishment  of  the  ordinances 
of  the  former  dispensation,  does  not  prove  that 
God,  in  founding  those  ordinances,  had  no  such 
design.  It  was  sufficient  that  he  made  it  known 
as  soon  as  men  were  capable  of  understanding 
it.  Vide  supra,  No.  4. 

These  allegorical  or  symbolical  predictions 
and  indications  are  commonly  called  types.  So 
they  were  called  by  the  fathers,  who  took  this 
term  from  Heb.  viii.  5;  Rom.  vi.  7;  1  Cor.  x. 


6,  11.  They  were  divided  into  typos  personates, 
certain  persons  (rulers,  prophets,  priests,)  who 
were  the  representatives  of  the  Messiah;  and 
typos  reales,  to  which  the  Levitical  ritual,  sacri- 
fices, and  other  ordinances  of  Moses  belong. 
Vide  Michaelis,  Typische  Gottesgelahrtheit; 
Dr.  Rau,  Freymiithige  Untersuchung  iiber  die 
Typologie;  Erlangen,  1784,  8vo;  and,  most  of 
all,  Storr  Commentar  iiber  den  Brief  an  die 
Hebraer,  particularly  s.  199—208. 

Note. — In  the  instruction  of  the  common 
people,  the  following  view  of  this  subject  may 
be  most  scripturally  and  safely  presented  : — 
By  means  of  various  religious  ordinances  and 
remarkable  persons  among  the  Israelites,  God 
represented  and  pointed  out  the  Messiah ;  to 
these  Jesus  and  his  apostles  often  allude,  in 
order  to  shew  that  the  present  dispensation  was 
of  old  designed  and  decreed  by  God,  and  in 
order  to  excite  a  due  estimation  of  these  bene- 
fits in  us,  who  have  not  the  shadow  simply,  but 
the  full  enjoyment  and  possession  of  them; 
Col.  ii.  17. 

Those  who  deny  any  direct  revelation  of  the 
divine  will  during  the  Old-Testament  dispensa- 
tion, declare  themselves  against  allegorical  pre- 
dictions with  great  zeal.  And  so  they  must,  in 
order  to  be  consistent.  But  this  shews  that 
their  doctrine  is  not  agreeable  to  the  scriptures, 
which  affirm  that  both  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments contain  direct  divine  revelations. 

(8)  Finally,  all  these  observations  are  per- 
fectly consistent  with  the  principle  that  many 
texts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  cited  merely  on 
account  of  some  accidental  resemblance  in  sub- 
ject or  expression;  in  the  same  way  as  quota- 
tions are  made  in  works  of  every  kind  ;  convey- 
ing the  idea,  that  what  was  true  in  the  passage 
cited  in  one  sense  is  true  here  in  another  sense. 
Thus  the  text,  Is.  liii.  4,  5,  "he  removed  our 
sicknesses,"  denoting  spiritual  sicknesses,  is 
applied,  Matt.  viii.  17,  to  bodily  infirmities. 
The  discourse  of  Christ,  John,  xviii.  9,  coll. 
chap.  xvii.  12,  affords  a  similar  example.  Cf. 
on  this  subject,  Koppen,  Die  Bibel  ein  Werk 
der  gottlichen  Weisheit,  th.  i.  s.  235;  Michaelis, 
Dogmatik,  s.  122 — 128;  Scrip.  Var.  Arg.  p. 
609,  seq.  respecting  Tttofpco^vat,  x.  -t.  h. ;  Kleu- 
ker,  Tractat.  de  nexu  prophetico  inter  utrumque 
constitutionis  divinse  foedus.  [Vide  also  Woods 
on  Inspiration,  Lect.  ii. — TR.] 

SECTION  XCI. 

OF  THE  SUCCESSIVE  DEGREES  OF  THE  REVELA- 
TIONS AND  PREDICTIONS  CONTAINED  IN  THE 
OLD  TESTAMENT  RESPECTING  THE  MESSIAH. 

DIVINE  providence  frequently  makes  a  long 
and  secret  preparation  for  great  and  important 
events,  before  they  are  actually  accomplished. 
Commonly  it  gives  at  first  only  intimations 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       329 


and  distant  allusions,  but  gradually  unfolds  its 
designs  more  clearly.  We  might  expect,  then, 
with  much  probability,  that  the  divine  revela- 
tions respecting  the  Messiah  would,  at  first,  be 
comparatively  scanty  and  obscure,  and  would 
gradually  become  more  clear  and  evident.  And 
such  we  find  to  be  the  fact.  Besides,  the  early 
childhood  of  the  world  and  of  the  Jewish  nation 
was  not  prepared  to  receive  full  information  upon 
this  subject.  Theologians  observe,  very  justly, 
that  God  has  most  exactly  adapted  the  instruc- 
tion given  respecting  the  Messiah  to  the  neces- 
sities of  men,  and  the  circumstances  of  particular 
times.  The  Messiah,  accordingly,  is  sometimes 
represented  under  the  image  of  a  king,  some- 
times under  that  of  a  prophet,  again  under  that 
of  a  priest,  &c. ;  s.  90. 

Four  periods  are  commonly  distinguished. 

(1)  The  first  period  extends  from  the  com- 
mencement of  scriptural  history  to  the  time  of 
David.  In  this  period  there  is,  by  general  con- 
fession, the  most  obscurity.  From  the  remotest 
ages,  however,  there  was  a  general  belief  that 
a  time  would  come,  in  a  distant  futurity,  in 
which  God  would  shew  signal  favour  to  men, 
and  especially  to  pious  men,  in  some  extraordi- 
nary manner,  by  means  of  his  prophets,  and 
particularly  one  of  them.  This  belief  was  suf- 
ficient ;  "  They  saw  the  promised  blessings  from 
a  distance,"  Heb.  xi.  13. 

The  first  text  of  this  kind  occurs  Gen.  iii.  15. 
Vide  s.  75,  ad  finem.  [Also  Hengstenberg's 
Christolo^ie,  s.  26,  ff.]  It  was  during  the  life 
of  Abraham,  and  the  times  immediately  follow- 
ing, if  we  judge  from  the  Bible,  that  the  general 
truth  was  made  known,  that  his  family  would 
be  the  medium  of  communicating  this  great 
blessing  to  a  future  age.  Here  belongs  the  pro- 
mise, Gen.  xii.  3,  that  "  in  Abraham  all  nations 
should  be  blessed."  This  cannot  mean  that 
they  should  prosper  if  they  received  him  and 
his  posterity  with  kindness  and  treated  them 
as  friends,  and  be  unfortunate  if  they  did  the 
contrary  ;  but  that  this  happiness  should  be  dif- 
fused over  all  through  Abraham  and  his  posteri- 
ty; he  should  be  the  instrument  or  agent  in  the 
hand  of  Divine  Providence.  Further,  Gen.  xxii. 
8,  "In  (or  through)  thy  seed  shall  all  nations 
be  blessed."  This  cannot  mean  that  Abraham's 
posterity,  as  well  as  he  himself,  should  be  re- 
markably favoured  by  God;  and  all  nations 
friendly  to  them,  and  who  wished  them  well, 
should  be  prospered  on  their  account.  But  here 
again  is  the  idea  conveyed  that  the  great  happi- 
ness of  the  nations  should  proceed  from  Abraham 
and  his  posterity,  the  Israelites.  The  former 
passage  is  explained  by  this.  The  word  J?-\T 
may  be  used  collectively  here,  as  Paul  uses  it, 
Rom.  iv.  13.  But,  in  Gal.  iii.  11,  he  refers  this 
JHT.  more  especially  to  the  Messiah,  and  remarks 
that  it  may  be  translated  in  the  singular.  Christ 
42 


says  expressly,  that  Abraham  rejoiced  in  view 
of  the  birth  and  appearance  of  the  Messiah  upon 
the  earth,  John,  viii.  56;  and  all  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  agree  in  referring  these 
texts  to  the  Messiah. 

Another  text  is  found  in  the  song  of  Jacob, 
Gen.  xlix.  10.  This  is  not,  indeed,  cited  in  the 
New  Testament  as  a  Messianic  prediction ;  but 
it  is  so  understood  by  the  Chaldaic  paraphrast, 
the  Talmud,  and  many  of  the  Rabbins  among 
the  Jews ;  and  by  Justin  the  Martyr,  in  the  se- 
cond century ;  and  afterwards  by  Augustine  and 
others  among  the  Christian  fathers.  The  word 
rr»£;,  which  Luther  renders  held  (hero),  has  been 
explained  in  a  great  variety  of  ways.  But  in 
whatever  way  this  word  is  understood,  the  rest 
of  this  text  applies  very  well  to  the  Messiah ;  and 
if  Abraham  expected  such  a  deliverer,  and  waited 
for  the  day  of  the  Messiah,  according  to  the  de- 
claration of  Christ  above  quoted,  the  same  cer- 
tainly may  be  true,  in  the  view  of  Christ,  re- 
specting his  grandson,  who  had  the  same  pro- 
mises and  indulged  the  same  hopes  as  Abraham. 
This  texts  declares,  that  "  the  sceptre  shall  not 
depart  from  Judah,"  (i.  e.,  the  pre-eminence  of 
this  tribe  over  the  others  shall  continue,  although 
Judah  was  not  the  firstborn;  that  tribe  furnished 
the  nation  with  the  greatest  kings  and  warriors, 
long  before  the  time  of  the  Messiah,)  "until at 
last  the  riW  (to  be  descended  from  it)  should 
come,  and  to  him  should  other  nations  gather11 — 
i.  e.,  many  other  nations,  besides  the  Jewish, 
should  be  subjected  to  him  and  dependent  upon 
him.  The  best  translation  of  n'W  is  proles  ejus, 
filius  ejus,  especially  his  great  descendant.  After 
Schultens,  Stange  has  explained  this  word  in 
the  best  manner,  in  his  work,  "  Symmikta,"  th. 
ii.  s.  224,  f.,  Halle,  1802;  though  I  cannot 
consent  to  refer  the  whole  passage  to  Solomon, 
as  he  does. 

The  last  text  is  Deut.  xviii.  18,  "A  prophet 
like  me  will  Jehovah  raise  up,"  &c.  This  text 
is  referred  to  Christ  in  the  discourses  of  Peter 
and  Stephen,  Acts,  iii.  22  and  vii.  37 ;  and  is 
probably  alluded  to  in  John,  i.  45.  Moses  is 
giving  the  distinguishing  mark  of  true  and  false 
prophets,  and  wishes  to  assure  the  Israelites 
that  they  would  not  be  destitute  of  direct  mes- 
sengers from  God  after  his  death.  By  itself, 
therefore,  it  might  be  taken  collectively,  meaning 
"  prophets  like  me,"  &c.  But  if  at  the  time  of 
Moses  there  was  a  belief  in  a  general  reforma- 
tion of  religion  and  morals,  which  should  be 
ffected  in  some  future  time  in  a  special  manner, 
by  a  prophet  sent  from  God,  (the  opposite  of 
which  cannot  be  proved,)  this  word  may  be  used 
especially  to  denote  this  future  reformer;  and 
Jesus  expressly  says,  "  Moses  wrote  concerning 
me,"  John,  v.  46. 

Besides  these,  the  origin  of  many  of  the  sym- 
bolical predictions  respecting  the  Messiah  may 
2E2 


330 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


be  traced  to  this  period ;  respecting  them,  vide 
s.  90. 

(2)  The  second  period  comprises  the  reign  of 
David.     A  considerable  number  of  texts  are 
found  in  the  Psalms  of  David  which  may  be 
referred  to  Christ  more  easily  and  naturally  than 
to  any  other  person.     Some  of  them  make  men- 
tion of  very  minute  circumstances  which  had 
their  accomplishment  in  Jesus.     These  Psalms 
are  actually  referred  to  Christ  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament.    The  most  important  of  them  are,  Ps. 
ii.,   xvi.,  xxii.,   xl.,   ex.     Now   many   of  the 
Psalms  from  which  passages  are  cited  in  the 
New  Testament  as  referring  to  the  Messiah, 
may,  indeed,  be  understood  to  refer,  in  their 
primary  and  literal  sense,  to  another  king,  from 
whose  history  they  may  be   explained.     But 
this  is  no  objection  to  considering  them,  as  the 
New  Testament  does,  to  be  predictions  of  the 
Messiah,  according  to  the  principle  contained 
in  s.  90,  III.,  No.  5 ;— e.  g.,  Ps.  xlv.,  Ixviii., 
Ixix.,  Ixxii. 

Sometimes,  in  these  Psalms,  the  Messiah  is 
represented  as  a  king  and  priest — in  short,  in 
his  exaltation.  The  wide  extension  of  his  king- 
dom is  described ;  and  the  spiritual  nature  of  his 
mission  is  denoted  with  sufficient  clearness. 
Thus  Psalm  ii.  and  parts  of  Psalms  xvi.,  xl., 
ex.  Again,  he  is  represented  in  suffering  and 
humiliation.  Thus  Psalm  xxii.  and  part  of 
Psalms  xvi.  and  xl.  The  piercing  of  his  hands 
and  feet,  and  the  parting  of  his  garments  by  lot, 
are  mentioned  in  Psalm  xxii.  7,  14,  seq.  His 
death  and  resurrection  are  mentioned  in  Psalm 
xvi.  10,  11,  and  also  in  Ps.  xxii.  25. 

It  was  during  this  period  that  the  appellation 
rwo  (zpiffi'os) — i.  e.,  king,  by  way  of  eminence, 
became  common;  because  the  Messiah  was  de- 
scribed as  a  ruler  appointed  by  God,  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Deity  upon  earth.  At  this  time, 
too,  it  was  distinctly  predicted  that  he  should 
be  born  of  the  line  of  David.  Vide  2  Sam. 
vii.  12,  seq.;  Ps.  ii.  and  Ixxxix;  Acts,  ii.  30; 
xiii.  34. 

(3)  The  third  period  extends  from  the  reign 
of  David  to  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and  a 
little  later.   The  writings  of  the  prophets  during 
this  period  contain  many  passages  which  treat 
of  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jewish  state,  and 
of  the  church,  then  fallen  into  great  degeneracy, 
and  which  encourage  the  hope  that  a  distin- 
guished reformer  and  deliverer,  commissioned 
by  God,  would  appear,  and  that  with  him  the 
golden  age  would  return  to  the  earth.     These 
blessings  are  not  promised,  however,  to  the 
Jews  only,  but  also  to  the  heathen,  and  to  all 
who  should  desire  to  share  in  them.   Indeed,  far 
better  promises  are  given  in  these  prophets  to 
the  heathen  than  to  the  Jews; — e.  g.,  Is.  ii.  and 
Ixvi. — promises  which  have  been  confirmed  by 
the  result.    In  this  period,  as  in  the  second,  the 


Messiah  is  described  as  a  king  and  ruler,  born 
from  the  line  of  David,  as  a  prophet  and  a  re- 
former of  religion  and  morals ;  as  Is.  xi.  1,  seq. ; 
chap,  xl. — Ixvi. 

But  the  passage,  Isaiah  liii.,  is  particularly 
applicable  to  the  Messiah.  It  describes  his  hu- 
miliation, rejection,  death,  exaltation,  the  diffu- 
sion of  his  doctrine,  &c.  No  other  person  has 
been  found  in  history  to  whom  this  passage  can 
apply,  although  some  have  referred  it  to  Heze- 
kiah,  others  to  the  Jewish  people,  and  others  to 
Jeremiah.  Vide  Doderlein,  "  Uebersetz'ung  des 
Isaias,"  (edit.  3rd,)  where  he  endeavours  to  ap- 
ply this  passage  to  the  Jewish  people.  Dr. 
Eckermann  (Theol.  Beytr.  st.  i.  s.  192)  endea- 
vours to  shew  that  the  new  Israelitish  state  is 
here  meant  by  the  servant  of  Jehovah.  Staudlin 
understands  it  of  Isaiah,  explaining  it  from  the 
Jewish  story,  that  king  Manasseh  persecuted 
Isaiah,  and  at  last  caused  hirn  to  be  sawn  asun- 
der. But  this  interpretation  is  forced,  and  the 
story  itself  a  modern  fable.  Paulus  refers  the 
passage  to  the  better  part  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
which  was  called  rrirp  155.  The  New  Testa- 
ment always  refers  this  passage  to  Christ,  and 
to  none  else ;  and  all  other  explanations  must  be 
allowed  to  be  difficult  and  forced.  There  is  no 
person  in  history  to  whom  it  applies  as  well  as 
it  does  to  Christ.  If  we  were  not  sure  that  it 
was  written  long  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  we 
might  be  tempted  to  believe  that  it  was  an  imi- 
tation of  the  evangelical  history,  and  was  an  ex- 
tract from  it,  clothed  in  poetical  language. 

The  passage  of  Micah,  (who  was  a  contem- 
porary of  Isaiah,)  chap.  v.  1,  was  considered  by 
the  Jewish  Sanhedrim  as  giving  indubitable  in- 
dication cf  the  birth-place  of  the  Messiah,  Mat- 
thew, ii.  4,  seq.  In  Zech.  xii.  12,  13,  we  have 
the  lineage  of  the  family  of  David,  from  which 
the  Messiah  should  be  born  (vide  Dathe  in  loc.); 
and  in  Hag.  ii.  7 — 9,  an  exact  indication  of  the 
time  in  which  he  should  appear — viz.,  the  time 
of  the  second  temple.  This  passage  treats,  in- 
deed, more  particularly  of  the  gifts,  presents, 
and  offerings,  which  foreigners  would  bring  to 
the  second  temple.  Still  it  exhibits  those  cheer- 
ful prospects  for  the  future  which  were  first 
realized  at  the  time  of  the  Messiah.  The  pas- 
sages Mai.  iii.  1,  iv.  5,  6,  respecting  the  Mes- 
siah and  his  precursor  Elias,  are  more  clear. 

The  passage,  Dan.  ix.  24,  seq.,  respecting 
the  seventy  tveeks  has  been  commonly  considered 
very  important,  and  as  calculated  to  carry  con- 
viction even  to  the  Jews.  But  the  passage  is 
so  obscure,  and  is  encompassed  with  so  many 
difficulties,  that  it  is  not  so  useful  as  many  be- 
lieve for  the  purpose  of  convincing  the  Jews 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  Messiah.  Some 
modern  interpreters  have  even  doubted  whe- 
ther the  Messiah  is  the  subject  of  the  passage. 
By  rytfo  some  have  understood  Cyrus,  others,  a 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       331 


king.  Modern  commentators  have  laboured 
with  the  greatest  zeal  to  throw  light  upon  this 
subject.  Clauswitz,  Michaelis,  Hassenkamp, 
Dathe,  Blayney,  Gerd.es,  "Velthusen,  Less, 
Doederlein,  and  Berthold,  have  written  upon  it; 
but  much  yet  remains  uncertain.  Still  it  can- 
.  not  be  referred  to  any  but  the  Messiah,  without 
doing  violence  to  the  words.  And  so  much  is 
clear  from  this  passage,  that  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah  is  fixed  to  a  time,  which  has  now  been 
past  for  upwards  of  a  thousand  years.  The 
Jews,  then,  may  be  convinced  from  this  passage, 
that  the  Messiah  has  long  since  come ;  and  then, 
from  other  passages,  that  Jesus  is  the  person  in 
whom  all  the  characteristics  of  the  Messiah  are 
found.  [Cf.  the  late  Commentary  of  Hengsten- 
berg  on  Daniel. — TR.] 

(4)  Fourth  period.  We  have  already  shewn 
in  s.  89,  from  the  New  Testament  and  other 
writers,  how  general  the  expectation  of  the  Mes- 
siah was  about  the  time  when  Jesus  appeared, 
and  shortly  after,  especially  after  the  Jews  be- 
came subject  to  the  Romans,  and  how  this  idea 
was  modified  by  the  great  multitude,  and  inter- 
mingled with  various  unscriptural  views.  A  few, 
however,  entertained  right  conceptions.  If  we 
had  more  Jewish  writers  of  this  later  period, 
especially  more  from  the  Jews  of  Palestine, 
who  had  written  upon  the  religious  opinions  of 
their  nation,  we  should  certainly  obtain  more 
accurate  and  distinct  knowledge  upon  this  point. 
Still,  in  what  we  do  know  with  certainty,  we 
have  enough  for  our  thorough  conviction.  Fur- 
ther: one  age  was  distinguished  above  another 
in  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  Messiah  to 
come,  just  as  among  Christians  one  age  is  dis- 
tinguished above  another  in  its  belief  on  the 
Messiah  already  come.  Even  in  the  Christian 
church  some  one  doctrine  has,  at  one  particular 
time,  been  made  more  prominent  than  others. 
And  so  it  was  in  the  Jewish  church. 

Thus  far  the  first  chapter,  as  introductory. 
We  have  now  to  consider  the  doctrine  respect- 
ing Jesus  Christ  himself,  what  he  was  accord- 
ing to  the  description  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  what  he  performed  for  the  salvation  of  men. 
The  New  Testament-proposes  Christ  himself  as 
the  foundation  of  the  Christian  faith,  John,  xvii. 
3.  We  shall  treat  first  of  the  history  of  Jesus, 
or  of  the  doctrine  of  the  states  of  Jesus,  in  chap. 
ii. ;  then  of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  chap, 
iii.,  (it  being  inconvenient  to  treat  of  this  sub- 
ject first,  as  is  done  in  many  systems;)  finally, 
the  doctrine  respecting  what  Christ  has  done 
for  the  good  of  man,  or  respecting  the  work  and 
office  of  Christ  (de  munere  Christi},  in  chap.  iv. 
Morus  discusses  all  these  subjects,  p.  134 — 196, 
and  has  interspersed  many  excellent  exegetical, 
doctrinal,  and  practical  observations,  but  he 
treats  them  in  a  very  broken  and  disconnected 
way,  and  in  an  entirely  different  order  from 


what  is  common  in  the  systems  ;  and,  in  short, 
in  a  manner  not  very  much  calculated  to  facili- 
tate the  subject  to  the  student  just  commencing 
his  theological  studies. 


CHAPTER  II. 

HISTORY  OF   JESUS    IN  HIS   TWO   STATES    OF 
HUMILIATION  AND  OF  EXALTATION. 


SECTION  XCII. 

THE  SCRIPTURAL  REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  TWO 
PRINCIPAL  PERIODS  IN  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS  ; 
THE  SCRIPTURAL  NAMES  OF  THESE  PERIODS; 
THE  PROOF-TEXTS  J  AND  SOME  CONCLUSIONS. 

BEFORE  the  man  Jesus  was  raised  by  God  to 
that  illustrious  dignity  (5d|a)  which,  according 
to  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament,  he  now 
enjoys  even  in  his  human  nature,  he  lived  upon 
the  earth  in  greater  depression  and  indigence, 
more  despised  and  neglected,  than  the  greater 
part  of  mankind.  This  gave  occasion  to  the  di- 
vision of  the  whole  life  of  Christ  into  two  parts, 
or  conditions  —  the  state  of  humiliation,  and  the 
state  of  exaltation  ,•  or  better,  status  humilitatis 
et  glorias.  These  conditions  might  be  called, 
with  equal  scriptural  authority,  the  states  of 
subjection  and  of  dominion,  of  poverty  and 
splendour,  of  lowliness  and  majesty,  &c. 

I.  Scriptural  names  of  both  conditions. 


(1)  Tajtftvoj,  tfajtEmotftj,  and  af 

These,  which  are  the  more  common  theological 
terms,  are  taken  from  Phil.  ii.  8, 
savr'ov,)  and  ver.  9,  (0f6j  av-r'ov  v 
Tartstvo?  denotes,  in  general,  misery,  inferiority, 
indigence  ;  and  i^oj,  elevation,  greatness,  majes- 
ty ,•  James,  i.  9,  10;  Matt,  xxiii.  12. 

Note.  —  The  word  v^ovv  is  applied  by  Christ 
himself,  in  a  different  sense,  to  his  crucifixion, 
John,  iii.  13,  14  ;  viii.  28  ;  xii.  32,  34.  For  the 
verba  exaltandi  signify  also  among  the  Hebrews, 
to  hang  up,  publicly  to  execute  a  malefactor.  Vide 
Gen.  xl.  13,  19. 

(2)  SopS,  and   the   opposite   rtvevfia,.     2ap| 
and  -c%3  do  not  denote  simple  humanity  and 
human  nature,  but  frequently  weak,  mortal,  suf- 
fering humanity,  and  the  depressed  condition  in 
which  man  lives.   They  are  nearly  synonymous 
with  mortalis,  conditio  mortalis.     The  opposite 
rtvsvfjLa  denotes  what  is  perfect,  a  perfect  condi- 
tion.    Thus  Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.  50,  calls  the  mor- 
tal body  of  man  crapt  xai  al^ua,  which  he  after- 
wards calls  ^rttya  IQV,  and  ow^ua  fartstvuxjfwj.   The 
heavenly  body  he  calls  rtvEvpa'tixov,  and  the 
heavenly  condition  of  Christ  ftvtvpa,.     Accord- 
ingly, the  humble  life  of  Christ  upon  the  earth 
is  called  ^uipai  tr($  ffapxoj,  Heb.  v.  7,  and  j3/o$ 


332 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


iv  crapxt,  1  Pet.  iv.  2.  The  same  explanation 
must  be  given  to  the  following  terms, — viz., 
Xptcwoj  iJwjOmgys*,  i$avepi4$ri  ev  ffapxt,  1  John,  iv. 
2;  1  Tim.  iii.  15,  16;  0dp|  syeveto  John,  i.  14; 
ffrte'pjtta  AavtS  xata  odpxa,  Rom.  ix.  5 ;  i.  3,  4 ; 
and  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  Vide  Doderlein,  in  Repert. 
ii.  s.  1.  f. 

(3)  The  term  rta^or'a  is  applied   to  the 
state  of  humiliation,   1    Pet.   i.  11;    and  the 
phrase  at  ueta  tavfa   5o|at  to  the  opposite 
state.     For,  in  fact,  the  sufferings  and  calami- 
ties of  Christ  were  by  no  means  confined  to  the 
last    period    of   his  life,   but  were    extended 
through  the  whole  of  his  state  of  humiliation. 
Cf.  Luke,  xxiv.  26,  where  rta&iv  stands  con- 
trasted with  flash&tv  nj  T^V  6o|av.   The  phrase 
8o|a  xal  ftpy  is  used  in  the  same  way  in  Heb. 
ii.  9  (Ps.  viii.),  and  Sotac&jpcu  very  frequently 
in  John,  as  in  chap.  xvii. 

(4)  The  words  t£teiu$rtva,c  and  -r^uocns  are 
applied  to  the  state  of  exaltation,  Heb.  ii.  10  ; 
v.  9.     The  phrase,  8ia  jto&jiM'tav  (r^teiwcraO* 
added  in  Heb.  ii.  10,  signifies  AFTER  the  suffer- 
ings endured.    These  words  are  literally  used 
to  denote  the  reward  of  victors  in  mock  con- 
tests, when  they  receive  the  prize  (|3paj3£toi>) ; 
in  which  sense  Philo  uses  them.     Cf.  xii.  23. 

II.  Most  important  proof-texts. 

These  are,  on  the  general  subject,  1  Pet.  i. 
1 1 ;  Heb.  i.  3,  4 ;  v.  7—9 ;  xii.  2,  3,  seq.  The 
first  of  these  has  been  already  explained,  No.  I. ; 
the  second  will  be  when  we  come  to  speak  de 
statu  exaltationis.  But  the  two  passages,  Phil, 
ii.  6 — 11;  and  Heb.  ii.  9 — 11,  may  be  consi- 
dered as  the  most  full.  A  brief  explanation  of 
these  two  passages  is  here  subjoined. 

(1)  Phil.  ii.  6,  seq.  Paul  exhorts  Chris- 
tians to  imitate,  in  respect  to  their  feeling  to- 
wards others,  the  example  of  Jesus,  who  re- 
nounced and  sacrificed  all  his  own  advantages 
for  their  good.  The  passage  relates  to  Jesus, 
considered  as  the  Messiah.  Mop^j?  ®eov  stands 
in  opposition  to  p-opfyq  Sovhov,  ver.  7,  and  so  de- 
notes divine  authority  and  majesty.  Mop^  is 
the  same  as  cr^^a,  ver.  7.  The  same  senti- 
ment is  expressed  more  strongly  by  the  phrase 
flvcu  loo,  ©£9 — equal  to  God,  the  image  of  God. 
Homer  applies  the  epithets  OsosixsKos,  avffesos — 
divine,  equal  to  God,  to  Ulysses  and  Achilles. 
The  antithesis  is  o^ouo^ua  cU^pwTtcov,  ver.  7, 
which  signifies,  not  merely  similar  to,  but  the 
same  as,  men.  ("  He  that  sees  me,  sees  the 
Father,"  John,  xiv.  9.)  Christ  is  the  image 
of  God  upon  earth,  Col.  i.  15  ;  Heb.  i.  3. 

Ov%  aprtayfjibv  rjyriso^o' — i.  e.,  he  did  not  wear 
his  divinity  for  the  sake  of  ostentation,  nor  did 
he  make  vain  a  display  of  it;  the  antithesis  of 
which  is  in  ver.  3*  'Exsvuaw  fawtov,  ver.  7,  is 
synonymous  with  ttarttivuxifv  tavtov,  ver.  8. 
oj  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  p^n ;  and  p11"} 


is  rendered  poor,  needy,  in  the  LXX.,  and  in 
Luke,  i.  54,  where  xevov$  and  rOjovtovvto.s  are 
contrasted.  This  phrase,  then,  is  synonymous 
with  the  one  used  in  2  Cor.  viii.  9,  fatuzsvoe 
8c  -i^aj,  se  insum  demisit  ad  statum  tenuem — he 
let  himself  down,  he  freely  sacrificed  the  riches, 
privileges,  and  all  the  divine  majesty  and  glory, 
which  he  might  still  have  possessed. 

'Ei/  o{ioi<*>[Aa*'tt,  dv^-pcorftov  ysvojufvoj,  after  he  ap- 
peared as  man,  he  assumed  the  form  of  a  ser- 
vant. Indeed,  (ver.  8,)  he  went  so  far  in  his 
obedience  to  the  divine  will,  that  from  love  to 
his  Father,  and  to  us  his  brethren,  he  submitted 
to  death,  and  even  to  a  disgraceful  crucifixion. 

"Therefore"  (in  reward  for  his  sacrifice  and 
obedience)  "has  God  highly  exalted  him,"  (this 
is  explained  by  what  follows,)  "and  raised  him 
to  supreme  dignity,"  (ovcyta,  Heb.  i.  4.)  The 
reference  is  to  the  name  Lord,  ver.  11,  which 
denotes  his  dominion  over  everything  in  his  state 
of  exaltation;  according  to  ver.  10,  11 ;  Heb.  i. 
4.  "That  before  Jesus,"  (or  at  the  name  of 
Jesus,  the  name  Krptoj — audito  nomine  Jesu — i. 
e.,  before  Jesus  as  their  Lord,)  "  the  inhabitants 
of  heaven,  earth,  and  the  under-world,  should 
bow  the  knee" — i.  e.,  universal  reverence  and 
adoration  should  be  rendered  to  him,  (as  to 
kings,  Is.  xlv.  23;)  "and  that  all,  with  one 
mouth,  should  confess  that  Jesus,  the  Christ,  is 
Lord,  (Kvptov,)  or  universal  ruler,  (ver.  10.) 
Etj  86%av  ®£ov  nat-pdj.  "  this  contributes  to  the 
honour  and  glorification  of  the  Father,"  John, 
xvii.  4,  6.  Whoever  does  this,  honours  the 
Father;  for  it  is  his  will  that  all  should  honour 
the  Son;  John,  v.  23;  inasmuch  as  Christ, 
even  now,  since  his  return  to  God,  provides  for 
the  extension  of  the  kingdom  of  God  upon 
earth,  and  promotes  morality  and  happiness. 

(2)  Heb.  ii.  9 — 11.  Paul  shews  that  man,  at 
some  future  time,  will  pass  into  a  happy  life,  and 
into  a  perfect  condition,  although,  while  upon 
earth,  he  is  imperfect  and  mortal.  This  he  illus- 
trates from  the  example  of  Christ,  who  in  this  is 
similar  to  us. 

"We  see  that  Jesus,  who  [like  other  men] 
was  inferior  in  dignity  to  the  angels,  (vide 
Psalm  viii.  5,)  was  crowned  with  glory  and 
honour,  after  he  had  endured  sufferings."  (He 
was  thus  depressed,  in  order  to  suffer  death  for 
the  good  of  us  all,  according  to  the  gracious 
purpose  of  God.)  "For  it  became  God,  from 
whom  all  things  proceed,  and  to  whose  glory 
everything  contributes — it  became  him  (i.  e.,  no- 
thing else  could  be  expected  from  his  justice 
and  goodness)  to  bestow  upon  Jesus  the  highest 
blessedness,  after  he  had  endured  sufferings,  and 
had  led  so  many  children  (worshippers  of  God) 
to  glory,  (the  enjoyment  of  eternal  blessedness ;) 
and  had  thus  become  the  author  of  their  salvation, 
(dp^yoj  tfwTjfpt'as.)  For  he  that  sanctifies  (6 
i£wv,  Jesus)  and  they  who  art  sanctified  (ayia- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION,       333 


gn 
26. 


are  of  ONE  race,  (or  common  human  ori- 
| svo$  sc.  Tta-r'poj  sive  ai'^aroj,  Acts,  xvii. 
He  is  man,  as  well  as  we.)  Hence  he  is 
not  ashamed  to  call  us  brethren,  (relatives.)" 
Here  we  see  clearly  on  what  analogy  the  apostle 
argues. 

III.  Results  from  these  and  other  texts,-  and  general 
observations  on  the  doctrine  of  the  conditions  of 
Christ. 

(1)  The  states  of  humiliation  and  exaltation 
concern  the  human  nature  only,  and  not  the  di- 
vine nature  of  Christ.   These  texts  refer  only  to 
the  man  Jesus,  or  to  Christ  as  man.   For  as  God 
he  is  always  the  same,  (o  avi'oj,)  and  can  nei- 
ther be  humbled  nor  exalted.     But  the  ancient 
writers   frequently  express  themselves  incau- 
tiously and  loosely  upon  this  subject.     Origen 
says,  "the  divine  nature  let  itself  down  from  its 
majesty,  and   became  man."     De   prin.  ii.  6. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa  says,  "  XE  v  ovi'at  ^  ^eof^s  Iva 
^wp^T'jJ  yevjfT'a*  ty  dv^-pwrttV^  <J>i;(j£c.."     Such  lan- 
guage, indeed,  admits  of  explanation,  and  was 
understood  by  them  in  a  right  sense;  but  it  is 
hard  and  inconvenient,  and  not  according  to  the 
example  of  the  holy  scriptures. 

(2)  Two  things,  as  we  may  learn  from  these 
passages,   are  implied   in  the  humiliation  of 
Christ,     (a)  The  abdication,  surrender,  or  re- 
nunciation which  he  made,  for  the  good  of  man, 
of  the  exalted  privileges  which  he  could  have 
enjoyed,  (carentia  sive  abdicatio  usus  majestatis 
suse.)     This  is  commonly  called  jelvwtfij,  from 
Phil,  ii.,  £x£vo)d£v  tavtov,  which  Luther  renders, 
"jEr  ausserte,  or  ent-dusserte  sich  selbst."     The 
idea,  however,  is  founded  rather  upon  the  whole 
subject  of  this  passage  and  of  other  passages, 
such  as  2  Cor.  viii.  9,  than  on  this  particular 
word.     It  is  also  implied  in  the  idea  of  his  ele- 
vation; for  he  then  entered  upon  the  possession 
and  enjoyment  of  all  his  rights  and  privileges. 
(6)  His  submission  to  great  misery  and  to  many 
sufferings.     Although  innocent  himself,  as  the 
Bible  represents  him,  yet  for  our  good  he  freely 
submitted  to  all  that  distress  and  wretchedness 
which  are  the  inevitable  consequences  of  our 
sins.     Vide  Phil.  ii.  and  the  other  texts  cited. 

Note  1.  —  Theologians  have  disputed  whether 
Christ  laid  aside  the  use  of  his  divine  attributes, 
or  continued  in  the  actual  possession  of  them, 
only  veiling  them  from  the  eyes  of  men.  There 
were  various  opinions  upon  this  subject  in  the 
Lutheran  church,  even  as  early  as  the  sixteenth 
century.  But  in  161  6,  a  controversy  commenced 
between  the  theologians  of  Giessen  and  Tubin- 
gen, and  other  theologians  of  Wiirtemberg. 
Those  of  Giessen  maintained  that  Christ  fre- 
quently renounced  the  use  of  his  divine  attri- 
butes, and  alleged  the  word  exsvutit.  But  the 
theologians  of  Tubingen  maintained  that  the 
*T?rcfi$  idiomatum  divinorum  existed  in  Christ 


even  in  statu  exanitionis,  although  he  never 
used  them  ;  so  that  it  was  a  mere  xpt'4-tj.  This 
controversy  was  in  a  good  measure  logomachy. 
The  theologians  of  Saxony  rather  favoured  the 
views  of  the  theologians  of  Giessen  than  of  Tu- 
bingen. So  much,  however,  is  certain,  that  if 
the  person  of  Christ,  even  during  his  life  upon 
earth,  was  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God,  (as  he 
himself  clearly  affirms,)  it  was  possible  for  him 
to  exercise  his  divine  attributes.  But,  on  ac- 
count of  the  work  which  he  had  to  perform  upon 
earth,  he  forbore  the  full  use  of  them  ;  which  is 
just  what  the  theologians  of  Tubingen  would 
say.  Vide  the  works  cited  by  Morus,  p.  173, 
n.  3.  Cf.  p.  192,  n.  3.  [Cf.  Hahn,  Lehrbuch, 
s.  470.—  -TR.] 

Note  2.  —  Theologians  generally  allow  some 
use  of  these  attributes  on  different  occasions. 
Others  object  that  this  is  not  consistent  with 
the  constant  humiliation  of  Christ  while  upon 
the  earth,  and  is  not  clearly  supported  by  the 
New  Testament.  He  himself  frequently  says, 
especially  in  the  gospel  of  John,  that  he  per- 
formed the  miracles  which  he  wrought  as  man 
through  a  miraculous  divine  power,  and  as  the 
messenger  of  the  Father.  The  case  was  the 
same  as  to  his  instruction.  Neither  Jesus  him- 
self, nor  the  apostles,  ever  alluded  to  his  proper 
divinity  in  such  a  way  as  to  imply  that  it  qua- 
lified him,  as  a  man  upon  earth,  to  instruct  and 
work  miracles.  He  had  resigned  his  divine 
prerogatives,  and  his  qualifications  are  always 
considered  as  derived  from  the  Father.  Vide 
s.  102.  But  this  free  renunciation  of  the  privi- 
leges which  belonged  to  him  as  God  did  not 
exclude  the  use  of  them  when  occasion  should 
require.  Christ  himself  said  that  he  performed 
his  work  in  common  with  his  Father,  John,  v. 
17,  seq.,  and  chap,  x.;  he  that  saw  him,  saw 
the  Father,  John,  xiv.  9;  his  glory,  which  the 
apostles  had  seen,  was  a  glory  which  belonged 
exclusively  to  the  only  begotten  Son  ;  John,  i.  14. 

(3)  Although  Jesus  lived  upon  earth  in  humi- 
liation and  indigence,  his  whole  life  upon  earth 
cannot  be  called,  as  it  is  by  many,  a  state  of  hu- 
miliation. The  passage,  Phil,  ii.,  is  often  ap- 
pealed to  in  behalf  of  this  opinion.  But  Paul 
evident!)'  mentions  the  •fcwtetviooris,  sewooij,  and 
/uop<j>j7  oovhov,  (ii.  8,  9,)  as  constituting  only  a 
part  of  this  life.  The  incarnation  is  never  men- 
tioned in  scripture  as  belonging  to  the  state  of 
humiliation.  It  is  so  considered,  however,  by 
many  of  the  ecclesiastical  fathers;  as  Origen, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa;  and  by  many  of  the  Latins, 
as  Leo  the  Great,  in  his  epistles.  They  are  con- 
sequently compelled  to  assert  that  God,  or  the 
divine  nature  of  Christ,  lowered  itself  by  be- 
coming man.  Neither  are  the  forty  days  which 
Christ  lived  upon  earth  after  the  resurrection  to 
be  enumerated  among  the  days  of  his  humilia- 


tion, 


crapxoj.) 


334 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


(4)  The  state  of  humiliation  is  commonly  di- 
vided into  five  gradus,  degrees,  periods ;  and  the 
state  of  exaltation  into  the  same  number.  Some, 
however,  suppose  more,  and  others  fewer.  The 
common  division  and  arrangement  is  taken  from 
the  so-named  apostolical  creed.  But  the  object 
of  this  creed  was  not  to  make  a  systematic  and 
logical  division,  and  to  determine  the  limits  of 
the  two  conditions ;  but  to  oppose  certain  doc- 
trines condemned  by  the  orthodox  church  as  er- 
roneous. The  conception  is  made  to  stand  first; 
but  this  does  not  belong  to  the  state  of  humilia- 
tion, because  the  divine  nature  cannot  be  lower- 
ed ;  nor  could  the  human  nature  before  it  existed. 
[Vide  Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  471.— TR.] 

We  proceed  now  to  treat  of  Christ  considered 
as  man,  or  of  the  man  Jesus,  in  the  state  of  his 
humiliation  upon  earth,  s.  93 — 96 ;  and  then  in 
the  state  of  his  exaltation  and  glory,  s.  97 — 99, 
inclusive. 

SECTION  XCIII. 

OF  THE  ORIGIN,  CONCEPTION,  BIRTH,  AND  YOUTH 
OF  JESUS  ;  HIS  TRUE  HUMANITY,  AND  THE  EX- 
CELLENCES OF  IT. 

JESUS  was  the  son  of  Mary,  conceived  by  her 
in  a  miraculous  manner  (5ta  jtvtvpa-tos  dytov,) 
(Matt.  i.  18;  Luke,  i.  35;)  of  the  posterity  of 
Abraham  (Rom.  ix.  5;)  and  the  royal  line  of 
David.  The  register  of  his  descent  is  inserted 
both  in  Matt.  i.  1,  seq.  and  in  Luke,  iii.  23,  seq. 
They  both  agree  in  making  him  the  descendant 
of  David,  however  they  may  apparently  differ  in 
tracing  his  descent.  Ancient  writers  did  not 
agree  upon  the  method  of  reconciling  the  two 
tables.  The  most  correct  solution  is  this :  that 
Matthew  gives  the  genealogy  of  Joseph,  of 
whom  Jesus  was  the  adopted  son;  and  Luke 
that  of  Mary.  Both  descended  from  David; 
Joseph  through  Solomon,  and  Mary  through 
Nathan,  who  also  was  David's  son.  Jesus  was 
born  in  the  reign  of  Augustus,  (Luke,  ii.  1 ;) 
probably  earlier  by  some  four  or  five  years  than 
the  common  Dionysian  mode  of  reckoning, 
which  we  follow  ;  accordingly,  in  the  thirtieth 
year  of  the  reign  of  Augustus,  749  (according  to 
Dionysius,  754)  from  the  building  of  Rome. 
We  subjoin  the  following  doctrinal  observa- 
tions : — 

I.  Miraculous  Conception  of  Christ. 

The  scriptural  view  of  the  events  of  the  world 
is  altogether  different  and  higher  than  the  com- 
mon view.  The  Bible  derives  everything  which 
takes  place  in  the  material  world  directly  from 
the  will  and  agency  of  the  Supreme  Being,  and 
refers  everything  back  to  him.  But  it  teaches 
at  the  same  time,  in  what  way,  by  what  means 
and  appointments,  God  arranges  and  accom- 
plishes all  things  which  take  place  around  us. 
With  regard  to  all  important  events  especially, 


we  are  taught,  by  scriptural  principles,  that  they 
have  their  deeper  origin  in  the  invisible  world, 
and  that  the  way  is  prepared  for  them  by  God, 
and  that  they  are  finally  brought  forward  into 
maturity  and  accomplishment  chiefly  through 
the  ministry  of  superior  spirits.  Such,  then,  for 
a  higher  reason,  was  the  fact  respecting  that 
most  important  of  all  events,  the  appearance  of 
the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  of  his  precursor.  It 
was  required,  not  only  by  the  Jewish  nation,  but 
by  the  whole  ancient  world,  that  great  and  ex- 
traordinary persons,  employed  by  God  as  instru- 
ments for  the  accomplishment  of  his  designs, 
should  receive  some  extraordinary  and  miracu- 
lous attestation  of  their  mission,  and  proofs  of 
their  authority.  Such  attestation  was  expected 
at  and  before  their  birth,  during  their  life,  and  at 
and  after  their  death.  Vide  Wetstein  on  Matt. 
i.  20.  Now  though  God  is  represented  in  the 
Bible  as  a  being  high  and  exalted  over  all,  he  is 
still  described  as  willingly  complying  with  the 
necessities  of  men,  as  condescending  to  them, 
and  in  his  intercourse  with  men  acting  after  the 
manner  of  men;  especially  whenever  by  so  do- 
ing he  can  attain  his  great  objects,  their  sancti- 
fication  and  salvation.  Accordingly,  those  ex- 
traordinary men  by  whom  God  intended  to  pro 
mote  these  objects  received  his  seal  to  their  tes- 
timony in  that  extraordinary  manner  which  was 
calculated  to  convince  mankind,  and  to  satisfy 
their  expectations.  In  this  manner,  the  Bible 
informs  us,  was  the  testimony  of  Moses  and  all 
the  prophets  down  to  John,  of  Jesus  also  and  his 
apostles,  confirmed  by  God. 

It  deserves  to  be  mentioned  in  this  connexion 
that  the  Jews  called  the  Messiah  the  second 
Mam,  (as  Paul  did,)  arid  that  they  imagined  he 
would  be  born  as  guiltless  and  pure  as  Adam 
was  when  he  first  came  from  the  hands  of  God, 
and  was  therefore  called  tov  ®fov,  (Tloj,)  Luke, 
iii.  38.  In  common  generation,  as  scripture 
and  experience  teach  us,  the  depravity  of  man 
is  propagated.  But  Christ  is  described  in  the 
New  Testament  as  similar  indeed  to  us,  but 
without  sin. 

Hvsvpa  aytov,  (Luke,  i.  35,)  signifies  miracu- 
lous divine  power,  and  is  synonymous  with  Svva- 
5/wj  v^6tov.  Vide  Acts,  i.  5,  8.  Every  extra- 
ordinary and  supernatural  event  takes  place 
through  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
the  performing  of  all  miracles  is  referred  to  him. 
The  phrases,  to  come  upon  one  (ertftavete-r'ai), 
and,  overshadow  one  (trtujxtaoft)  amount  to  the 
same  thing:  "thou  shall  experience  a  miracu- 
lous divine  power  exerted  upon  thee;  thou  shalt 
become  pregnant  by  this  divine  miraculous 
power,  in  an  extraordinary  way."  In  Matt.  i. 
20,  it  is  briefly  said,  "  that  which  is  born  of  her 

Hi'tvfKrtbs  ttrttv  aytou." 

The  phrase,  conceived  from  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  occurs  in  the  ancient  creeds,  (e.  g.,  in 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       335 


the  apostolic  creed,)  is  derived  from  this  pas- 
sage (Matt.  i.  20.)  (This  phrase  was  intro- 
duced as  antithetic  to  the  declarations  of  such 
as  considered  Jesus  to  be  a  natural  son  of  Jo- 
seph and  Mary.  For  he  was  so  considered  by 
many  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ,  (cf. 
Luke,  iii.  23,)  and  by  some  Christian  sects,  as 
the  Ebionites.  Vide  Iren.  Haeres.  v.,  c.  i.  This 
same  opinion  has  been  advocated  lately  in  a 
work  entitled  "  Versuch  eines  schriftmiissigen 
Beweises,  dass  Joseph  der  wahre  Vater  Christi 
sey;"  Berlin  and  Stralsund,  1792,  8vo.  The 
author  of  this  work  does  palpable  violence  to 
the  sacred  writers,  and  has  not  considered  this 
narrative  in  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  which  it  was 
written.  His  explanation  goes  upon  the  sup- 
position that  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew 
are  spurious,  and  that  Luke,  in  his  narratives, 
followed  a  report  which  had  circulated  only 
among  a  few  Christians  respecting  the  concep- 
tion of  Christ.)  From  the  New  Testament  it 
is  certain  that  before  the  conception  of  Jesus 
Mary  was  a  virgin.  Cf.  Matt.  i.  23,  and  Luke, 
i.  The  extraordinary  manner  of  her  conception 
has  led  many  to  say  that  the  name  of  ytap^'voj 
belongs  to  her,  even  since  the  birth  of  Christ. 
This  name,  however,  is  not  given  to  her  in  the 
New  Testament  after  this  event;  on  the  con- 
trary, Christ  is  said  to  be  ytvopsvov  fx  yuvaweoj, 
Gal.  iv.  4.  When  the  monastic  life  became 
popular,  and  the  unmarried  state  was  regarded 
as  the  most  holy  and  pleasing  to  God,  the  opi- 
nion prevailed,  that  after  the  birth  of  Christ, 
Mary  lived,  even  in  the  married  state,  in  entire 
continence,  like  a  nun,  and  had  no  children  by 
Joseph.  Hence  she  was  called  cUirtap^'i/oj.  In 
the  fourth  century  this  opinion  was  almost  uni- 
versal ;  and  Epiphanius  and  Hieronymus  pro- 
nounced Apollinaris,  Helvidius,  Jovinian,  and 
others,  who  disputed  it,  to  be  heretics.  But 
Basilius  the  Great  considered  it  as  a  question 
of  minor  importance. 

II.  True  Humanity  of  Christ. 

From  the  New  Testament  it  is  evident  that 
Christ  was  a  real  man,  both  as  to  body  and  soul. 
He  had  feelings,  senses,  and  organs  of  sense,  as 
we  have.  He  hungered,  thirsted,  shed  his 
blood,  and  died.  He  exhibits,  too,  all  the  pro- 
perties of  the  soul.  He  attained  gradually  to 
the  knowledge  and  understanding  which  he 
possessed  as  a  man ;  Luke,  ii.  52.  He  displayed 
human  feelings,  joy,  sorrow,  indignation,  &c. ; 
Luke,  xxii.  42,  44;  xxiii.  46.  Paul  calls  him 
expressly,  ai^pcorto?  Xpttfr'os  'Iqeovs,  1  Tim.  ii.  5. 
Men  are  called  his  brethren,  Heb.  ii.  11 — 14. 
He  frequently  calls  himself,  6  vloj  tov  ow^pwrtou ; 
the  more  proper  meaning  of  which  phrase  is,  the 
son  of  Adam,  the  great  son  of  Adam,  6  Ssvttpos 
'ASa^,  as  Paul  says.  But  in  whatever  way  this 
phrase  is  understood,  it  clearly  denotes  the  true 


humanity  of  Christ.  The  phrases,  he  came  or 
appeafed  in  the  flesh,  he  became  jlesh,  denote  the 
same  thing;  John,  i.  14;  1  John,  iv.  3;  Rom. 
viii.  4,  seq. 

But  certain  popular  prejudices  and  incorrect 
philosophical  principles  led  some  to  doubt,  and 
others  to  deny,  this  clear  truth.  Hence  the  true 
humanity  of  Christ  was  expressly  mentioned  in 
the  ancient  creeds. 

(1)  Some  taught  that  Christ  did  not  possess 
a  true  human  body,  but  only  a  bodily  phantom 
and  shade ;  that  he  appeared  iv  Soxrfifi  or  tyav- 
'tdop.o.'ti,  for  such  aerial  bodies  were  then  as- 
cribed to  departed  spirits,  and  even  to  divini- 
ties.    These  were  the   persons  who   believed 
that  matter  was  the  origin  of  all  evil,  and  did 
not  proceed  from  God,  but  from  an  evil  and  ma- 
licious being.     Hence,  according  to  their  view, 
the  pure  divine  spirit  of  Christ,  one  of  the  high- 
est aeons,  could  not  have  dwelt  in  a  material 
body.     Those  who  held  these   opinions  were 
called  Docetae  and  Phantasiasts ;  they  comprised 
most  of  the  Gnostics,  as  Marcion  and  others ; 
also  the  Manicheans  and  their  followers. 

(2)  After  the  fourth  century,  others  denied 
the  existence  of  the  human  soul  of  Christ,  be- 
lieving that  it  was  unnecessary,  inasmuch  as 
the  Logos  supplied  its  place.     We  find,  indeed, 
that  the  oldest  fathers  had  no  particular  and  dis- 
tinct conception  of  the  human  soul  of  Christ. 
They  did  not  deny  its  existence,  but  they  made 
no  distinct  and  express  mention  of  it  in  their 
writings,   presupposing    it    as    understood    of 
course.    Origen,  in  the  third  century,  taught,  for 
the  first  time,  the  exact  doctrine  of  the  human 
soul  of  Christ,  and  shewed  its  importance.     It 
was  a  considerable  time,  however,  before  this 
doctrine  was  introduced  into  theology  as  a  spe- 
cific article.  It  did  not  become  universal  among 
the  catholics  until  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  when  Apollinaris  the  younger  appear- 
ed, and  boldly  denied  that  Christ  had  a  human 
soul.     Afterwards  he  determined  more  exactly 
that  Christ  indeed  possessed  the  $v%rjy,  (animal 
soul,)  which  was  the  organ  by  which  the  Logos 
operated  upon  the  human  body  of  Jesus;  but 
that  he  was  destitute  of  the  Ttvtv^o,  rovj,  (the 
rational  soul,)  the  place  of  which  was  supplied 
by  the  Logos.     Attention  was  now  excited,  for 
the  first  time,  to  this  doctrine ;  it  was  introduced 
into  the  Christian  creed;  scriptural  refutation 
of  the  error  of  Apollinaris  was  sought;  decrees 
of  councils  were  made,  and  laws  were  enacted 
against  it.     [Vide  Hahn,  Lehrb.  s.  95,  s.  456. 
Neander,  Kirchengesch.  b.  i.  Abth.  iii.  s.  1060, 
ff.,  and  b.  ii.  Abth.  ii.  s.  904;  Abth.  iii.  s. 
1170.— TR.] 

III.  Excellences  of  the  Humanity  of  Jesus. 

A.  In  respect  to  his  body. 

(1)  The  beauty  of  his  appearance.     Many  of 


)3G 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


the  fathers  imagined  him  to  be  the  ideal  of  man- 
ly beauty ;  and  the  painters  of  succeeding  ages 
have  endeavoured  to  express  this  in  their  pic- 
tures of  him.  The  New  Testament  itself  gives 
us  no  means  of  determining  either  for  or  against 
such  a  supposition.  Only  we  must  be  careful, 
if  we  adopt  this  opinion,  not  to  consider  it  es- 
sential, and  must  remember  the  declaration  of 
Christ,  %  crap!  otix  w^f^-fc  ovSsv,  John,  vi.  63 ; 
and  what  Paul  says,  that  yivuaxE iv  Xpuj-r'ov  xata 
edpxa  is  not  the  thing  required;  2  Cor.  v.  16. 
Vide  Carpzov,  Progr.  "  de  forma  oris  et  corpo- 
ris  Christi;"  Helmstadt,  1777. 

(2)  The  immortality  of  his  body.  We  reason 
thus  : — Immortality  belonged  to  Christ  because 
he  was  without  sin,  for  death  is  the  consequence 
of  sin ;  Rom.  vi.  23.  He  was  not  subjected  to 
the  necessity  of  dying,  although  he  actually 
died,  in  obedience  to  God,  and  from  love  to  us, 
and  for  our  advantage.  This  took  place,  how- 
ever, not  against  his  will,  but  with  his  consent, 
John,  x.  18.  Hence  Paul  mentions  it  as  the 
express  design  of  the  incarnation  of  Jesus,  that 
he  might  suffer  death. 

B.  In  respect  to  his  soul.   Among  these  are — 

(1)  His  extraordinary  human  understanding, 
sagacity,  and  knowledge.     His  whole  history 
proves,  that  even  as  a  man  he  was  not  of  the 
common  and  ordinary  class,  but  one  of  those 
great  and  extraordinary  persons  of  whom  the 
world  has  seen  but  few.     But  he  was  like  other 
men  in  this  respect,  that  his  talents  and  intel- 
lectual faculties  did  not  unfold  themselves  at 
once,  but  gradually,  and  were  capable  of  pro- 
gressive improvement.      Hence  Luke  records 
(ii.  52),  that  he  ttpoixorttt  aofyiq.     Hence,  too, 
he  learned  and  practised  obedience  to  the  divine 
command,  and  submission  to  the  divine  will, 
Heb.  v.  8  ;  he  prepared  himself  for  his  office,  &c. 

(2)  His  perfect  moral  purity,  and  the  blame- 
lessness  of  his  life.     Theologians  call  this,  the 
sinlessness  (di/ap^ar^/a)  of  Jesus.     The  great- 
est honesty,  virtue,  and  piety  shone  forth  in  all 
the  doctrines  and  discourses,  in  the  whole  life 
and  conduct,  of  Jesus.    Hence  most  of  the  ene- 
mies of  Christianity  admit  this  excellence  of  the 
moral  doctrine  and  of  the  person  of  Christ,  and 
consider  him  as  an  example  of  piety  and  virtue. 
Cf.  Hess,  Geschichte  der  drey  letzten  Lebens- 
jahre  Jesu.     [Also  the  remarkable  passage  in 
Rousseau's  Conf.  du  Vic.  Sav.  in  his  Emilius.] 
The  most  important  passages  which  treat  of  the 
sinlessness  of  Jesus  are,  2  Cor.  v.  21,  ^  yvovta 
apafrtltto — i.  e.,peccaii  expertem  esse  (Is.  lix.  8)  ; 
1  John,  iii.  3,  5,  ayvo$  la-ci,  and  a/jLaptia  ovx  fVr't 
Iv  avz'Q.     Heb.  iv.  15,  "He  was  like  us,  but 
#wpt$  a^apT't'aj'   1  Pet.  i.  19,  a^ivov  djituyiov  xai 
dcTTKOoy.     The  texts  also  in  which  it  is  said  that 
he  was  obedient  to  the  will  and  command  of 
God  belong  in  this  connexion;  as  Heb.  v.  8, 


(which  is  called  obedientiam  activam,)  and 
many  passages  in  John. 

Jesus  being  free  from  sin,  was  free  from  the 
punishment  of  sin,  and  from  all  that  evil  which 
men  bring  upon  themselves  by  their  own  sins. 
He  suffered  what  he  did  suffer,  undeservedly 
and  voluntarily.  Vide  Heb.  vii.  27;  1  Pet.  i. 
19.  The  sinlessness  of  Jesus  is  to  be  regarded 
as  a  consequence  of  the  fact  that  he  was  born 
without  moral  pollution.  Cf.  s.  92. 

But  this  subject  is  frequently  represented  as 
if  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  man 
Jesus  to  sin;  and  as  if  his  virtue  and  holiness 
were  absolutely  necessary.  Cf.  Baumgarten, 
Diss.  de  drap^a-r^wx  Christi;  Halle,  1753. 
But, 

(a)  The  scripture  nowhere  teaches  that  the 
possibility  of  sinning  would  have  ceased  in 
Adam  and  his  posterity  if  Adam  had  not  fallen. 
The  possibility  of  erring  and  transgressing 
would  belong  to  man,  even  if  he  had  no  natural 
depravity.  Otherwise  Adam  could  not  have 
fallen;  for  before  the  fall  he  was  without  origi- 
nal sin.  The  case  must  have  been  the  same, 
therefore,  with  the  man  Jesus,  although  he  was 
without  natural  depravity.  Vide  s.  80,  II.  2. 

(6)  If  it  should  be  impossible  for  a  man  to  live 
otherwise  than  virtuously,  or  if  his  virtue  should 
be  necessary,  it  would  have  no  value  and  no 
merit.  All  freedom,  in  that  case,  would  vanish, 
and  man  would  become  a  mere  machine;  ac- 
cording to  the  remarks  made  in  the  place  just 
referred  to.  The  virtue  of  Christ,  then,  in  re- 
sisting stedfaslly  all  the  temptations  to  sin,  ac- 
quires a  real  value  and  merit  only  on  admission 
that  he  could  have  sinned.  It  was  in  this  sense, 
doubtless,  that  Scotus  made  that  affirmation 
which  was  alleged  against  him,  humanam  na- 
turam  Christi  nonfuisse  avap.d^Tfov. 

(c)  This  opinion  is,  in  fact,  scriptural.  For 
(a)  we  are  frequently  exhorted  to  imitate  the 
example  of  Jesus,  in  his  virtue,  his  conquest  of 
sinful  desires,  &c.  But  how  could  this  be  done 
if  he  had  none  of  those  inducements  to  sin  which 
we  have,  and  if  it  had  been  impossible  for  him 
to  commit  it.  (j3)  Improvement  in  knowledge 
and  in  perfections  of  every  kind  is  ascribed  in 
scripture  to  Christ;  and  Paul  says,  "that 
through  sufferings  he  constantly  improved  in 
obedience  (t/io&fv  vrtaxo^v),"  Heb.  v.  8.  (y) 
We  read  expressly,  that  Christ  was  tried — i.  e., 
tempted  to  sin;  but  that  he  overcame  the  temp- 
tation, Matt.  iv.  1,  seq.  This  temptation  took 
place  shortly  before  his  entrance  upon  his  public 
office,  and  tended  to  prepare  him  for  it.  It  was 
intended  to  exercise  and  confirm  him  in  virtue, 
and  in  obedience  to  God.  But  what  object 
could  there  have  been  in  this  temptation,  if  it 
had  been  impossible  for  Jesus  to  yield  to  it? 
And  what  merit  would  there  have  been  in  his 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       337 


resistance  1  No  difference  is  made  in  the  thing 
itself,  and  in  its  consequences,  by  considering 
it,  with  Farmer  and  others,  as  a  vision  and  pa- 
rable, and  not  as  a  real  occurrence.  If  it  was 
impossible  that  Christ,  as  a  man,  should  sin,  it 
would  be  hard  to  find  what  the  Bible  means 
when  it  speaks  of  his  being  tempted,  and  com- 
mends him  for  overcoming  temptation. 

IV.  Early  History  of  Jesus. 

As  the  gospels  contain  but  little  important  in- 
formation respecting  the  events  of  the  childhood 
of  Christ,  the  apostles  themselves  could  not  have 
been  acquainted  with  many  credible  circum- 
stances relating  to  it.  The  apocryphal  gospels 
contain  a  multitude  of  stories  and  fables  upon 
this  subject,  especially  the  gospel  "infantiae 
Christi."  Vide  Fabricii  Codex  apocr.  N.  T., 
T.  I.  It  cannot  be  proved,  that  Jesus  performed 
miracles  before  his  entrance  on  his  public  office, 
to  which  he  was  consecrated  by  John  the  Bap- 
tist. The  supposition  is,  in  fact,  contradictory 
to  the  clear  declaration  of  John,  who  calls  the 
miracle  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  olp^v  aqft*itMft  ii.  11. 

Joseph  was  a  mechanic.  Hence  Jesus  is 
called  6  tix-tovo$  utoj,  Matt.  xiii.  55.  All  the 
ancient  stories  agree  that  he  followed  the  em- 
ployment of  his  father,  which  is  very  probable, 
since  he  himself  is  called  6  isxtw,  Mark,  vi.  3. 
Besides,  it  was  not  uncommon  for  the  Jewish 
literati  to  learn  and  practise  some  handicraft. 
So  Paul  did,  Acts,  xviii.  3.  It  appears  from 
the  united  testimony  of  the  ancient  fathers  that 
Jesus  wasfaber  lignarius,  tsx-tuv  tvtoov.  Even 
in  Hebrew,  chn  denotes  a  carpenter,  by  way  of 
eminence,  2  Kings,  xxii.  6. 

But  Jesus  was  also  learned  in  the  Jewish  law 
and  all  Jewish  literature,  although  he  had  not 
studied  at  the  common  Jewish  schools,  nor  with 
the  lawyers.  Vide  John,  vii.  15,  rtwj  olio$ 
ypafiftai?  a  ol8e,  /x^  jUfju,a^xu>j.  Cf.  Matt.  xiii. 
54.  Probably  Divine  Providence  made  use,  in 
part,  of  natural  means,  in  furnishing  Jesus  with 
this  human  knowledge.  Mary  was  a  relative 
of  Elizabeth,  the  pious  mother  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, and  a  guest  at  her  house,  Luke,  i.  36,  40. 
We  may  imagine,  then,  that  Jesus  received 
good  instruction  in  his  youth  from  some  one  of 
this  pious,  sacerdotal  family.  We  see  from  the 
first  chapters  of  Luke,  that  Joseph  and  Mary 
belonged  to  a  large  circle  of  pious  male  and 
female  friends,  in  whose  profitable  society  Jesus 
passed  his  youth,  and  who  contributed  much  to 
his  education  as  a  man,  especially  as  they  ex- 
pected something  great  from  him,  from  his  very 
birth,  as  appears  from  Simeon.  Respecting  the 
early  history  of  Jesus,  vide  Casauboni  "  Exer- 
citt.  in  Annales  Baronii."  Hess,  in  the  appen- 
dix to  his  "  Geschichte  der  drey  letzten  Lebens- 
jahre  Jesu ;"  and  Heilmann,  **  Opusc."  torn.  ii. 
p.  501,  seq. 

43 


SECTION  XCIV. 

OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF   JESUS,  AND   HIS    OFFICE    AS 
TEACHER. 

THE  work  committed  to  Christ  by  God  was 
twofold  : — (a)  to  teach  by  oral  instruction  and 
example ;  (6)  to  suffer  and  die  for  the  good  of 
men.  Both  together  compose  what  is  called 
the  tpyov  of  Christ,  John,  xvii.  And  it  was  that 
he  might  execute  both  of  these  offices  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  Bible,  he  became  man.  We  treat 
here,  in  the  first  place,  of  his  office  as  teacher. 

I.  Commencement  and  continuance  of  his  office  as 
Teacher,-  also  the  names  and  importance  of  this 
office. 

(1)  Jesus  entered  upon  his  office  as  teacher, 
according  to  the  custom   of  Jewish  teachers, 
when  he  was  about  thirty  years  of  age ;  Luke, 
iii.  23.   Respecting  the  continuance  of  his  office, 
the  opinions  of  the  learned  have  differed  from, 
the  earliest  times.    The  opinions  most  wide 
from  the  truth,  are,  on  the  one  side,  that  of  Ire- 
naeus,  that  it  was  sixteen  years;  and,  on  the 
other,  that  it  was  only  one  year.     Origen  sup- 
posed, that  it  was  three  years  and  a  half,  which 
has  become  the  common  opinion,  and  is  founded 
upon  Luke,  xiii.  7,  33,  and  upon  the  computa- 
tion of  the  passover,  especially  according  to 
John.     Cf.  Morus,  p.  149,  s.  3. 

(2)  The  New  Testament  everywhere  teaches 
that  Christ,  considered  as  a  man,  was  qualified 
by  God  for  his  office  as  teacher,  by  extraordinary 
intellectual  endowments ;  like  the  prophets  of 
old,  and  his  own  apostles  in  after  times,  only  in 
a  far  higher  degree  than  they.     John,  iii.  34, 
God  gave  to  him  ovx  tx  jtaVpou  to  rtvevpa,.     The 
prophets  had  these  endowments,  but  in  a  less 
degree ;  he,  as  the  highest  messenger  of  God, 
had  them  loithout  measure.     Acts,  x.  38,  «£pi<jfv 
avtbv  o  0f6j  ftvsv/jiain,  07/9  xai  Swapst.     Jesus 
received  these  higher  gifts  of  the  Spirit  when 
John  baptized  him ;  for  he  himself  submitted  of 
his  own  accord  to  this  baptism,  by  which  the 
Jews  were  to  be  initiated  into  the  kingdom  of 
the  Messiah.     John  himself  was  convinced,  by 
a  confessedly  miraculous  occurrence  at  his  bap- 
tism, that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  heard 
a  heavenly  voice  which  expressly  declared  him 
such;  Matt.  iii.  13—17;  John,  iii.  31— 33,  coll. 
Luke,  iv.  1,  14.     Whatever,  therefore,  the  man 
Jesus  either  did  or  taught  after  his  baptism,  he 
did  and  taught  as  the  messenger  of  God — as  an 
inspired  man,  under  direct  divine  command, 
and  special  divine  assistance;  iv  rtvfvpati,  as 
the  New  Testament  expresses  it.    Vide  Morus, 
p.  149,  note. 

The  name  of  a  prophet,  (N>3J,)  which  denotes 
in  general  an  immediate  messenger,  and  author- 
ized ambassador  of  God,  (vide  s.  9,  No.  2,)  was 
given  to  Christ,  because,  as  above  remarked,  he 
2F 


338 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


taught  by  divine  inspiration,  and  proved  to  his 
contemporaries  the  truth  of  his  doctrine  and  of 
his  divine  mission  by  miracles;  John,  xiv.  10. 
The  Jews  expected  this  of  the  Messiah,  whom 
they  hence  called  soin,  6  rtpo^-r^j,  by  way  of 
eminence.  Vide  John,  vi.  14;  Matt.  xxi.  11 ; 
Luke,  xxiv.  19 ;  Acts,  iii.  22;  and  other  texts. 

Christ  commonly  called  his  office  as  teacher, 
and  indeed  his  whole  office,  f'pyov,  his  work,  bu- 
siness, (cf.  John,  xvii.  4 ;)  also  to  lypov  T'OV  rta- 
•rpoj,  (John,  iv.  34,  seq.,)  in  order  to  shew  that 
the  Father  himself  had  commissioned  him ;  ac- 
cording to  what  he  elsewhere  declares,  that  his 
doctrine  was  not  his  own,  (discovered  by  him- 
self as  a  man,)  but  revealed  and  entrusted  to 
him  (the  man  Jesus)  by  God;  John,  xii.  49; 
xiv.  10. 

The  name  autrip  (benefactor  of  men)  is  given 
to  Christ,  partly  because  he  died  for  our  good, 
and  partly  because  he  is  our  teacher  by  precept 
and  example.  Both  of  these  belong  to  the  great 
work  of  Jesus,  and  one  ought  not  to  be  separated 
from  the  other.  He  himself  says  (John,  xviii. 
37)  that  he  was  born  and  had  come  into  the 
world  to  proclaim  the  true  doctrine,  (dx^sta;) 
and  that  his  kingdom  (jSatftXsta)  was  the  king- 
dom of  truth.  But  we  owe  it  to  his  death  alone 
that  we  become  citizens  of  this  kingdom,  John, 
iii.  6.  His  death  is  always  described  as  the 
procuring  cause  of  our  salvation ;  and  our  sins 
are  not  forgiven  us  on  account  of  our  own  refor- 
mation and  holiness,  but  on  account  of  the  death 
of  Christ. 

II.  Christ1  s  method  and  manner  in  his  Ministry  ,• 
and  the  chief  contents  of  his  Doctrine. 

(1)  The  instruction  which  Christ  gave  was 
partly  public,  (John,  xviii.  20,)  and  partly  confi- 
dential, or  private.  And  accordingly  the  manner 
and  nature  of  his  discourse  were  different.  Like 
all  the  ancient  teachers,  he  had  two  classes  of 
hearers  and  disciples ;  the  exoteric,  those  who 
were  publicly  instructed,  and  the  esoteric,  the 
disciples  of  the  inner  school,  to  whom  he  gave 
private  instruction.  The  Jews  of  Palestine,  at 
the  time  of  Christ,  were  very  ignorant,  mis- 
guided, and  prejudiced.  Christ  was  therefore 
compelled  to  condescend  to  their  level,  and  was 
unable  fully  to  instruct  them  in  many  truths, 
for  which  they  had  no  relish,  and  which  they 
could  not  understand.  He  could  carry  them  no 
further  than  the  first  elements  of  his  doctrine ; 
and  had,  first  of  all,  to  endeavour  to  excite  them 
to  attention  and  inquiry.  Vide  Matt.  xiii.  11, 
seq.  Luke,  x.  1,  10,  vp.lv  (esotericis)  8s8otai 
yi/wvat  ^utff^pta  jScwttat'aj*  txsivois  (exotericis)  ov 
SsSotat.  His  disciples  were  not,  however,  to 
keep  any  secret  doctrines  (disciplina  arcam)  for 
themselves,  but  as  soon  as  their  hearers  were 
prepared  for  it,  to  give  them  still  further  instruc- 


tion, and  declare  to  them  the  whole.  Vide 
Matt.  x.  26,  27;  Luke,  viii.  17. 

But  although  the  instruction  of  Jesus  was  so 
variously  modified  as  to  manner  and  subject, 
according  to  the  wants  of  his  hearers,  his  doc- 
trine itself  was  always  the  same.  He  had  no 
twofold  scheme  of  salvation — one  for  the  refined 
and  the  noble,  the  other  for  the  mean  and  uncul- 
tivated ;  but  one  and  the  same  for  all.  "  Repent 
and  believe  the  gospel"  was  his  direction,  as  it 
was  of  John  the  Baptist.  This  was  the  great 
point  which  he  brought  to  view  in  all  his  dis- 
courses before  rich  and  poor,  enlightened  and 
ignorant.  We  do  not  find  that  Jesus  ever  with- 
held or  omitted  any  of  his  doctrines,  or  even 
proposed  them  less  frequently,  because  they 
might  be  offensive  or  unpleasant  to  his  hearers, 
or  opposed  to  their  inclinations.  On  the  contrary, 
he  exhibited  these  very  hated  truths  with  the  most 
frequency  and  urgency,  because  they  were  the 
most  important,  salutary,  and  indispensable  to 
his  hearers.  He  disregarded  their  persecution 
and  contempt.  The  doctrines  of  his  death  and  its 
consequences,  of  the  necessity  of  regeneration 
and  of  holiness,  are  examples  of  this  kind  ;  John, 
iii.,  vi.,  viii.,  x.  His  early  disciples  followed 
his  example  in  this  respect;  as  appears  from 
Acts  and  the  epistles.  And  his  disciples  in  all 
ages  are  sacredly  bound  to  do  the  same ;  and  if 
they  do  not,  they  are  unworthy  of  him. 

Moreover,  his  public  religious  instruction  was 
in  a  high  degree  intelligible,  throughout  prac- 
tical, and  adapted  to  the  necessities  of  his 
hearers.  It  was  without  fear  or  favour  of  man, 
Matt.  xxii.  1C,  46.  He  was  eloquent  and  im- 
pressive, and  skilfully  availed  himself  of  the 
present  occasion,  place,  and  circumstances; 
John,  iv.  14,  34,  seq.  The  populace,  accord- 
ingly, found  his  instructions  far  more  excellent, 
impressive,  and  sincere,  than  those  of  the  Phari- 
sees or  lawyers.  With  all  this,  however,  he  was, 
as  a  teacher,  in  a  high  degree  modest  and  unpre- 
tending. Vide  Matt.  xi.  29 ;  John,  vii.  16—18. 

Considering  the  imperfect  knowledge  of  his 
hearers,  Jesus  endeavoured  to  represent  the 
truth  as  palpably  and  obviously  to  their  senses 
as  possible,  and  frequently  spoke  in  figures. 
He  frequently  availed  himself  of  the  sayings 
and  proverbs  current  among  his  contempora- 
ries. Following  the  example  of  the  an- 
cient, and  especially  of  the  oriental  moralists, 
he  frequently  taught  moral  principles  in  apo- 
thegms, as  in  the  sermon  on  the  Mount.  But 
he  made  the  most  use  of  parables,  which  were 
very  commonly  employed  by  Jewish  teachers 
in  their  instructions.  Vide  Vitringa,  De  Synag. 
Vet.  1.  3.  Storr,  De  Parabolis  Christi,  in  his 
Opusc.  Academ.,  torn.  i. 

He  gave  most  of  his  instructions  in  the  reli- 
gious diakct  common  with  the  Jews.  And  many 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       339 


of  his  expressions — e.  g.,  in  the  sermon  on  the 
Mount,  in  his  address  to  Nicodemus,  &c.,  can- 
not be  clearly  understood  without  a  knowledge 
of  this  dialect.  It  is  the  same,  for  the  most 
part,  as  we  find  in  the  Talmud  and  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Rabbins.  But  much  of  the  ancient 
Jewish  phraseology  had  been  frequently  misun- 
derstood and  perverted.  These  abuses  Christ 
corrected,  and  gave  a  different,  more  just,  and 
important  meaning  to  this  ancient  phraseology ; 
as  wise*  teachers  of  religion  have  always  done. 
But  the  superior  impression  which  the  scriptural 
language  and  the  phraseology  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment made,  led  Christ  to  use  them,  in  prefer- 
ence to  any  other,  even  where  another  might 
have  answered  hie  purpose. 

We  observe  in  all  the  discourses  of  Jesus  a 
wise  forbearance  and  indulgence  of  such  preju- 
dices (e.  g.,  respecting  the  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah,  s.  89)  as  could  not  have  been  at  once 
removed,  or  were  not  necessarily  of  injurious 
practical  tendency.  This  is  called  avyxarfd- 
jSaoftj,  ceconomia,  accomodatio.  But  we  find  no 
case  in  which  Jesus  ever  taught  any  thing 
which  he  considered  as  false  or  erroneous, 
merely  because  it  might  be  pleasing  to  his 
hearers,  or  agreeable  to  prevailing  prejudices. 
Such  a  course  would  be  contrary  to  his  own 
maxims  and  his  whole  mode  of  procedure,  and 
could  not  be  justified  on  correct  moral  principles. 
Vide  s.  64, 65.  This,  it  seems,  is  more  and  more 
conceded  by  modern  theologians.  Many  who 
do  not  consider  Jesus  as  a  divine  teacher  in  the 
strict  sense,  prefer  saying  that  he  mistook  in  this 
or  that  particular,  to  allowing  that  he  declared 
or  taught  anything  which  he  himself  considered 
erroneous.  They  perceive  that  the  latter  sup- 
position is  entirely  irreconcilable  with  the  moral 
purity  which  is  everywhere  exhibited  in  the 
character  of  Jesus.  Others,  however,  who  are 
not  willing  to  allow  that  Jesus  taught  anything 
inconsistent  with  their  own  opinions,  affirm  that 
Christ  did  not  actually  believe,  in  such  cases, 
what  he  said,  but  accommodated  his  doctrine  to 
Jewish  opinions,  in  which  he  himself  had  no 
belief.  But  they  cannot  prove  the  fact;  and  they 
do  not  consider  in  what  a  suspicious  light  they 
place  his  character.  One  that  allows  Christ  to 
be  a  divine  teacher,  if  he  would  be  consistent, 
must  admit  his  declarations  and  doctrines  with- 
out exception,  and  will  not  venture  to  select  from 
them  at  pleasure  what  he  will  believe,  or  to  pre- 
fer his  own  views  to  those  of  Christ,  or  to  affirm 
that  Christ  could  not  have  taught  such  a  thing 
because  it  appears  differently  to  him,  or  because 
it  is  contrary  to  the  prevailing  opinions  of  his 
age.  See  Heringa,  Ueber  die  Lehrart  Jesu  and 
seiner  Apostel  in  Hinsicht  auf  die  Religions- 
begriffe  ihrer  Zeitgenossen ;  a  prize  essay  ;  Of- 
fenbach, 1792,  8vo;  Storr,  Erlauterung  des 


Briefs   an  die  Hebraer,  th.  ii.  s.  536,  f.,  and 
Dpusc.  Theol.  Iste  Abhandl. 

(2)  The  contents  of  the  public  instruction  of 
Jesus.     On  this  subject,  and  on  the  plan  of 

hrist  in  general,  cf.  Dr.  Reinhard,  Ueber  den 
Plan  des  Stifters  der  Christ.  Relig. 

(«)  He  instructed  his  disciples  in  the  doctrine 
respecting  God  and  his  attributes ;  especially  re- 
specting his  impartial  and  universal  love  to  sin- 
ul  men,  and  his  desire  for  the  welfare  of  all, 
respecting  providence,  and  reward  and  punish- 
ment after  death.  This  last  doctrine  he  made 
eminently  practical. 

(6)  He  taught  them  with  still  more  particu- 
arity  the  destination  of  man  and  the  duties  of 
the  true  worshipper  of  God  ;  especially  the  love 
of  God  and  of  our  neighbour,  in  opposition  to 
Jewish  exclusiveness.  He  placed  before  them 
the  motives  for  the  fulfilment  of  these  duties, 
and  refuted  many  practical  prejudices  which 
were  common  among  the  Jews  and  other  nations. 
He  always  opposed  the  arrogance,  self-right- 
eousness, and  self-confidence  of  men,  and  en- 
deavoured to  shew  them  that  their  virtue  was 
very  imperfect,  and  that  they  deserved  nothing 
on  account  of  it,  and  received  every  favour  from 
the  grace  of  God ;  Luke.,  xvii.  9 ;  xviii.  9 ;  Matt. 
xx.  1,  seq. 

(c)  He  endeavoured  to  give  them  juster  views 
respecting  the  Messiah,  and  the  benevolent  de- 
sign of  God  in  his  mission,  and  the  new  order 
which  he  was  to  bring  about — in  short,  respect- 
ing the  kingdom  of  God.     He  proved  to  them 
that  he  was  the  Messiah,  and  predicted  the  wide 
extension  of  his  religion.     He  endeavoured  to 
awaken  in  his  hearers  a  feeling  of  the  necessity 
of  a  Saviour. 

(d)  He  instructed  them  in  the  exalted  hea- 
venly dignity  of  his  person  (John,  v.,  viii.,  x.,) 
respecting  his  death,  its  causes,  and  happy  con- 
sequences.    He  assured  them  that  he  was  the 
person  through  whom  and  on  whose  account  men 
would  be  saved ;  that  he  was  the  Saviour  of 
men,  through  whom  they  obtained  freedom  from 
sin  and  from  the  punishment  of  sin ;  and  all  this 
through  the  influence  of  his  doctrine  and  instruc- 
tion, and  especially  of  his  death;  John,  iii.,  vi., 
viii.,  x.     He  announced  the  entire  abolition  of 
the  Old-Testament  dispensation  and  the  Mosaic 
institute,  and  the  near  approach  of  the  time  when 
a  spiritual  and  perfect  worship  should  be  esta- 
blished universally.     Instructions  of  this  kind 
are  mostly  found  in  John.     Still  they  were  only 
the  first  indications :  for  Christ  had  reserved  the 
more  perfect  instruction  to  be  given  by  his  dis- 
ciples after  his  death  and  ascension.     He  only 
went  before  them,  and  prepared  his  hearers  for 
the   instruction  which  they  would  afterwards 
give.     He  sowed,  but  it  was  for  them  and  their 
successors  to  reap  the  full  harvest;  John,  iv. 


340 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


We  find,  as  a  general  thing,  that  Jesus,  in  his 
public  instructions,  aimed  principally  at  the  im- 
provement and  correction  of  the  Jewish  doctrine, 
in  order  to  prepare  and  qualify  the  great  multi- 
tude for  the  reception  of  his  religion ;  while  in 
his  private  instructions,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
discoursed  more  particularly  on  his  own  institu- 
tions. Vide  Matt.  xxii.  29;  John,  iii.  1,  seq. ; 
iv.  7,  seq.  In  his  public  discourses,  he  fre- 
quently treats  of  general  moral  truths;  not,  how- 
ever, in  the  common  unprofitable  way  in  which 
men  are  told  what  they  ought  to  do,  without  be- 
ing told  how  to  do  it.  He  shews  how  the  law  of 
Moses  should  be  interpreted,  and  warns  against 
the  false  explanations  commonly  given  to  it, 
and  the  additions  made  to  it  by  men,  and  against 
the  falsification  of  the  Divine  commands;  Matt. 
v.  seq. 

He  was  accustomed,  like  many  of  the  Jewish 
teachers  in  his  age,  to  travel  about  with  his  dis- 
ciples, and  to  teach  in  the  synagogues,  on  the 
highways,  in  the  market-places,  the  field,  and 
the  temple.  Vide  John,  xviii.  20. 

(3)  The  private  instruction  of  Christ. 

He  had  destined  his  intimate  friends  (esoteric 
disciples)  to  be  the  future  teachers,  through 
whom  his  great  plan  should  be  carried  into  exe- 
cution. To  these  he  gave  more  minute  expla- 
nation and  instruction  respecting  the  doctrines 
mentioned  in  No.  2.  He  solved  for  them  any 
difficulties  or  obscurities  which  remained  in  his 
public  discourses.  Vide  Mark,  iv.  10,  11,  34. 
But  even  this  instruction  was  in  a  great  measure 
only  elementary,  and  preparatory  to  their  future 
destination.  Hence  he  frequently  endures  their 
weakness  and  their  prejudices  with  wise  for- 
bearance; John,  xvi.  12 — 15,  25,  seq.;  Acts, 
i.  7,  seq.  He  tells  them  expressly  that  they 
could  not  understand  or  endure,  at  that  time, 
many  things  which  it  was  important  for  them 
to  know.  And  he  promises  to  instruct  them 
more  perfectly  after  his  departure,  by  means  of 
the  Paracletus,  and  to  make  known  to  them  the 
whole  extent  of  whatever  it  should  be  neces- 
sary for  them  to  know  and  to  teach,  for  their 
own  good  or  the  good  of  others,  John,  xiv.  26 ; 
xvi.  12—14,  &c. 

Note. — Although  Jesus  frequently  declares 
that  his  doctrine  is  of  divine  origin,  and  reveal- 
ed to  him  by  God  himself,  (since  he  was  the 
greatest  of  the  divine  messengers,)  we  are  not 
to  suppose  from  this  that  every  particular  doc- 
trine which  Christ  taught  was  given  out  by  him 
as  entirely  new,  and  as  imparted  to  him  by  di- 
rect inspiration  of  God.  Many  of  his  theoreti- 
cal and  practical  doctrines  were  known  to  the 
Jews  of  his  age,  from  the  writings  of  the  Old 
Testament,  as  Christ  himself  says,  Matt.  v.  17; 
or  by  some  other  means — e.  g.,  the  unwritten 
instructions  of  the  prophets  who  lived  at  and 
after  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity.  But 


Christ  completed  and  amended  these  doctrines, 
made  additions  to  them,  and  placed  them  in 
relations  and  connexions  which  were  entirely 
new  and  peculiar,  thus  giving  them  new  weight 
and  interest.  This  was  the  case  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  regenera- 
tion, prayer,  &c.  It  may  therefore  be  said,  with 
truth,  that  a  great  part  of  all  the  doctrinal  and 
moral  instruction  which  is  found  in  the  dis- 
courses of  Jesus,  actually  existed  among  the 
Jews  of  his  own  age.  We  find  many  of  his 
maxims,  parables,  &c.,  in  the  Talmud  and  the 
Rabbins.  Vide  Lightfoot,  Schottgen,  and 
Wetstein,  on  the  New  Testament. 

But  while  we  willingly  concede  this,  we  may 
also  truly  maintain  that  Jesus  founded  a  new 
religious  system.  He  himself  says  distinctly 
that  the  religious  teacher  must  make  use  of  both 
new  and  old  doctrines.  "A  Christian  teacher 
must  be  like  a  householder,  who  brings  out  of 
his  treasure  things  new  and  old;  Matt.  xiii.  52. 
But  Christ  did  more  than  any  other  religious 
teacher  before  or  since  his  time,  by  teaching, 
not  simply  what  men  have  to  do,  but  by  pro- 
viding and  pointing  out  the  means  by  which 
they  can  perform  their  duties.  Vide  John,  i. 
17;  Titus,  ii.  11,  seq. 

The  question  disputed  by  theologians,  Whe- 
ther Christ  can  be  called  a  new  lawgiver,  may 
be  decided  by  these  considerations.  Civil  laws 
and  institutions  are  here  out  of  the  question; 
such  Christ  did  not  intend  to  establish,  since 
his  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world.  Law  must 
be  understood  as  synonymous  with  religion,  re- 
ligious doctrine;  according  to  the  use  of  the 
Hebrew  rnin,  and  the  Greek  v6po$.  The  ques- 
tion would  then  be,  more  correctly,  whether  he 
was  a  new  religious  teacher.  The  remarks  above 
made  shew  that  Christ  is  entitled  to  this  name, 
and  in  a  far  higher  sense  than  Moses  was.  He 
himself  calls  his  religion,  and  the  ordinances 
and  institutions  to  be  connected  with  it,  XO.LVTV 
8ia^rtxt]v,  in  opposition  to  the  ancient  Mosaic 
dispensation,  Matt.  xxvi.  28.  And  Paul  calls 
Christ  the  author  and  founder  of  the  new  dis- 
pensation, (jfcmVjf?  JCCUMJJ  5ic£jjx»7$,)  Heb.  ix. 
15;  xii.  24.  His  religion,  according  to  Paul, 
succeeds  to  the  Mosaic,  and  puts  an  end  to  the 
Mosaic  dispensation  as  such.  The  term  novus 
legislator  has  been  rendered  suspicious  in  the 
view  of  some  theologians  from  the  use  which 
Socinians  make  of  it,  designating  by  it  the  whole 
office  and  merit  of  Christ. 

jy0fe  2. — Jesus  always  appeals  to  his  miracles, 
and  proves  by  them  that  his  doctrine  is  divine; 
John,  vii.  11.  His  apostles  do  the  same ;  Acts, 
ii.  22.  But  this  proof  is  altogether  rejected  by 
many  at  the  present  day,  or,  at  least,  very  little 
regarded.  This  is  the  case  among  those,  prin- 
cipally, who  labour  for  the  abolition  of  all  posi- 
tive religion,  and  the  introduction  of  the  religion 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      341 


of  reason;  for  the  positive  divine  authority  of 
the  religion  of  Jesus  stands  or  falls  with  his 
miracles.  The  truths  of  reason  which  Jesus 
taught  would,  indeed,  remain  valid,  although 
confirmed  by  no  miracles;  but,  in  that  case,  his 
declarations  would  not  continue  to  possess  di- 
vine authority.  We  should  no  longer  be  com- 
pelled to  believe  in  any  of  his  doctrines  because 
he  taught  them,  as  he  always  requires  us  to  do; 
John,  iv.  Our  belief,  on  the  contrary,  would  be 
entirely  independent  of  him  and  of  his  declara- 
tions. His  declarations  and  doctrines  would  be 
subjected  to  the  revision  of  human  reason,  like 
the  declarations  and  doctrines  of  any  merely 
human  teacher.  The  authority  of  Jesus  would 
not  be  more  binding  than  that  of  Socrates,  of 
Confucius,  Zoroaster,  and  other  wise  men  of 
antiquity.  Whoever,  then,  denies  the  miracles 
of  Jesus,  removes  all  that  is  positive  in  the 
Christian  religion ;  the  sure  consequence  of 
which  is,  that  every  man  may  believe  as  much 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  as  he  pleases,  and  is 
by  no  means  bound  to  admit  the  truth  of  what- 
ever Jesus  says,  because  he  is  of  opinion  that 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  subjected  to  the  revision 
of  his  reason.  To  such  an  one  the  writings  of 
the  New  Testament  may  possess  an  historical, 
but  not  a  doctrinal  value.  Cf.  Riihl,  Werth  der 
Behauptungen  Jesu  und  siener  Apostel ;  Leip- 
zig, 1792,  Svo;  especially  the  first  treatise. 

SECTION  XCV. 

OF  THE  HARDSHIPS  AND  SUFFERINGS  OF  JESUS. 

I.  During  his  whole  life  upon  the  earth. 

ALTHOUGH  it  is  true  that  Jesus  suffered  a 
great  deal  while  he  was  upon  the  earth,  we 
should  avoid  all  unscriptural  exaggeration  of 
this  subject,  and  not  maintain  that  his  whole 
earthly  existence  was  mere  uninterrupted  suf- 
fering. We  find  scenes  in  the  life  of  Jesus 
which  caused  him  many  happy  and  cheerful 
hours,  Luke,  x.  21 ;  Matt.  xvii.  1,  seq.  Jesus, 
as  a  man,  possessed  very  tender  feelings  and 
warm  affections,  John,  xi.  Both  pain  and  plea- 
sure, therefore,  made  a  strong  and  deep  impres- 
sion upon  his  heart.  The  evangelical  history  ex- 
hibits him  as  at  one  time  in  deep  distress,  and 
at  another  in  great  joy. 

His  external  trials  and  hardships  consisted 
principally  in  his  great  poverty  and  indigence, 
Matt.  viii.  20;  Luke,  ix.  58;  2  Cor.  viii.  9; 
the  many  difficulties  and  hindrances  in  the  way 
of  the  accomplishment  of  his  office  as  teacher; 
contempt,  persecution,  danger,  and  the  suffering 
which  the  disobedience  and  obstinacy  of  his 
contemporaries  occasioned  him.  The  sufferings 
which  he  endured  at  the  end  of  his  life  will  be 
considered  in  No.  II.  The  following  remarks 
will  serve  to  the  better  understanding  of  the 


doctrine  respecting  the  suffering  and  adversities 
of  Jesus. 

(1)  Human  infirmities  and   calamities  are 
of  two  kinds — viz.,  (a)  Natural,-   which  are 
founded  in  the  laws  and  constitution  of  human 
nature,  and  are  therefore  common  to  all  men. 
Jesus,  too,  we  find,  was  subject  to  these,  s.  93, 
but  in  common  with  all  others;  and  when  he 
became  a  true  man  he  of  course  subjected  him- 
self  to   them.     (6)    Contingent,   (accessoria?,) 
which  do  not  happen  to  all,  but  only  to  a  few. 
Such  are    lowliness,   poverty,  contempt,  &c. 
Jesus,  as  a  man,  was  not  necessitated  to  endure 
these ;  and  the  very  opposite  of  them  was  ex- 
pected in  the  Messiah.     He  submitted  to  them, 
because  the  divine  plan  for  the  good  of  men  re- 
quired it;  Heb.  xii.  2;  Phil.  ii.  G,  7. 

(2)  Many  things  which  are  commonly  ac- 
counted hardships  and  trials  are  not  so  in  the 
eyes  of  the  true  sage,  who  is  superior  to  the  pre- 
judices of  the  multitude.     And,  on  the  other 
hand,  many  things  which  are  commonly  admired 
as  the  best  fortune  do  not  appear  to  him  either 
good  fortune  or  real  welfare.     We  should  be 
careful,  therefore,  not  to  enumerate  among  the 
sufferings  and  afflictions  of  Jesus  such  things 
as  would  be  so  accounted  only  by  the  voluptuary 
and  libertine,  and  not  by  the  wise  man.     Such 
things  are,  his  frequent  journeys,  his  being  born 
in  a  stable,  laid  in  a  manger,  &c.     These  cir- 
cumstances, in  themselves  considered,  were  no 
hardships  to  a  man  who  disregarded   conve- 
nience and  worldly  honour. 

Religious  teachers  must  exercise  great  caution 
on  this  subject.  There  is  a  double  disadvantage 
in  enumerating  such  circumstances  among  the 
sufferings  of  Jesus;  one  is,, that  the  common 
people  will  be  confirmed  in  the  error,  (which  is 
very  prevalent,)  of  considering  the  goods  of  for- 
tune, rank,  birth,  splendour,  and  other  external 
advantages,  as  of  great  value ;  the  other  is,  that 
they  will  be  encouraged  in  effeminacy  and  false 
sensitiveness.  The  example  of  Jesus  in  his 
humiliation  ought,  on  the  contrary,  to  be  em- 
ployed to  shew  that  a  man  of  true  piety  and 
magnanimity  needs  none  of  those  external  ad- 
vantages which  are  commonly  so  highly  es- 
teemed, in  order  to  be  happy  and  contented  ;  that 
a  man,  even  in  poverty  and  humiliation,  may  be 
highly  useful  to  others,  &c.  The  sufferings  of 
Jesus,  considered  in  this  light,  are  very  encour- 
aging and  cheering  to  despised  or  neglected 
worth.  And  the  New  Testament  makes  this 
very  use  of  the  doctrine  of  the  sufferings  and 
humiliation  of  Jesus — e.  g.,  Hebrews,  xii.  2, 
atrr^vf^j  xoT'a<}>po»'7jffa$ — i.  e..,  he  was  so  supe- 
rior to  his  enemies  in  greatness  and  strength  of 
spirit  that  he  disregarded  their  insults  and  their 
foolish  judgments  respecting  him. 

The  sufferings  of  Jesus  are  eminently  calcu- 
lated to  impress  our  minds  with  a  view  of  his 
2F2 


342 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


great  love  to  men.  He  became  poor  for  our 
sakes,  that  we  might  become  rich.  The  proper 
effect  of  this  view  is  to  lead  us  to  gratitude  and 
cheerful  obedience. 

(3)  Some  are  accustomed  to  particularize  the 
sins  for  which  Jesus  atoned  by  particular  hard 
ships  and  sufferings,  and  also  the  virtues,  for 
the  performance  of  which  he  at  such  times  pro- 
cured us  the  power.  But  we  ought  not  to  go 
beyond  the  New  Testament,  and  to  make  arbi- 
trary distinctions,  which  have  no  scriptural 
ground.  The  Bible  does  not  represent  Christ 
as  enduring,  in  the  highest  possible  degree, 
every  imaginable  distress  of  mind  and  body. 
The  greatness  of  the  merits  of  his  sufferings  de- 
pends neither  upon  their  continuance  nor  upon 
their  magnitude  and  variety.  The  sufferings  of 
Christ  would  still  possess  their  whole  adequate 
value,  even  if  he  did  not  endure  every  imagina- 
ble distress. 

II.  Sufferings  of  Christ  at  the  end  of  his  life  ; 
commonly  called  his  passion. 

(1)  The  sorrowful  feelings  of  his  sow/,  or  his 
mental  suffering,  his  anguish  of  heart,  exhibited 
most  strikingly  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  in  Geth- 
semane;  Matt.  xxvi.  37 — 44;  Luke,  xxii.  41 — 
44.  This  anguish  is  described  by  Luke  as  great 
to  an  extraordinary  degree.  He  felt  it  shortly 
before  his  enemies  commenced  their  abuse.  In 
view  of  this  distress  many  difficulties  have 
arisen.  The  martyrs  of  religion  have  frequently 
exhibited,  under  greater  sufferings  than  these, 
and  tortures  which  they  have  actually  solicited, 
a  joy  and  firmness  which  we  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  admire.  Besides,  Jesus  exhibited 
throughout  all  the  rest  of  his  life  and  his  after 
sufferings  an  unexampled  magnanimity  and 
power.  He  foresaw  his  sufferings  with  cheer- 
ful courage,  and  undertook  them  of  his  own  ac- 
cord. But  Jesus  did  not  exhibit,  either  in  the 
last  moments  of  his  life,  or  at  any  other  period, 
that  ill-timed  enthusiasm  which  was  so  much 
admired  in  the  Christian  martyrs  of  the  second 
and  third  centuries;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  did 
he  shew  any  cold  insensibility  to  suffering. 
Both  enthusiasts  and  philosophers  are  therefore 
displeased  with  his  allowing  himself  to  feel  this 
fear  and  timidity ;  and  many  interpreters  have 
exerted  their  skill  upon  these  passages,  to  per- 
vert their  true  meaning.  Why  such  despond- 
ency and  anguish  just  at  this  time1?  We  remark 
upon  this  subject, 

(a)  There  is  nothing  in  the  conduct  of  Jesus 
at  this  time  which  is  inconsistent  with  a  great 
man.  He  was  far  from  that  apathy  and  sto- 
cism  wbich  the  martyrs  exhibited,  either  from 
affectation,  enthusiasm,  or  insensibility.  He 
actually  endured  therefore,  for  a  considerable 
time,  the  pains  of  death  which  are  natural  to 
men,  as  appears  from  Matt.  xxvi.  39 — 44 ;  John, 


xii.  27 ;  and  Paul  says  distinctly,  Heb.  v.  7,  8, 
that  Christ  wished  to  resemble  us,  his  brethren, 
in  respect  to  the  painful  accompaniments  of 
death,  in  order  to  qualify  himself  better  to  be- 
come a  compassionate  high-priest.  "  He  pray- 
ed to  God,  who  could  deliver  him  from  death, 
with  loud  crying  and  tears."  A  forced,  stoical 
apathy  is  entirely  opposed  to  the  spirit  of 
Christ  and  his  religion.  Christianity  pronounces 
against  every  thing  which  is  forced,  artificial,  and 
unsuited  to  the  nature  which  God  has  given  us. 
It  is  the  duty  of  men  to  improve  and  to  increase 
in  holiness;  but  they  should  still  continue  to  be 
men,  and  not  be  ashamed  of  human  feelings, 
and  of  the  natural  and  innocent  expressions  of 
them.  The  example  of  Christ  is  instructive  in 
this  respect.  But  the  most  important  consider- 
ation is  the  following — viz., 

(6)  These  sufferings,  as  Jesus  and  his  apos- 
tles always  taught,  were  endured  for  our  sakes, 
and  were  the  punishment  of  our  sins.  This  be- 
ing the  case,  it  was  necessary  for  Christ  to  feel 
that  he  suffered.  He  could  not,  and  should  not, 
remain  insensible.  We  must  see  by  his  exam- 
ple what  we  deserved  to  suffer.  Some  hours 
before  his  death,  Jesus  assigned  this  as  the  true 
object  of  his  sufferings:  "He  would  shed  his 
blood  for  the  remission  of  the  sins  of  men,"  and 
he  instituted  the  Lord's  supper  in  memory  of 
this  great  event;  Matt.  xxvi.  28.  This  suffer- 
ing, therefore,  arose  principally  from  a  view  and 
a  lively  feeling  of  the  great  multitude  of  sins, 
their  criminality,  and  liability  to  punishment. 
Cf.  Harwood,  Ueber  die  Ursachen  der  Seele- 
nangst  Christi,  4  Abhandl. ;  Berlin,  1774.  The 
history  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  is 
considered  in  this  light  throughout  the  gospel 
and  epistles.  He  suffered  and  died  for  us,  and 
on  our  account;  and  we  thus  learn  what  we  de- 
serve. This  history  was  not  intended  to  pro- 
duce a  short  and  transient  emotion,  or  mere 
compassionate  sympathy :  and  the  preacher  who 
employs  it  for  these  purposes  only  neglects  its 
proper  object.  This  is  a  great  fault  of  many 
Passion  and  Good-Friday  discourses ! 

(2)  The  great  bodily  sufferings  and  tortures 
which  he  firmly  endured ;  with  which  is  con- 
nected, 

(3)  His  condemnation  to  a  violent  death  on 
the  cross,  and  his  undergoing  of  this  sentence. 
His  life  of  humiliation  on  the  earth  ^julpa*  tfapxoj 
closed  with  his  death;  for  the  time  which  he 
lived  upon  the  earth  after  his  resurrection  did 
not  belong  to  it.     Crucifixion,  which  was  de- 
signed for  slaves  and  insurgents^  was  a  very 
disgraceful   punishment.     Vide  Galatians,  iii. 
13,  coll.  Deut.  xxi.  23.     Paul  therefore  consi- 
ders it  as  the  lowest  point  of  the  humiliation  of 
Jesus,  and  calls  it  tfartswoortf  in  distinction,  Phil, 
ii.  5 — 8 ;  cf.  Heb.  xii.  2.     Every  thing  was  or- 
dered by  God  in  such  a  way  as  to  convince  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       343 


world,  beyond  a  question,  that  his  death  had 
actually  taken  place.  Vide  the  circumstances, 
John,  xix.  30,  seq.  In  that  age  no  one  doubted 
the  fact.  Jesus  was  laid  in  the  tomb  as  plainly 
dead.  He  remained  in  the  tomb  until  the  third 
day,  that  the  fact  of  his  death  might  he  the  more 
certain.  His  burial  was  honourable.  The  pas- 
sage, Is.  liii.  9,  may  well  be  referred  to  this 
event:  "he  was  destined  to  a  grave  among 
transgressors ;  but  was  buried  with  the  rich." 
The  New  Testament  does  not,  however,  ex- 
pressly cite  it  as  applicable  to  this  event. 

The  question  has  sometimes  been  asked, 
Whether  the  burial  of  Jesus  belonged  to  his. 
state  of  humiliation  or  exaltation.  It  is  suffi- 
cient to  answer,  neither  to  one  nor  the  other. 
The  burial  concerned  only  the  lifeless  body, 
separated  from  the  soul.  But  according  to  the 
common  way  of  thinking  and  feeling  among 
men,  the  circumstances  of  the  burial  were  ho- 
nourable to  Jesus,  and  should  therefore  be  ra- 
ther connected  with  his  exaltation  than  his  hu- 
miliation. 

Note. — At  the  time  of  the  apostles  no  one 
doubted  the  actual  death  of  Jesus.  All,  Chris- 
tians, Jews,  and  Gentiles,  as  appears  from  the 
New  Testament,  were  firmly  convinced  of  it  as 
an  undeniable  fact.  Some,  however,  appeared 
in  the  second  century,  who  either  doubted  or 
denied  the  actual  death  of  Christ;  or  who  gave 
such  a  turn  to  the  affair  as  to  remove  from  his 
death  and  crucifixion  whatever  was  offensive  to 
the  Jews  and  heathen.  The  death  of  Jesus  was 
not,  however,  disputed  on  historical  grounds, 
for  there  were  none ;  but  merely  for  doctrinal 
reasons.  The  doctrine  of  Christ's  death  was 
inconsistent  with  some  of  their  philosophical 
hypotheses.  Most  of  the  Gnostics  and  Mani- 
cheans,  who  maintained  that  Christ  had  a  seem- 
ing or  shadowy  body,  contended  that  he  did  not 
actually  suffer  tortures  and  death ;  but  only  lv 
Septet  (seemingly,  in  his  seeming  body.)  Vide 
s.  93,  II.  The  Basilidiani  maintained  that  Jesus 
was  not  crucified,  but  Simon  of  Gyrene  in  his 
stead.  Cerinthus  taught  that  one  of  the  highest 
aeons,  Christ  or  the  Aoyoj,  united  himself  with 
the  man  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  at 
his  baptism ;  that  Christ  deserted  the  man  Jesus 
during  his  sufferings,  and  returned  to  heaven; 
and  that  thus  the  man  Jesus  alone  suffered  and 
died.  In  accordance  with  this  opinion,  he  and 
his  followers  explained  the  exclamation  of 
Christ  upon  the  cross,  "My  God!  why  hast 
thou  forsaken  me!"  Matthew,  xxvii.  46. 

This  desertion  (derelictio  a  Deo)  has  been 
very  differently  understood,  even  in  modern 
times.  The  words  which  Christ  uses  are  taken 
from  Ps.  xxii.  1 — a  psalm  which  he  frequently 
cites  as  referring  to  himself.  It  is  the  language 
of  a  deeply  distressed  sufferer,  who  looks  for- 
ward with  anxious  longing  to  the  termination 


of  his  sufferings,  and  to  whom  the  assistance 
of  God,  comfort,  and  consolation,  seem  to  dis- 
appear altogether,  or  to  delay  too  long.  The 
phrase  to  be  deserted  by  God  is  frequently  used 
without  implying  a  prevailing  doubt  in  the  ac- 
tual providence  of  God;  as  Ps.  Ixxi.  11;  Isa. 
xlix.  14.  Notwithstanding,  this  anxious  feeling 
was  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  piercing  of  the 
mental  sufferings  of  Jesus.  At  the  same  time 
it  is  very  consoling  and  quieting  to  one  who 
comes  into  similar  circumstances,  especially  at 
the  close  of  his  life,  since  he  can  count  upon 
being  heard  in  the  same  way.  Thus  Jesus  was 
enabled,  shortly  before  his  death,  when  he  saw 
his  approaching  end,  joyfully  to  exclaim,  uti- 
XECTT'CU — i.  e.,  now  everything  which  I  had  to  do 
or  to  suffer  according  to  the  will  of  God  is  ac- 
complished and  perfected  ;  John,  xix.  30,  coll. 
v.  38.  This  term  refers  especially,  as  jthqpovv 
does  in  other  cases,  to  the  fulfilment  of  what 
was  predicted  concerning  him  as  the  decree  of 
God.  Vide  Luke,  xviii.  31  ;  xxii.  37;  Acts, 
xiii.  29. 

III.  Attributes  and  Motives  of  the  Sufferings  of 
Christ. 

Jesus  underwent  all  these  sufferings,  and 
death  itself,  (I)  innocently,  Luke,  xxiii.  14,  15, 
and  the  parallel  texts,  2  Cor.  v.  21 ;  1  Pet.  ii. 
22 ;  iii.  18 ;  (2)  freely,  Matt.  xvi.  21—24 ;  John, 
x.  11,  17,  18;  xiii.  1,  21—33;  xviii.  1—8;  (3) 
with  the  greatest  patience  and  firmness,  1  Pet. 
ii.  23;  (4)/rom  unexampled  and  magnanimous 
love  to  us  ;  also,  from  obedience  to  God,  he  herein 
subjected  himself  to  the  will  and  decree  of  God. 
Vide  s.  88;  John,  xv.  13;  Rom.  v.  G— 8. 

Theologians  call  this  obedience  which  Jesus 
exhibited  in  suffering,  passive  obedience,  from 
Phil.  ii.  8,  "obedient  unto  the  death  of  the 
cross."  The  active  obedience  of  Christ,  his 
doing  everything  which  was  suitable  to  the 
divine  will  and  command,  was  considered  s.  93, 
III.  They  are  one  and  the  same  obedience  in 
reality.  The  origin  and  advantage  of  this  dis- 
tinction will  be  further  considered  in  the  Article 
on  Justification.  The  various  objects  and  uses 
of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  will  also  be  consi- 
dered more  fully  in  the  same  Article,  s.  115. 
Cf.  Morus,  p.  160,  161,  s.  7. 

SECTION  XCVI. 

OF  CHRIST'S  DESCENT  INTO  HELL. 
I.  Meaning  of  the  phraseology,  "  to  descend  into 

hell,"  (SlW  Sx  TV,   KaTafiaivetv   eig  a'Jrjv,)  and  an 
explanation  of  the  texts  relating  to  this  subject. 

(1)  THE  ancients  believed  universally,  not 
excluding  the  Orientalists  and  the  Hebrews, 
that  there  was  a  place  in  the  invisible  world, 
conceived  to  be  deep  under  the  earth,  into  which 


344 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


the  disembodied  souls  of  men,  good  and  bad, 
went  immediately  after  death.  The  name  of 
this  place  was  Sixr,  a5^j,  orcus,  the  under-world, 
the  kingdom  of  the  dead.  This  word  never  de- 
notes the  place  of  the  damned,  either  in  the  scrip- 
tures or  in  the  fathers  of  the  first  three  cen- 
turies. Accordingly,  the  phrase  descendere  in 
orcum  always  denotes  in  the  Bible  the  separation 
of  the  soul  from  the  body,  and,  the  condition  of  the 
disembodied  spirit  after  death;  Num.  xvi.  30, 
33 ;  Job,  vii.  9  ;  Ps.  Iv.  16 ;  Isaiah,  xiv.  15 ;  and 
frequently  in  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  When  the  heroes  of  Homer  are 
slain,  their  souls  are  said  to  descend  to  Hades. 

This  phrase  may  then  be  explained,  in  this 
sense,  to  refer  to  the  death  of  Christ;  and  so  it 
is  a  tropical  or  figurative  representation  of  his 
death,  and  the  separation  of  his  soul  from  his 
body.  When  he  died,  he  descended  into  Hades, 
and  continued  there,  as  to  his  soul,  as  long  as 
his  body  continued  in  the  grave.  We  find  the 
continuance  of  Christ  in  Hades  actually  men- 
tioned in  this  sense  in  the  New  Testament. 
Peter,  in  his  speech,  (Acts,  ii.  27,)  cites  the 
passage,  Psalm  xvi.  10,  ovx  eyxatate^sis  t^v 
•bv%rtv  IJLOV  ftj  <x5ot>,  which  is  always  referred  to 
Christ's  death  and  continuance  in  the  grave. 
The  phrase  xatapaivsiv  n$  a$qv  does  not  indeed 
occur  in  that  passage  ;  but  the  omission  is  mere- 
ly accidental.  It  was  certainly  used  by  the 
first  Christians  respecting  Christ  as  deceased,  in 
the  same  way  as  respecting  other  dead. 

(2)  But  the  chief  dependence  is  placed  upon 
two  other  texts  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which 
the  descent  of  Christ  to  hell  is  expressly  men- 
tioned, and  in  one  of  which  his  employment  in 
Hades  is  thought  to  be  determined. 

(a)  Ephes.  iv.  9.  But  the  context  shews 
that  the  descent  of  Christ  to  hell  is  not  the  sub- 
ject in  this  text,  but  his  descent  from  heaven 
down  to  the  earth,  and  his  subsequent  return 
into  heaven. 

(6)  The  principal  passage  is,  1  Pet.  iii.  18 — 
20.  Various  explanations  are  given  of  this  pas- 
sage. In  the  earliest  times,  it  was  universally 
considered  as  denoting  the  continuance  of  Christ 
in  Hades  ;  and  this  meaning  is  undoubtedly  the 
most  natural,  and  best  suited  to  the  words,  the 
context,  and  .all  the  ideas  of  antiquity.  But  as 
this  meaning  does  not  accord  with  modern  ideas, 
various  other  explanations  have  been  attempted. 
But  the  context  shews  that  the  continuance  of 
Jesus  in  Hades  is  the  subject  of  this  passage — 
i.  e.,  that  it  treats  of  the  condition  and  employ- 
ment of  the  soul  of  Christ  after  death.  The 
apostle  is  shewing,  from  the  example  of  Jesus, 
that  suffering  for  the  good  of  others  is  honour- 
able and  will  be  rewarded.  Christ  laid  men 
under  great  obligations  to  him,  by  suffering  and 
dying  for  them,  ver.  18 ;  by  what  he  did  too 
after  death,  while  his  spirit  was  in  Hades,  ver. 


19;  (ver.  20  is  parenthetic;)  by  his  resurrec- 
tion, ver.  21 ;  his  return  to  God,  and  his  elevated 
situation  in  heaven,  ver.  22.  The  sense  then  is: 
the  body  of  Christ  died,  but  his  soul  was  pre- 
served. (Peter  always  uses  oap|  and  jtvtv^o,  in 
this  sense;  as  iv.  1,  6.)  While  his  body  was 
lying  in  the  grave,  his  soul  (iv  9,  sc.  Ttvfii^an) 
wandered  down  to  the  kingdom  of  the  dead,  and 
there  preached  to  the  disembodied  spirits.  It 
was  the  belief  of  the  ancients  that  the  manes 
still  continued,  in  the  under-world,  to  prosecute 
their  former  employments.  Vide  Isaiah,  xiv. 
9.  The  same  belief  is  seen  in  the  fables  of  the 
Grecian  kings  and  judges.  Tiresias  still  con- 
tinued to  prophesy.  Vide  Isaiah,  xiv.  9.  Christ, 
by  his  instructions  and  exhortations  to  reforma- 
tion, deserved  well  of  men  while  he  was  up'on 
earth.  He  continued  this  employment  in  Hades. 
He  preached  to  the  greatest  sinners ;  and  Noah's 
contemporaries  are  particularized  as  distinguish- 
ed examples  of  ancient  sinners,  ver.  20.  Now 
that  Peter  really  supposed  that  Christ  descended 
to  Hades  appears  from  Acts,  ii.  31. 

II.  A  Sketch  of  the  History  of  this  Doctrine. 

For  the  various  opinions  of  commentators  re- 
specting the  descent  of  Christ  to  hell,  cf.  Die- 
telmaier,  Historiadogmatis  de  descensu  Christi 
ad  inferos,  ed.  2  ;  Altorf.  1762,  8vo ;  Semler,  in 
Programm.  Acad.  p.  371,  seq.;  Pott,  Epistola 
Catholica  perpetua  annotatione  illustr.,  vol.  ii. ; 
Gottingen,  1790;  Excurs.  iii.  (ad  1  Pet.  iii.;)  and 
Dr.  Hacker,  (court-preacher  in  Dresden,)  Diss. 
de  descensu  Christi  ad  inferos,  ad  provinciam 
Messiae  demandatam  referendo  ;  Dresden,  1802. 
[Cf.  Hahn,  s.  472.] 

The  passage,  Acts,  ii.,  coll.  Psalm  xvi.  10, 
was  the  foundation  upon  which  this  doctrine 
was  built.  Its  simple  meaning  is,  that  Christ 
really  died,  like  other  men,  and  that,  while  his 
lifeless  body  lay  in  the  grave,  his  soul  was  in 
the  same  place  and  state  with  the  souls  of  all 
the  dead.  So  the  early  Christians  undoubtedly 
understood  it.  The  question  now  arose,  Was 
the  soul  of  one  who  while  on  earth  had  been  so 
active  for  the  good  of  men,  idle  and  unem- 
ployed in  Hades  I  No.  Hence  a  third  ques- 
tion, What  was  his  employment  while  there? 
The  same  as  on  earth — he  instructed — was  the 
natural  conclusion,  which  was  confirmed  by  the 
word  sxTjpvts,  1  Pet.  iii.  19.  But  since,  in  later 
times,  Hades  was  understood  to  signify  only 
the  place  of  the  damned ;  and  since  $vAax»7  and 
sinners  are  mentioned  by  Peter  in  this  passage ; 
it  was  thither — to  the  place  of  the  damned — that 
Christ  was  supposed  to  have  gone,  to  preach 
repentance,  (a^pv^fir,)  to  shew  himself  as  a 
victor  in  triumph,  &c. 

Such  is  the  course  which  the  investigation  of 
this  question  naturally  took.  Now  the  histori- 
cal sketch  itself. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       345 


(1)  The  ecclesiastical    fathers   of   the  first 
three  centuries  were  agreed  in  the  opinion  that 
during  the  three   days  in  which   the  body  of 
Christ  lay  in   the  grave  his  soul  was  in  the 
kingdom  of  the  dead.     This  opinion  they  de- 
rived correctly  from  1  Pet.  iii.  and  Acts,  ii.    By 
this  representation  they  supposed,  in  substance, 
the  condition  of  Christ,  as  to  his  soul  during 
his  death,  to  be  described.     Thus  Irenaeus  says, 
"Christ  in  this  way  fulfilled  the  law  of  the 
dead,"  v.  31.    Clement  of  Alexandria  expresses 
himself  in  the  same  way.     Origen  says,  yvpvr} 

^uafej  ytvofjifvt]  ^v%^  Contra  Celsum,  ii. 
Tertullian  says,  "  Christus  forma  humanae  mor- 
tis apud  inferos  (est)  functus,"  &c. 

They  differed  in  opinion  respecting  his  em- 
ployment there.  Most  supposed  that  he  preached 
the  gospel  to  the  ancient  believers  who  expected 
his  advent — to  the  patriarchs,  &c.  Vide  Iren. 
(iv.  45,  50,)  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian, 
Origen,  and  others.  But  Origen  and  some 
others  seem  to  have  believed  that  Christ  rescued 
the  damned  who  believed  on  him  in  Hades,  and 
transported  them  to  the  abode  of  the  blessed. 
Still,  the  descent  to  hell  is  nowhere  expressly 
mentioned  in  the  ancient  creeds  of  the  first 
three  centuries,  either  in  the  Eastern  or  West- 
ern church.  No  one  in  this  period  held  it  to  be 
the  interment  of  Christ ;  nor  did  any  one  as- 
sert that  he  went  exclusively  to  the  place  of  the 
damned. 

(2)  This  doctrine  was  gradually  regarded  as 
fixed  after  the  fourth  century,  and  was  adopted 
into  the  creeds.     The  phrase  xutil^ovta,  sis  *» 
xatax^ovia  was  established  at  the  Arian  Coun- 
cil at  Sirmium,  in  the  year  357,  and  at  many 
orthodox  and  Arian  councils  after  that  time.    It 
was  now  inserted  in  the  more  ancient  creeds,  to 
which  it  had   not  previously  belonged— e.  g., 
into  the  apostolical   creed,   particularly,  as  it 
seems,  on  account  of  the  controversies  with 
Apollinaris.     But  all  the  churches  had  not  ad- 
mitted it  into  this  creed  before  the  sixth  century. 
Rufnn  says  (Expos.  S.  Ap.),  that  the  Romish 
church   did   not  admit  this   doctrine  into  the 
apostolical  creed,  "nee  in  Orientis  ecclesiis  habe- 
tur"  and  adds,  that  the  word  BURIED  which  is 
there  used,  conveys  the  same  sense.     The  rea- 
son why  this  doctrine  was  so  much  insisted  on, 
and  admitted  into  the  creeds,  especially  after 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  is,  that  it 
afforded  a  weighty  argument  against  the  fol- 
lowers of  Apollinaris,  who  denied  the  existence 
of  a  human  soul  in  Christ.     Vide  s.  93,  II.  ad 
finem.     It  may  be  added,  that  the  fathers  of  the 
fourth  century,  and  of  the  one  succeeding,  ad- 
hered for  the  most  part  to  the  opinions  found 
among  the  earlier  fathers,  No.  1. 

(3)  The  opinions  of  the  earlier  fathers  were 
gradually  set  aside  in  after  ages,  especially  in 
the   Western  church.      The   opinion,  that  the 

44 


separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body  was  all 
that  was  intended  by  the  representation  of 
Christ's  descent  to  hell,  was  by  degrees  entirely 
laid  aside.  The  infernus  was  considered  by 
many  as  the  appropriate  designation  of  the 
place  of  the  damned,  and  the  passage  in  1  Pet. 
iii.  as  the  only  proof-text ;  and  so  the  descent  to 
hell  became  equivalent  to  the  descent  of  Christ 
to  the  place  of  the  damned.  Such  were  the 
views  of  many  of  the  schoolmen.  Thomas 
Aquinas  adopted  the  opinion  of  Hieronymus 
and  Gregory,  that  Christ  rescued  the  souls  of 
the  pious  fathers  who  lived  before  Christ  from 
the  limbus  patrum,  (a  kind  of  entrance  to  hell, 
status  medius.)  So  also  the  Council  at  Trent. 

They  now  began  to  dispute,  whether  the  soul 
only  of  Christ  was  in  hell,  or  his  body  also ; 
whether  he  was  there  during  the  whole  time  in 
which  his  body  was  in  the  grave,  or  only  on  the 
third  day,  shortly  before  the  resurrection,  &c. 
Durandus  and  other  schoolmen  understood  the 
matter  figuratively.  According  to  them,  Jesus 
was  not  in  hell  quoad  realem  prsesentiam  (as  to 
his  substance),  but  only  quoad  efftdum.  This 
opinion  had  many  advocates. 

The  protestant  theologians  since  the  Reforma- 
tion have  been  divided  in  opinion  upon  this 
subject. 

(a)  Luther  spoke  very  doubtfully  upon  the 
subject,  and  was  unwilling  to  determine  any- 
thing decidedly.  He  agreed  at  first  with  Hiero- 
nymus and  Gregory,  in  supposing  a  limbus  pa- 
trum whither  Christ  went.  But  whenever  he 
mentioned  the  subject,  especially  after  1533,  he 
was  accustomed  to  remark  that  Christ  destroyed 
the  power  of  the  devil  and  of  hell,  whither  he 
went  with  soul  and  body.  This  induced  the 
theologians,  who  adhered  strictly  to  every  par- 
ticular doctrine  of  Luther,  to  represent  the  de- 
scent of  Christ  to  hell  as  his  victory  over  the 
devil,  as  was  done  in  the  Formula  Concordiae, 
art.  ix.  M.  Flaccius  had  represented  the  descent 
to  hell  as  belonging  to  the  state  of  humiliation. 
But  they  represented  it  as  belonging  to  the 
state  of  exaltation,  and  declared  that  on  the  mo- 
ment of  the  resurrection  Christ  repaired  to  hell, 
with  soul  and  body,  in  both  natures,  shewed 
himself  to  Satan  and  hell  as  victor,  and  then 
appeared  alive  upon  the  earth  at  daybreak. 
They  are  not  so  unreasonable,  however,  as  to 
demand  a  belief  in  all  their  distinctions  respect- 
ing this  doctrine.  Hutter,  Baier,  Winkler, 
Carpzov,  and  others,  held  these  views.  But 
there  is  no  foundation  for  them  in  the  Bible. 
Some  of  the  ancient  creeds  say,  the  gates  of 
hell  (kingdom  of  the  dead)  trembled  at  his  ap- 
proach— e.  g.,  the  Sirmian  creed,  357. 

(6)  Beza  and  other  reformers  understood  the 
descent  of  Christ  to  hell  to  mean  his  burial.  Russ 
and  Rambach  among  the  Lutherans  assented 
to  this  opinion.  It  is  false,  however ;  for  de- 


346 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


scent  to  hell,  in  the  sense  of  the  ancients,  does 
not  refer  to  the  body  but  to  the  soul.  Vide 
supra. 

(c)  Others  affirmed  that  Christ  preached  the 
gospel  in  Hades ;  some  say,  to  the  believers 
who  lived  before  his  advent :  others,  to  the 
wicked  also,  and  that  such  as  submited  to  him 
were  delivered  from  the  place  of  the  damned  ; 
almost  like  the  opinion  of  many  of  the  ancients. 
Even  Seiler  thinks  this  opinion  very  probable. 
He  supposes,  with  others,  that  both  the  body 
and  soul  of  Christ  were  in  Hades.  But  Flac- 
cius,  Brentius,  Dreyer,  and  others,  agree  with 
the  ancients,  that  only  the  soul  of  Christ  was 
there,  while  his  body  lay  in  the  grave.  But 
these  differ  again  on  the  question,  whether  the 
descent  to  hell  belongs  to  the  state  of  humilia- 
tion or  exaltation. 

(<£)  Some  supposed,  as  Durandus  did,  that 
the  whole  subject  should  be  understood  figura- 
tively. 

(e)  Zeltner,  Baumgarten,  CEder,  and  others, 
returned  to  the  ancient  opinion,  and  understood 
otfyj  to  denote  hi  general  the  place  and  condition 
of  departed  spirits.  So  most  of  the  English 
and  Arminian  theologians. 

(/)  John  jEpinus  (a  Lutheran  theologian  at 
Hamburg,  of  the  sixteenth  century)  affirmed 
that  Jesus  endured  in  hell  the  pains  of  the 
damned,  and  therefore  accounted  his  descent 
thither  as  belonging  to  the  state  of  humiliation. 
He  had  many  followers,  though  he  was  not  the 
first  who  advanced  this  opinion.  Cardinal  Ni- 
colaus  of  Casa  had  before  asserted  the  same 
thing  in  the  fifteenth  century,  and  also  many 
reformed  and  Lutheran  theologians  since  the 
sixteenth  century,  as  John  Agricola,  Hunnius, 
Brentius,  Cocceius,  and  Witsius. 

We  omit  the  mention  of  the  peculiar  hypo- 
theses of  some  other  theologians. 

I.  Critical  Observations,  and  a  result  from  what 

has  been  said. 

Theologians  at  the  present  day  are  agreed,  for 
the  most  part/that  this  question  is  one  of  minor 
importance.  Some  have  often  affirmed  that  the 
passage  1  Pet.  iii.  did  not  relate  to  this  subject. 
But  all  the  other  explanations  given  are  forced 
and  unnatural,  and  the  idea,  after  all,  is  scrip- 
tural, for  the  passage  Acts  ii.  cannot  be  explained 
away.  According  to  the  passage,  1  Pet.  iii.,  the 
soul  of  Christ  actually  went  to  the  place  of  the 
damned  (^vXaauj,  career  caecum)  in  Hades,  and 
there  preached  to  the  disembodied  spirits.  Until 
the  last  judgment  the  souls  of  all  the  deceased 
are  in  Hades,  (i.  e.,  they  are  manes,  disem- 
bodied,) but  in  different  regions,  distant  from 
each  other,  (i.  e.,  in  vario  statu),  Luke,  xvi.  19 — 
31.  Christ,  then,  during  his  continuance  there, 
did  what  he  was  accustomed  to  do  while  yet  on 
the  earth  for  the  good  of  men ;  he  instructed 


those  who  needed  instruction,  and  exhorted, 
The  object  and  use  of  this  preaching,  which  is 
mentioned  in  the  passage  in  Peter,  we  cannot 
see,  since  those  who  are  in  Hades  are  always 
represented  by  Jesus,  the  apostles,  and  Peter 
himself,  as  fixed  in  their  destiny, and  reserved 
to  the  day  of  judgment.  Cf.  Luke,  xvi. 

It  will  be  sufficient  for  the  teacher  of  religion 
to  say  that  the  phrase,  Christ  descended  to  hell, 
teaches  (1)  that  during  the  time  in  which  the 
body  of  Christ  lay  in  the  grave  he  was  really 
dead;  and  (2)  that  the  human  soul  of  Christ 
was  in  the  same  unknown  condition  and  place 
to  which  the  souls  of  all  the  deceased  go,  and 
where  they  continue  till  the  day  of  judgment; 
(3)  that  in  this  respect  also,  as  in  others,  he 
was  like  men,  his  brethren,  and  that  (4)  he  had 
a  true  human  soul ;  Acts,  ii.  (5)  Peter  assures 
us  that  Christ  did  this  for  the  good  of  men  ;  he 
preached  to  the  departed  spirits.  The  nature  of  this 
preaching,  its  particular  object  and  consequences, 
what  he  intended  to  effect,  and  did  actually  effect 
by  it,  are  entirely  unknown  to  us,  as  many  other 
things  which  pertain  to  the  invisible  kingdom  of 
spirits.  When  we  ourselves  shall  belong  to  that 
invisible  kingdom,  and  probably  nottill  then,  we 
shall  receive  more  perfect  information  respecting 
this  subject,  if  it  can  be  useful  for  us  to  have  it. 

SECTION  XCVII. 

HISTORY  OF  CHRIST  CONSIDERED  AS  A  MAN,  IN  HIS 
STATE  OF  EXALTATION  OR  PERFECTION.  S.  97 
99,  INCLUSIVE. 

I.   Of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ. 

(1)  THE  vivification  and  resurrection  of  the 
man  Jesus  is  not,  strictly  speaking,  pars  status 
exaltationis,  but  terminus  a  quo,  as  some  theo- 
logians have  justly  remarked.     So  his  concep- 
tion was  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  state  of  hu- 
miliation. The  state  of  exaltation,  strictly  speak- 
ing, commences  with  the  ascension  of  Christ. 
The  events  which  preceded  were  merely  pre- 
paratory. 

(2)  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  frequently 
ascribed  in  scripture  to  the  Father;  Acts,  ii.  24, 
32;  iii.  15.     Vide  other  texts,  Morus,  p.  174, 
s.  1,  note.     Jesus,  however,  frequently  ascribes 
it  to  himself,  as  the  Son  of  Cod,  John,  x.  18, 
coll.  ii.  19,  "I  have  power  (efjovori'av)  to  take 
rny  life  again."     He  had  this  power,  inasmuch 
as  he  acted  in  common  with  the  Father,  and,  as 
Messiah,  had  received  power  from  the  Father* 
adequate  to  this  purpose. 

(3)  The  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
on  the  third  day  is  to  be  deduced  entirely  from 
the  accounts  given  of  it  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  genuineness  of  these  histories,  and  the  en- 
tire credibility  of  the  accounts  contained  in  them, 
are  here  presupposed.     On  these  grounds  we 
may  be  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  this  fact,  even 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       347 


if  no  inspiration  is  admitted.  Vide  s.  6,  8.  The 
following  circumstances  deserve  notice— viz., 
(a)  The  disciples  of  Jesus  had  always  ex- 
pected that  he  would  establish  a  visible  kingdom 
upon  earth.  They  had  never  understood,  and  al- 
ways perverted,  what  he  frequently  said  to  them 
respecting  his  death  and  resurrection.  When, 
therefore,  his  death  took  place,  they  did  not  be- 
lieve that  he  would  actually  rise  again.  Vide 
John,  xx.  9,  coll.  ver.  24,  25.  Accordingly 
they  were  so  incredulous  on  this  subject,  that 
they  regarded  the  first  information  of  the  fact 
which  they  received  as  fabulous  and  unworthy 
of  credit;  Luke,  xxiv.  11,  coll.  Ter.  22 — 24. 
Gregory  the  Great  remarks,  justly  and  happily, 
dubitatum  est  ab  illis,  ne  dubitaretur  a  nobis. 

(6)  After  this  event  Jesus  appeared  frequently 
to  his  apostles  and  his  other  disciples.  Ten 
different  appearances  have  been  noticed  by  some 
writers  in  the  Evangelists.  At  these  times  he 
conversed  with  his  disciples,  and  gave  them 
such  palpable  demonstrations  of  his  resurrec- 
tion that  none  of  them  could  longer  doubt  re- 
specting the  fact.  Vide  the  last  chapters  of 
the  gospels,  and  particularly  John,  xx.  21,  and 
Acts,  i.  2,  3;  x.  41.  Some,  at  first,  regarded 
his  appearance  to  be  that  of  a  dead  man  with  a 
shadowy  body,  such  as  was  believed  by  the 
Jews,  Greeks,  and  Romans  ;  very  much  the 
same  as  in  Homer  and  Virgil.  So  Thomas,  in 
John,  xx.  25,  seq.  For  this  reason  Jesus  ate 
with  them,  and  allowed  them  to  handle  him, 
John,  xxi. 

(c)  Thenceforward  they  were  so  convinced  of 
the  truth  of  his  resurrection  that  they  never  were 
or  could  be  persuaded  to  doubt  respecting  it. 
They  spake  of  it,  after  the  final  departure  of 
Christ  from  the  earth,  as  an  established  fact, 
which  was  universally  admitted.  They  pro- 
claimed it  publicly  at  Jerusalem,  where  Jesus 
was  condemned,  before  the  Sanhedrim,  and  other 
tribunals ;  nor  could  any  one  convince  them  of 
the  contrary.  Acts,  ii.24,  32;  iv.  8—13;  iii., 
x.,  xiii. ;  1  Cor.  xv.  5,  seq. ;  1  Pet.  i.  21. 

(e?)  No  solid  historical  objection  has  been 
ever  brought  against  this  event ;  nor  has  any 
ground  been  alleged  sufficient  to  convict  the 
apostles  of  imposture,  because  the  data  for  such 
proof  are  wanting.  The  event  must  therefore 
be  regarded  as  true,  until  the  contrary  can  be 
proved  by  historical  reasons,  or  until  the  wit- 
nesses can  be  convicted  of  untruth.  The  ene- 
mies of  Christianity  have  often  been  challenged 
to  produce  a  single  example  of  a  history  so  well 
attested  as  that  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and 
followed  too  by  such  important  consequences 
both  among  cultivated  and  ruder  nations,  which 
has  turned  out  in  the  end  to  be  false  and  ficti- 
tious. But  such  an  example  they  have  never 
been  able  to  produce.  It  is  worthy  of  notice, 
that  we  do  not  find  in  the  whole  history  of  the 


apostles  that  any  of  the  most  enlightened  ene- 
mies of  Christianity,  even  the  Sanhedrim  at 
rerusalem,  undertook  to  say  that  Christ  had  not 
isen,  although  they  hated  the  apostles  so  much 
as  to  abuse  and  condemn  them.  At  that  time, 
no  one  ventured  seriously  to  question  this  fact. 
The  grave  was  watched ;  the  frightened  guards 
rought  the  news  of  what  had  happened  to  the 
Sanhedrim,  and  were  bribed  to  give  out  that  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  had  stolen  his  corpse;  Matt. 
xxviiL  11 — 13.  Incredible  as  this  story  was, 
still  many  of  the  Jews  at  first  believed  it,  as 
Matthew  declares,  ver.  15  of  the  same  chapter. 

To  this  latter  supposition,  the  Wolfenb.  Un- 
genannte  has  entirely  assented,  in  his  work, 
Vom  Zweck  Jesu,  and  in  the  fragment,  "  Ueber 
die  Auferstehungsgeschichte  Jesu,"  which  Les- 
sing  published  in  his  "  Beytragen  ziir  Gesch- 
chte  und  Literatur,"  b.  4,  1777.  He  looks  up 
all  possible  discrepancies  in  the  narrative  which 
the  evangelists  have  given  of  minute  circum- 
stances, although  they  would  not  be  sufficient, 
even  if  well  grounded,  to  render  the  fact  histori- 
cally suspicious.  Vide  Doederlein,  Fragrnente 
und  Antifragmente,  2  thle.;  Niirnberg,  1781; 
Sender's  "Beantwortung;"  2nd  ed.  1780;  Mi- 
haelis,  Auferstehungsgeschichte  Jesu ;  Halle, 
1783.  Among  the  ancient  writers,  see  Ditten, 
Wahrheit  der  christlichen  Religion  auf  der  Au- 
ferstehungsgeschichte Jesu,  u.  s.  w;  and  Sher- 
lok,  Gerichtliches  Verhor  der  Zeugen  fur,  u.  s.  w. 

Some  have  endeavoured  to  render  this  history 
suspicious,  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  didnotjou&- 
licly  shew  himself  after  his  resurrection,  and  did 
not  appear  to  his  enemies.  Some  reply  that  it 
does  not  follow  from  the  silence  of  the  evange- 
lists that  he  did  not.  But  Peter  says  expressly 
that  he  appeared  ov  rtavti  ^9  7.0.9,  a'MC — rtp.iv, 
(the  disciples,)  Acts,  x.  40,  41.  What  object, 
now,  would  have  been  answered  by  this  public 
appearance  T  Those  who  had  not  before  received 
him  as  Messiah  would  have  rejected  him  anew; 
and  even  although  they  should  effect  nothing 
by  it,  they  would  still  have  given' out  the  whole 
thing  as  an  imposition.  And  suppose  the  whole 
populace  had  believed,  they  might  have  com- 
menced dangerous  innovations,  and  made  ar- 
rangements to  establish  Christ  as  an  earthly 
king,  Cf.  John,  vi.  15.  Those  who  had  no 
taste  or  capacity  for  the  spiritual  kingdom  of 
Christ  would  no  more  have  believed  in  him,  or 
firmly  and  faithfully  adhered  to  him,  after  he 
had  appeared  to  them  raised  from  the  dead,  and 
had  himself  preached  to  them,  than  before,  when 
he  also  preached  to  them  in  person,  and  wrought 
the  greatest  miracles  before  them ;  so  that  he 
himself  would  have  found  the  truth  of  what  is 
said,  Luke,  xvi.  31. 

Persons  have  not  been  wanting  who  have 
considered  the  account  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  as  allegorical.  Semler  supposed  that 


348 


Christ  did  not  physically  rise  from  the  dead,  and 
that  the  life  which  is  ascribed  to  him  is  spiritual 
life  in  heaven  and  in  the  hearts  of  men.  Others 
suppose  that  he  did  not  actually  die  upon  the 
cross,  but  that  he  lived  in  private  among  his 
friends  for  a  considerable  time  after  his  cruci- 
fixion, and  then  disappeared.  They  suppose 
that  when  his  side  was  pierced  he  fell  into  a 
swoon,  from  which  he  was  revived  by  the  evapo- 
ration of  the  spices  in  the  tomb ;  without  think- 
ing that,  even  if  he  had  survived  the  crucifixion, 
this  evaporation  in  a  confined  cave  would  neces- 
sarily have  suffocated  him.  Spinoza  says, 
somewhere,  that  the  resurrection  and  ascension 
were  not  events  which  took  place  in  the  material 
world,  but  in  the  moral  world — i.  e.,  they  are 
fictions,  ancient  Christian  fables,  which,  how. 
ever,  had  great  moral  consequences.  Many  mo- 
dern writers,  and  even  some  theologians,  have 
adopted  this  opinion.  Dr.  Paulus  rather  in- 
clines to  it  in  his  Comments  on  the  Evangelists. 

(4)  The  necessity  and  importance  of  this  doc- 
trine. It  is  one  of  the  most  important  of  the 
positive  and  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
and  is  so  regarded  by  Christ,  and  in  the  whole 
New  Testament.  Morus,  p.  175,  seq.,  s.  3. 

(a)  The  apostles  always  represent  this  as  a 
fundamental  truth  of  the  Christian  faith.  The 
w$ty  dyy&otj,  he  shewed  himself  alive  to  his  mes- 
sengers— i.  e.,  disciples — is  mentioned  as  a 
fundamental  truth,  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  coll.  Rom.  x. 
9.  The  apostles  were  called  /jLaptvptsavaatdasus 
Xpttf-zro-u,  Acts,  i.  22.  Paul  therefore  says,  that 
if  Christ  be  not  risen  we  can  have  no  hope  of 
resurrection,  and  our  whole  faith  in  him  is  un- 
founded; 1  Cor.  xv.  14,  17,  coll.  ver.  5 — 7 ;  for 
the  instructions  of  Christ  are  attested  and  con- 
firmed as  certain  and  divine  only  by  the  resurrec- 
tion. Cf.  1  Pet.  i.  3,  and  Morus,  p.  176,  n.  5. 

(6)  All  the  apostles  agree  that  Christ  by  his 
resurrection  received  the  seal  and  sanction  of 
God,  as  the  great  Prophet  and  Saviour  consti- 
tuted by  him.  He  himself  had  claimed  to  be 
the  Messiah ;  but  his  death  seemed  to  frustrate 
every  hope.  Vide  Luke,  xxiv.  20,  21.  His 
resurrection,  however,  rendered  this  belief  more 
sure  and  unwavering.  His  disciples  now  saw 
that  he  was  the  person  whom  he  claimed  to  be. 
They  were  compelled  to  conclude  that  God 
would  not,  by  such  a  distinguished  miracle, 
authorize  and  support  an  impostor,  who  merely 
pretended  to  be  a  divine  messenger.  Added  to 
this  is  the  fact,  that  he  himself  had  prophesied 
that  he  should  rise  in  three  days  ;  Luke,  xviii. 
33;  John,  x.  17.  The  accomplishment  of  this 
prophecy  proves  that  Christ  did  not  teach  in  his 
own  name,  but  as  the  messenger  of  God ;  as  he 
often  said;  John,  viii. — x.  The  following  are 
the  most  important  texts  relating  to  this  point — 
viz.,  Romans,  i.  4  ;  Acts,  xvii.  31  ;  1  Tim.  iii. 
16.  The  passage,  Ps.  ii.  7,  *  Thou  art  my  Son, 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 

this  day  have  I  begotten  thee,"  is  often  referred 
in  the  New  Testament  directly  to  the  resurrec- 
tion. "  I  have  declared  thee  (by  raising  thee 
to  life)  on  this  day  (the  day  of  the  resurrection) 
to  be  the  Messiah,"  Acts,  xiii.  33,  34. 


II.  The  Ascension  of  Christ. 

(1)  Jesus  spent  forty  days  on  earth  after  his 
resurrection,  in  order  to  render  his  disciples 
more  sure  of  the  fact,  to  teach  them  many  im- 
portant things,  and  to  prepare  them  for  the  dis- 
charge of  their  public  office.  Vide  the  last 
chapters  of  the  evangelists,  and  Acts,  i.  After- 
wards, he  was  removed  to  the  abodes  of  the 
blessed.  These  abodes  are  situated  in  regions 
invisible  to  men,  at  a  distance  from  the  earth, 
and  inaccessible  to  us  while  we  continue  here. 
They  cannot  be  better  described  than  by  the 
word  heaven,  which  almost  all  people  and  lan- 
guages have,  and  which  the  sacred  writers  fre- 
quently employ.  As  they  use  it,  it  denotes  the 
place  of  the  highest  sanctuary  of  God — i.  e., 
the  place  where  the  Omnipresent  Being  reveals 
himself  with  peculiar  glory.  Cf.  John,  xiv.  2, 3. 
Jesus  was  taken  up  from  earth  in  view 
of  his  apostles,  and  borne  hence,  (lyfrjp^  ave- 
krfl&j  elf  o-vpayov,)  Acts,  i.  9 — 11;  1  Pet.  iii. 
22;  Heb.  ix.  10,  11,  24.  He  ascended  from 
Bethany  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  Luke,  xxiv. 
51.  He  predicted  his  ascension  to  his  disci- 
ples; John,  vi.  62}  xiv.  2,  3.  This  doctrine, 
like  that  of  the  resurrection,  is  enumerated 
among  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity, 
1  Tim.  iii.  16,  (owJWjf^  lv  Sot-y ;)  1  Pet.  iii. 
22.  He  taught  his  disciples  to  find  in  all  these 
events  confirmation  of  his  declarations,  and  joy 
and  consolation.  As  he  had  risen,  the  first 
that  arose  from  the  dead,  and  had  been  trans- 
lated to  heaven,  they  too  should  one  day  arise, 
and  be  glorified,  if  they  reposed  faith  and  con- 
fidence in  him.  They  should  be  with  him 
where  he  was,  at  home,  in  the  house  of  his 
Father,  &c. 

Note. — Some  modem  writers  have  endea- 
voured to  awaken  suspicion  respecting  the  doc- 
trine of  the  ascension  of  Christ,  from  the  fact 
that  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John  do  not  expressly 
narrate  this  history  of  the  ascension  in  their 
gospels,  as  Mark  does  in  his,  and  as  Luke  does 
in  the  Acts.  But  they  could  not  have  been 
gnorant  or  doubtful  respecting  this  event,  any 
more  than  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament ;  since  Jesus  had  mentioned  it  in  his 
early  instructions,  according  to  John,  vi.  62, 
and  had  frequently  alluded  to  it  afterwards. 
The  writings  of  Paul,  Peter,  and  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  written  by  Luke,  shew  how  uni- 
versal was  the  belief  of  this  event  among  the 
irst  Christian  teachers.  And  how  could  these 
two  have  been  exceptions  1  Vide  the  Essays, 
Warum  haben  nicht  alle  Evangelisten  die 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       349 


Himelfahrt  Christ!  ausdriicklich  miterzahlt? 
in  Flatt's  Magazin,  Stuck  8,  Tubingen,  1802, 
Num.2. 

(2)  According  to  the  clear  declarations  of  the 
New  Testament,  Christ  lives  in  the  abodes  of 
the  blessed,  as  a  true  man.     Cf.  Acts,  i.  11; 
xvii.  31 ;  Heb.  ix.  10,  seq.     Vide  his  appear- 
ances in  the  Acts.     But  the  saints  in  heaven  do 
not  have  a  gross,  feeble,  perishable  body,  like 
the  human  body  which  we  possess  upon  the 
earth ;  but  a  more  perfect,  imperishable,  glori- 
fied body,  very  much  like  that  of  the  gods  of 
Homer  and  the  Grecians.     1  Cor.  xv.  coll.  s. 
152.     New  Jesus  received  such  a  body  in  hea- 
ven, as  we  shall  one  day  receive;  Phil.  iii.  21 

dwfjia,  86%r]s  (i.  e.,  fVSofoi')  avi'ov,  which  our 
present  earthly  body  (crw^a  rartftWorfcoj)  will  in 
future  resemble.  The  same  doctrine  is  carried 
out,  1  Cor.  xv.  42 — 53.  As  inhabitants  of 
of  earth,  men  have  a  mortal  body,  like  Adam  ; 
as  inhabitants  of  heaven,  a  refined  and  immor- 
tal body,  like  Christ,  the  second  Adam.  Christ, 
however,  did  not  receive  this  body  immediately 
on  his  resurrection ;  but  when  he  became  an 
inhabitant  of  heaven.  During  the  forty  days 
which  succeeded  his  resurrection,  he  ate  and 
drank  with  his  disciples — actions  which  cannot 
be  predicated  of  heavenly  bodies.  He  bore, 
too,  on  his  body  the  scars  and  marks  of  the 
crucifixion.  Some  few  have  supposed  that  he 
then  possessed  a  spiritual  body,  from  a  misun- 
derstanding of  the  words  Jh>pwv  xfxtaicr/itfvwv, 
John,  xx.  19,  26.  The  declaration  in  the  epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  that  he  offers  to  God,  as 
High-priest,  his  own  blood,  in  the  holy  of  holies, 
shews  that  the  same  Jesus,  who  according  to 
the  divine  decree  died  on  the  earth  for  our  good, 
now  lives  in  heaven,  and  that  we  may  always 
rejoice  in  the  happy  consequences  of  his  sacri- 
fice; Heb.  ix.  14,  24,  seq. 

Note. — The  dispute  relative  to  the  Lord's 
supper  has  occasioned  much  controversy  since 
the  sixteenth  century,  respecting  the  omnipre- 
sence of  the  body  of  Christ,  which  was  asserted 
by  many  Lutheran  theologians.  But  the  doctrine 
de  omnipresentia  or  ubiquitate  of  the  human  body 
of  Christ,  is  a  mere  hypothesis  of  some  theolo- 
gians, without  any  sure  scriptural  support.  In- 
deed, those  divine  attributes,  which,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  cannot  be  predicated  of  body 
in  general,  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  body  of 
Christ,  although  it  be  glorified.  Besides,  we 
are  expressly  assured  that  we  shall  in  future 
receive  a  body  of  the  same  kind  as  the  heavenly 
body  of  Christ,  Phil.  iii.  21;  1  Cor.  xv.  49. 
Finally,  this  doctrine  is  not  necessary  for  the 
defence  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  respecting  the 
Lord's  supper.  Vide  infra  respecting  this  doc- 
trine. 

(3)  There  has  always  been  a  great  diversity 


of  opinions  on  the  question,  How  long  Christ, 
as  a  man,  will  continue  in  heaven,  and  when, 
according  to  his  promise,  he  will  return  and 
visibly  reappear  on  the  earth.  Christ  himself 
has  promised  no  other  visible  return  than  that 
at  the  end  of  the  world,  as  the  Judge  of  men. 
For  his  rfapoixjta  to  destroy  Jerusalem,  and 
punish  his  enemies,  is  a  figurative  mode  of 
speech,  like  the  adventus  Dei  so  often  spoken 
of  by  the  prophets.  But  many  of  the  early 
Christians,  who  were  inclined  to  Judaism,  and 
expected  the  establishment  of  an  earthly  king- 
dom, explained  many  texts  in  accordance  with 
such  an  opinion,  although  there  is  not  one  pas- 
sage in  all  the  writings  of  the  apostles  distinct- 
ly in  favour  of  it.  The  apostles  always  sup- 
posed that  Christ  would  remain  in  heaven  until 
the  end  of  the  world,  (during  the  whole  time 
of  the  New-Testament  dispensation,)  and  not 
visibly  return  until  that  time;  although  they 
did  not  undertake  to  determine  how  long  this 
period  would  continue.  Vide  Acts,  i.  11; 
1  Thess.  i.  10,  coll.  2  Thess.  ii.  seq. 

Here  belongs  that  remarkable  passage  in  the 
speech  of  Peter,  Acts,  iii.  20,  21,  which  has 
been  so  often  misunderstood  and  referred  to  the 
restoration  of  all  things.  "  God  has  caused 
the  joyful  times  of  the  New  Testament  to  ap- 
pear, (xcupot  dva-4/vffcoj,  cf.  2  Cor.  vi.  2,)  and 
has  sent  Jesus  Christ,  whom  now  the  heaven 
hath  again  received,  or  still  retains,  as  long  as 
this  happy  period  of  the  New  Testament  (the 
new  dispensation  upon  the  earth)  shall  continue.'1'' 
Here,  then,  is  no  promise  that  Christ  will  re- 
turn to  found  an  earthly  kingdom.  Af'tcu&at, 
when  spoken  of  a  place,  always  means,  accord- 
ing to  a  Greek  idiom,  that  the  place  receives  or 
retains  any  one.  So  all  the  ancient  interpreters, 
and  Beza,  who  denied  the  omnipresence  of  the 
body  of  Christ  from  this  passage.  For  this 
reason  the  Lutheran  theologians  have  preferred 
to  refer  fo'tac&at.  to  Christ.  The  ^povot  outoxa- 
r'acr-r'actettj  are,  the  times  of  the  New  Testament, 
like  zp6f06  Siop^tofffwj,  Heb.  ix.  10.  Vide  ver. 
20.  And  o#pt,  signifies  not  until,  but  dum, 
while,  during ;  a#ptj  cr^tpov  xatetT'a*,  Heb. 
iii.  13.  Vide  Ernesti,  Program,  ad.  h.  1.  in 
Opusc.  Theol.  p.  483,  seq. 

Note. — It  was  intended  to  teach  men  by  this 
event,  to  regard  Christ,  even  in  his  human  na- 
ture, as  henceforth  standing  in  the  closest  con- 
nexion with  God — as  in  the  possession  and 
enjoyment  of  supreme  felicity  and  power,  and 
as  the  Ruler  and  Lord,  whose  agency  and  influ- 
ence were  unlimited.  The  description  of  God, 
as  dwelling  in  heaven,  suggests  the  idea  of  his 
supremacy  over  all  the  inhabitants  and  events 
of  the  world,  his  controlling  providence,  bound- 
less reign,  and  perfect  enjoyment.  Morus,  p. 
177,  not.  extr. 


2G 


350 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


SECTION  XCVIII. 

WHEREIN  THE  HEAVENLY  GLORY  OR  MAJESTY 
OF  CHRIST,  AS  A  MAN,  CONSISTS?  AND  THE 
SCRIPTURAL  IDEA  OF  THE  KINGDOM  AND  DO- 
MINION OF  CHRIST. 

I.  Scriptural  designation  of  the  Glory  of  Christ. 

THE  imperfection  and  inferiority  which  Christ 
had  voluntarily  assumed  during  bis  life  upon 
earth  ceased  immediately  on  his  ascension.  He 
now  became,  even  as  a  man,  immortal  and 
blessed;  Rom.  vi.  9,  10;  Heb.  vii.  16,  25. 
Even  in  his  human  nature  he  was  raised  by  God 
to  a  very  illustrious  dignity ;  John,  xvii.  5, 
(5o|a,  6a|a£»pcw,)  Acts,  ii.  33—36  ;  Eph.  i.  20, 
seq. ;  Col.  i.  17.  "Ovopa  vrtsp  jtav  ovofia,  Phil, 
ii.  9,  10.  He  is  entitled  to  honour  from  every 
being,  even  from  the  higher  intelligences,  Heb. 
i.  6;  Phil.  ii.  9,  10;  since  he  is  henceforth 
raised  in  glory  and  majesty  above  all,  1  Pet.  iii. 
22.  Hence  a  kingdom  is  ascribed  to  him,  over 
which  he  reigns  in  heaven.  He  is  called  King, 
and  divinely  appointed  Lord;  o  Kvptoj,  Acts,  ii. 
36  ;  and  Kvptoj  Sofys,  especially  by  Paul,  1  Cor. 
ii.  8,  (i.  e.,the  glorious,  adorable  Lord,  niasn  ^p, 
Ps.  xxiv.  7,  8.)  In  Heb.  i.  9,  Paul  applies 
to  Christ  the  passage,  Ps.  Ixv.  8,  "  God  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  joy  above  thy  fel- 
lows"— i.  e.,  God  honours  thee  more,  and  gives 
thee  more  privileges,  than  all  the  partners  of  thy 
dignity — the  other  kings,  or  sons  of  God. 

Note. — Various  other  appellations  are  applied 
in  the  New  Testament  to  Christ,  descriptive 
partly  of  his  supremacy,  and  partly  of  his  care 
for  the  church  as  its  head.  Among  these  are 
the  following — viz.,  Kf^atoj,  the  Christian 
church  being  often  compared  with  a  body,  Eph. 
i.  22,  23  ;  v.  23  ;  dv»jp,  maritus,  2  Cor..  xi.-2 ; 
and  npt$to$i  John,  iii.  29.  Also  the  appellation 
of  a  shepherd,  and  the  comparisons  taken  from 
it,  John,  x.  12.  So  Christ  is  called  by  Paul, 
rtoifteva  tbv  psyav,  Heb.  xiii.  20,  and  dp^tzto^p, 
1  Pet.  v.  4.  This  is  a  very  honourable  appella- 
tion, since  kings  were  called  shepherds  by  the  He- 
brews, Ps.  Ixxx.  2,  seq.,  like  the  ttoip.sv£s  fccuLv 
of  Homer.  We  must  understand,  however,  by 
this  appellation,  a  pastoral  prince,  such  perhaps 
as  Abraham  was,  and  the  orientalists  frequently 
were ;  the  proprietor  and  owner  of  the  herds, 
who  had  servants  in  his  employment  as  under 
shepherds. 

II.  The  Nature  and  Extent  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Christ,  the  Administration  of  his  Reign  which 
he  carries  on  from  Heaven. 

Cf.  Ncesselt,  Diss.  «*  de  Christo  homine  reg- 
nante,"  Opusc.  torn.  ii. ;  Halle,  1773;  and  the 
programm,  "  De  Christo  ad  dextram  Dei  se- 
dente,"  p.  10,  seq. ;  Halle,  1787.  There  are 
some  good  remarks,  together  with  many  very 


unfounded  ones,  in  Dr.  Eckermann's  Essay, 
Ueber  die  Begriffe  vom  Reiche  und  der  Wieder- 
kunft  Christi,  in  his  Theologischen  Beytragen, 
b.  ii.  st.  1 ;  Altona,  1891,  8vo.  Morus  treats 
this  subject  admirably,  p.  178,  seq. 

(1)  The  terms  which  signify  rule  are  some- 
times used  figuratively,  and  denote,  a  joyful 
situation,  happy,  and  honourable  in  an  uncom- 
mon degree— freedom,   independence,  authority  ; 
in  short,  every  kind  of  distinguished  happiness 
and  welfare.  Thus- the  stoic  paradox;  "omnem 
sapientem  regnare,  sive  esse  regem  ,•"  and  Cicero : 
"olim  cum  regnare  existimabamur."     In  this 
sense,  Christians  are  called  kings,  1  Pet.  ii.  9 ; 
Rev.  i.  6.      They  are   said   avppaatteveiv  t$ 
XpttfT'cp,  to  share  with  Christ  the  royal  privileges, 
2  Tim.  ii.  12.     In  the  parallel  passage,  Rom. 
viii.  17,  they  are  said  awdo^ay^vat.     They  are 
said,  also,  x^^ovofjalv  paaiteiav,  Matt.  xxv.  34 ; 
and  j3a<yttav£tv  ev  £«ij,  Rom.  v.  17.     According- 
ly, when  Christ  is  said  to  reign,  his  life' in  hea- 
ven may  be  intended.     But  this  phrase  applied 
to  him  is  not  confined  to  this  meaning;  it  sig- 
nifies something  far  more  great  and  elevated 
than  all  this,  as  will  appear  from  the  following 
remarks. 

(2)  The  kingdom  of  Christ,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  is  of  very  wide 
extent. 

A.  It  extends  over  everything  in  all  the  uni- 
verse.    "  All  power  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is 
given  to  me,"  Matt,  xxviii.  18.   'O  Ttatvjp  rtdvfa, 
otouxsv  stf  £«tpct£  wv'tov,  x.  4.  %.,  John,  xiii.  3. 
God  exalted  him,  even  as  a  man,  above  every- 
thing which  is  great  and  powerful  in  the  mate- 
rial and  spiritual  world,  in  order  that  he  might 
rule  over  them ;  and  subjected  to  him  even  the 
different  orders  and  classes  of  good  and   bad 
spirits.   Christ  reigns  over  them  as  Lord,  Phil, 
ii.   9—11;  Eph.  i.   20,    21;  Col.  i.   15—17; 
Heb.  i.  4—14 ;  1    Pet.   iii.   22.    The  ground 
and  object  of  such  an  extensive  rule  is  this : — 
There  are  many  things  both  in  the  material  and 
spiritual  world  which  operate  to  the  advantage 
or  disadvantage  of  men.     Now,  if  men  are  to 
be  peculiarly  the  subjects  over  whom  Christ  is 
to  reign  as  king ;  if  to  promote  their  welfare 
and  to  shield  them  from  all  harm ;  if  to  punish 
his  own  enemies  and  the  enemies  of  his  king- 
dom, and  to  bless  and  reward  his  followers,  are 
to  be  his  peculiar  concern  ; — he  must  be  able  to 
control  all  these  other  objects.     For,    • 

B.  The  reign  or  government  of  Jesus,   as 
Christ  or  Messiah,  has  a  principal  respect  to  the 
human  race.  He  exerts  his  authority  on  account 
of  men,  and  for  their  advantage.   This  kingdom 
is  twofold, — viz., 

(a)  Regnum  sensu  latiori.  Since  the  time 
when  Christ  was  received  into  heaven,  (Eph. 
i.  20,)  he  has  reigned  over  all  men,  whether 
they  know  and  honour  him  or  not — i.  e.,  he  pro- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       351 


vides  for  them  all  that  spiritual  welfare  and  true 
happiness  of  which  they  are  capable.  He  re- 
ceived from  the  Father  right  and  power  over  the 
human  race,  John,  xvii.  2;  Matt,  xxviii.  18; 
Eph.  i.  10;  2  Pet.  ii.  1. 

(6)  Regnum  sensu  strictiori  sive  angustiori,  ex- 
tends over  his  worshippers,  who  know  and  love 
him ;  over  the  whole  society  (ixx^aia,  SPIJ?)  of 
those  who  are  united,  not  by  external  power  and 
compulsion,  but  by  the  power  of  truth  and  by 
instruction.  This  community  is  therefore  called, 
in  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  jSaaitat'a  ©EOV  sive 
ovpavov,  Eph.  v.  5;  Col.  i.  13.  Over  this  com- 
munity he  exercises  the  most  special  watch- 
fulness and  care.  Its  members,  when  faithful- 
ly devoted  and  obedient  to  him,  are  his  rtpopata, 
ISia.  The  foundation  was  laid  and  the  begin- 
ning made  in  this  community  during  the  life  of 
Christ  on  earth.  From  the  time  of  John  it  suf- 
fered violence,  Matt.  xi.  12.  But  the  beginning 
was  small,  and,  in  comparison  with  what  after- 
wards took  place,  unobserved  by  the  great  mul- 
titude; ovx  ep%ctat  psta,  Ttopar'^p^cffcof,  Luke, 
Xvii.  20.  This  kingdom  was  not  extended  and 
widened  till  after  the  ascension. 

(3)  The  manner  in  which  Christ  governs  or 
rules  his  kingdom.  He  reigns  as  oco^p,  Eph. 
v.  23—29. 

A.  Noiu,  during  the  continuance  of  the  pre- 
sent state  of  the  world, 

(a)  By  instruction  in  the  truth,  John,  xviii. 
37.  At  his  departure  from  the  world  he  com- 
mitted this  instruction  to  his  disciples,  and  espe- 
cially to  his  apostles  as  his  ambassadors,  that 
they  might  communicate  it  everywhere,  without 
regard  tonation  or  kindred,  Matt,  xxviii.  18 — 20. 
It  was  to  be  more  extensively  diffused  and 
widely  propagated  by  means  of  other  teachers, 
appointed  by  the  apostles  under  the  guidance 
and  authority  of  Christ,  Eph.  iv.  11,  15,  16. 
Accordingly,  in  the  passages  mentioned,  Paul 
derives  the  qualifications  and  the  ministry  (#a- 
ptj,  ^aptujua-r'a)  of  teachers  from  Christ  himself, 
as  Christ  also  himself  does,  John,  x.  1,  seq. 

(6)  By  that  support,  help,  and  assistance 
which  he  imparts  to  his  church,  his  special  con- 
cern in  its  extension,  and  the  frustration  of  the 
designs  of  its  enemies,  Matt,  xxviii.  20;  1  Cor. 
xv.  25,  26 ;  1  John,  iv.  4  ;  v.  4,  5. 

Note. — All  the  hindrances  which  stand  in  the 
way  of  the  extension  of  Christianity,  and  the 
success  of  the  designs  of  Christ  to  promote  hu- 
man happiness,  are  frequently  called  l^pot 
Xpurtov.  This  term  is  borrowed  from  Psalm 
ex.  2.  Morus  has  enumerated  these  hindrances, 
as  presented  in  the  scriptures,  p.  180,  seq.,  s.  6. 
Christ  has  already  removed  these  hindrances 
in  a  measure ;  he  is  constantly  diminishing 
them,  and  at  the  end  of  the  present  dispensation 
will  have  entirely  surmounted  them.  Ps.  ex. 
1,  2 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  25.  Morus,  p.  181,  seq.,  s.  7. 


B.  In  future,  when  the  present  state  of  the 
world  shall  cease,  (at  which  time  the  greatest 
revolutions  will  take  place  in  the  whole  uni- 
verse, 2  Pet.  iii.  7,  10—13.)  Then,  and  not  be- 
fore, will  Christ  exhibit  himself  in  all  his  glory, 
as  Lord  of  the  human  race.  Paul  says,  express- 
ly, that  all  the  glory  of  Christ  is  not  now  dis- 
played, Heb.  ii.  8;  Col.  iii.  3,  4;  for  all  have 
not  yet  acknowledged  him  as  Lord,  and  his  ene- 
mies have  still  power  to  harm.  But  then  his 
glory  will  become  visible,  1  Cor.  xv.  26,  27  ; 
Heb.  x.  13.  Christ  will  solemnly  and  visibly 
reappear  on  the  earth,  Acts,  i.  11  ;  1  Thess.  iv. 
16  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  10,  13  ;  Heb.  ix.  28;  Col.  iii.  4. 
He  will  raise  the  dead,  John,  v.  21 — 23;  Mat- 
thew, xxv.  He  will  sit  in  judgment  upon  the 
dead  and  the  living,  1  Cor.  xv.  26,  27 ;  Rom. 
xiv.  10;  Phil.  ii.  10;  and  will  allot  rewards 
and  punishments,  John,  v.  21 — 23,  27,  seq. ; 
Matt,  xxv.;  Acts,  xvii.  31.  According  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  universality  of  Christ's  kingdom, 
he  will  judge,  not  Christians  only,  but  all  men. 
Cf.  the  passages  above  cited,  and  Acts,  xvii. 
31 ;  Romans,  ii.  6,  7.  But  the  time  of  this  judg- 
ment is  unknown,  and  was  so  even  to  the  apos- 
tles, 1  Thess.  v.  1,  seq.  coll.  2  Thess.  ii.  3. 
Many  of  the  early  Christians,  however,  appear 
to  have  supposed  that  it  was  near  at  hand,  and 
was  connected  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem and  the  temple,  which  was  also  called  rta- 
povfft'a  Xptff-r'oiJ.  For  the  Jews  believed  that  the 
temple  would  stand  until  the  end  of  the  world, 
Psalm  Ixxviii.  69.  But  the  apostles  never 
adopted  or  favoured  this  opinion.  Vide  Thess. 
ut  supra. 

(4)  Some  further  observations  on  the  nature 
and  continuance  of  the  government  which  Christ 
as  a  man  administers  in  heaven. 

(a)  The  government  of  Christ  is  described  by 
himself  and  his  apostles  as  being,  not  external 
and  temporal,  but  spiritual,  conducted  principal- 
ly by  means  of  his  religion,  by  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel,  and  the  power  which  attends  it ; 
dfc^ct'?,  John,  xviii.  37;  orphan,  Eph.  v.  26. 
Vide  No.  3.  This  fact  excludes  and  refutes  the 
objection,  that  Christ  designed  to  establish  an 
earthly  kingdom,  s.  89 ;  and  it  frustrates  the 
hopes  of  the  Chiliasts,  who,  agreeably  to  Jew- 
ish prejudices,  are  expecting  such  a  kingdom 
yet  to  come. 

(6)  This  government  which  Jesus  adminis- 
ters, as  a  man,  is  not  natural  to  him,  or  one 
which  he  attains  by  birth,  but  acquired.  He 
received  it  from  his  Father  as  a  reward  for  his 
sufferings,  and  for  his  faithful  performance  of 
the  whole  work  and  discharge  of  all  the  offices 
entrusted  to  him  by  God  for  the  good  of  men. 
'E#ap  io  a  I'D  OVT'CJ  oixyta.,  and  8  to  avtov  vjtfpv- 
4*o<js,  Phil.  ii.  9.  "We  see  Jesus,  after  he  had 
endured  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honour," 
&c.,  Hebrews,  ii.  9,  10.  The  Father  is  de- 


352 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


scribed  as  vrt6fa%a$  Xpttfr*^  rtdvta,  1  Cor.  XV. 
24,  27 ;  Acts,  ii.  31 — 36  ;  the  discourses  of  Jesus 
in  John,  xvii.  5 ;  Matt.  xi.  27,  seq. ;  xxviii.  18  ; 
also  many  of  the  texts  which  speak  of  his  sit- 
ting at  the  right  hand  of  God,  s.  99.  Paul,  in 
his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  frequently  makes 
use,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  of  the  word 
fftewo^-jpo*,  which  is  applied  literally  to  the 
reward  of  victors.  He  explains  the  idea  in  a 
very  intelligible  manner,  Heb.  v.  8.  Christ 
learned  by  his  sufferings  to  obey  God  and  do 
his  will;  and  he  who  knows  how  to  obey  so 
well  is  also  qualified  to  govern  well.  Vide 
Morus,  p.  184,  s.  9,  for  other  texts  and  com- 
ments. This  kingdom  is  therefore  called,  at  one 
time,  the  kingdom  of  God,  from  its  founder ;  at 
another  time,  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  who  ac- 
complished the  plan  of  God;  and  still  again, 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  of  Christ,  because  God 
and  Christ  were  united  in  its  establishment. 

(c)  The  Israelites  imagined,  according  to  the 
instruction  of  the  prophets,  that  the  kingdom  of 
the  Messiah  would  be  an  everlasting  kingdom 
(atiovtoj,  perpetuus,  continuing  as  long  as  the 
world  should  endure.  Thus  it  is  always  repre- 
sented in  the  New  Testament.  "  He  will  reign 
over  the  house  of  Jacob  «tj  T'OVJ  cuwj/aj,  seat  -r^j 
/Sacrotata*  avtov  ovx  satai  T'^OJ,"  Luke,  i.  33. 
The  text,  Ps.  xlv.  7,  6  ^povoj  <jov  si$  -tbv  cuwva 
tfov  atwj/oj,  is  explained  in  the  same  way,  Heb. 
i.  8.  Christ  himself  says  expressly,  Matt.  xvi. 
18, 7tv7.at  a§ov  ov  xai?i(]%v<3ov(Si  t^exx^gia^ — i.  e., 
the  society  established  by  him  should  not  de- 
cline and  perish,  like  so  many  others,  but  al- 
ways endure.  He  said,  with  great  explicitness, 
Matt,  xxviii.  20,  that  his  assistance  and  special 
care  should  extend  to  his  followers  i'wf  *ijj  GVV 
t&timf  tfov  cuwvoj.  His  friends  should  enjoy 
his  constant  presence,  support,  and  assistance, 
in  every  condition  of  life,  until  the  end  of  the 
world  that  now  is. 

(cZ)  From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that 
the  government  which  Christ  as  a  man  admi- 
nisters in  heaven  will  continue  only  while  the 
present  constitution  of  the  world  lasts.  At  the 
end  of  the  world,  when  the  heavenly  state  com- 
mences, the  government  which  Christ  adminis- 
ters as  a  man  will  cease  ,•  so  far,  at  least,  as  it 
aims  to  promote  the  holiness  and  happiness  of 
men,  since  those  of  our  race  who  labour  for  this 
end  will  then  have  attained  the  goal,  and  will 
be  actually  blessed.  So  Paul  says  expressly, 
I  Cor.  xv.  24 — 28,  in  entire  accordance  with  the 
universal  doctrine  of  the  New  Testameut  re- 
specting the  kingdom  of  Christ  as  man.  He  is 
speaking  of  the  kingdom  of  Jesus,  or  of  his  of- 
fice as  Messiah,  and  refers  to  Ps.  ex.  1,  "Sit 
on  my  right  hand,  until  I  subject  to  thee  all 
thine  enemies."  The  phrase,  to  sit  on  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father,  he  explains  by  j3a<yt- 
and  comprehends  under  this  term  all  the 


offices  of  the  Messiah  and  the  institutions 
which  he  has  established  for  the  good  of  men — 
i.  e.,  for  their  holiness  and  eternal  blessed- 
ness. These  offices  (his  kingdom)  will  cease  at 
the  end  of  the  world,  when  all  the  opposers  of 
the  advancement  of  his  kingdom  upon  earth, 
and  even  Death,  the  last  enemy  of  his  followers, 
will  be  subdued,  and  when  his  friends  will  be 
introduced  by  himself  into  that  eternal  blessed- 
ness to  which  it  is  his  aim  to  exalt  them.  Then 
will  his  great  plan  for  the  happiness  of  men  be 
completed,  and  the  end  of  his  office  as  Messiah 
will  be  attained.  Thenceforward  the  Father 
will  no  more  make  use,  as  before,  of  the  inter- 
vention of  the  Messiah  to  govern  and  bless  men ; 
for  now  they  will  be  actually  blessed.  Christ 
then  will  lay  down  his  former  charge,  and  give 
it  over  to  the  Father,  who  had  entrusted  him 
with  it.  For  we  cannot  expect  that  the  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel  will  be  continued  in  heaven, 
and  that  the  other  institutions  of  the  Christian 
church,  which  relate  only  to  the  present  life, 
will  be  found  there  in  the  same  way  as  they  ex- 
ist here  upon  the  earth.  In  the  abodes  of  the 
blessed,  the  Father  will  himself  reign  over  his 
saints  with  an  immediate  government,  and  in  a 
manner  different  from  the  rule  which  he  causes 
to  be  exercised  over  them  through  Christ,  his 
ambassador,  while  they  continue  upon  the  earth. 
Vide  Scripta  varii  argumenti,  p.  60,  seq.,  ed.  ii. 
The  glory  and  majesty  of  Christ  will  remain, 
however,  unaltered ;  and  he  will  still  far  excel 
his  friends  and  brethren,  who  enjoy  a  happiness 
similar  to  his  own.  He  will  still  be  honoured 
and  loved  by  them  as  their  Lord,  and  as  the  au- 
thor of  their  salvation,  John,  xvii.  24;  Rom. 
viii.  17;  2  Tim.  ii.  12. 

SECTION  XCIX. 

REMARKS  ON  THE  FORM  AND  SENSE  OF  THE  SCRIP- 
TURAL REPRESENTATION  RESPECTING  THE  KING- 
DOM OF  GOD  AND  OF  CHRIST  ;  AND  ON  THE  SIG- 
NIFICATION OF  THE  PHRASE,  "  TO  SIT  ON  THE 
RIGHT  HAND  OF  GOD,"  AS  APPLIED  TO  CHRIST. 

I.  Origin  and  Design  of  the.  Formulae  respecting 

the  Kingdom  of  Christ. 

(1)  WE  must  begin  with  the  principle,  that 
many  of  the  images,  expressions,  and  phrases, 
which  are  applied  to  God  and  his  government, 
are  borrowed  from  those  applied  to  earthly 
kings.  We  regard  God  as  possessing  every- 
thing which  is  considered  great,  exalted,  and 
pre-eminent  among  men,  but  in  a  far  higher  de- 
gree. With  us  everything  is  small  and  limit- 
ed, with  him,  great,  comprehensive,  and  im- 
measurable. But  now  again,  we  reason  retro- 
gressively  from  the  Deity,  and  from  heaven  to 
earth.  God,  by  his  agency,  is  the  cause  of  every- 
thing great  and  wonderful  which  takes  place 
on  the  earth,  ovbtv  wsv  0£ov.  Even  the  govern- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       353 


ment  of  kings  is  of  divine  origin,  and  they  are 
appointed  by  the  Deity  himself. 

Tip)]  (Aiorp£0£oj  /?a<nXf)oj)  6'  it  Ai6f  ion,  <pi\ei  Si  I 
/x/jn'sra  Zruj, 

Horn.  II.  ii.  197.  "Jupiter  bestows  upon  kings 
their  sceptre,  and  the  right  to  reign  over  others," 
v.  205.  See  also  II.  ix.  98,  99;  and  Callim. 
Hymn,  in  Jov.  lx  Atoj  jSacro,?^ j,  x.  i.  X.  They 
are  accordingly  the  representatives  and  ambas- 
sadors of  the  gods,  bear  their  image,  govern  and 
judge  in  their  stead.  Hence  they  are  called 
gods,  sons  of  God,  Stoysyftj,  5toT'p£$£fr$,  ©scot-, 
cw/T't^fot,  x.  r.  &. 

All  these  ideas  and  expressions  were  com- 
mon with  the  Israelitish  nation,  and  were  so- 
lemnly sanctioned  by  their  prophets  under  direct 
divine  authority.  The  God  JEHOVAH  was  their 
proper  king,  supreme  over  their  state  and  na- 
tion. He  governed  them  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  human  regents  and  deputed  kings. 
Their  constitution  was  theocratic, — to  make  use 
of  a  happy  term,  first  applied  to  this  subject  by 
Josephus.  Hence  the  Israelitish  state  and  na- 
tion are  called  the  possession,  and  the  peculiar 
people  of  Jehovah,  and  also,  the  kingdom  of  Je- 
hovah ;  as  Ex.  xix.  6  ;  Ps.  cxiv.  2.  In  the  same 
way  the  later  Jews  applied  the  phrases,  king- 
dom of  God,  or,  of  heaven,  to  the  Jewish  state 
and  church,  and  to  the  whole  religion  and  ritual 
of  the  Israelites.  When  a  proselyte  was  re- 
ceived by  them,  he  was  said  to  be  admitted 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  or,  of  heaven.  Vide 
Schottgen,  De  regno  crelorum  (Hor.  Heb.T.  I. 
extr.)  ;  and  Wetstein  on  Matt.  xxi.  25,  Note. 
On  this  account  the  Jews  called  themselves 
vlov$  jSaoitaKxj,  Matt.  viii.  12  ;  and  Christ  said, 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  (the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple of  God)  should  be  taken  from  them,  Matt. 
xxi.  43. 

(2)  The  Jews,  according  to  the  instruction  of 
their  prophets,  conceived  of  the  Messiah  as  a 
ruler  and  religious  reformer,  like  Moses  and  the 
pious  kings  of  antiquity,  only  far  greater,  more 
exalted  and  perfect  than  they,  (vide  s.  89  ;)  and 
so  they  spake  of  the  eternal  king,  and  the  eternal 
kingdom  of  David,  2  Sam.  vii. ;  Psalm  Ixxxix. 
They  therefore  called  the  happy  condition  of  the 
church  and  state  under  the  reign  of  the  Messiah, 
and  the  subjects  of  his  government,  by  way  of 
eminence,  j3a0tXiut  ®eov  or  ovpavwv.  They  be- 
lieved that  they  exclusively  should  enjoy  this 
kingdom,  and,  together  with  the  Messiah,  should 
reign  over  all  nations.  After  the  Babylonian 
exile,  this  appellation,  applied  in  this  sense  to 
the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  peculiarly,  became 
very  common,  and  was  probably  taken  from 
Dan.  vii.  13,  14.  It  must  have  been  common 
in  Palestine  at  the  time  of  Christ,  but  it  occurs 
very  rarely  in  the  later  Rabbinical  writings. 
(3)  Jesus  and  his  apostles  did  not,  then,  invent 
45 


these  words  and  phrases ;  they  only  preserved 
he  terms  which  they  found  already  existing,  and 
gave  them  a  meaning  more  just  and  pure  than  the 
common  one.  This  they  did,  however,  with 
wise  caution  and  forbearance.  Christ  admitted 
the  expectations  of  the  Jews  of  freedom  in  the 
dngdom  of  the  Messiah,  but  he  shewed  that  this 
freedom  was  not  civil  liberty,  but  freedom  from 
the  power  of  sin,  John,  viii.  32;  Luke,xvii.  20. 
He  confirmed  the  opinion  of  the  Jews,  that  the 
sacred  writings  testified  concerning  the  Messiah, 
and  he  agreed  with  the  Jews  as  to  the  very  pas- 
sages containing  this  testimony,  but  he  taught 
them  the  more  just  and  spiritual  interpretation 
of  these  passages.  Vide  s.  90,  III.  By  re- 
ceiving the  kingdom  of  God,  he  means,  believing 
n  Jesus  Christ,  submitting  to  his  guidance  and 
obeying  his  precepts,  and  thus  obtaining  the 
right  of  enjoying  the  divine  favours  promised 
through  the  Messiah,  John,  iii. ;  Mark,  x.  15. 
The  same  is  meant  by  being  received  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,  Col.  i.  13 ;  Ephes.  v.  5.  It 
was  for  this  object  that  John  the  Baptist  had 
before  laboured,  although  he  was  ignorant  on 
many  points  belonging  to  the  new  dispensation  ; 
the  essentials,  however,  he  understood,  and  his 
theme  was,  "  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand."  He  knew  Christ  to  be  the  "Lamb 
of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world  ;"  and  described  the  Messiah  as  the  am- 
bassador of  God,  a  teacher  and  expiator,  John, 
i.  29  ;  iii.  27,  32,  34. 

(4)  These  attempts  of  Jesus  and  his  apostles 
were  very  much  facilitated  by  the  fact  that  the 
terms  kingdom  of  God  and  kingdom  of  heaven 
were  used  figuratively  even  by  the  Jews.  They 
frequently  gave  these  phrases  a  moral  and  spiri- 
tual sense,  denoting  and  comprehending  all  the 
divine  appointments  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of 
men,  for  their  happiness  in  this  and  the  future 
life  ;  everything,  in  short,  which  serves  to  pro- 
mote the  progressive  holiness  and  proportionate 
happiness  of  man  in  this  life,  and  the  life  to 
come,  which  is  his  true  destination.  Hence 
they  conceived  of  a  twofold  kingdom  or  state  of 
God  ;  one  upon  the  earth,  of  which  the  dispensa- 
tion under  the  Messiah  constitutes  the  brightest 
and  greatest  epoch,  the  other  in  heaven.  The 
pious  worshippers  of  God  are  translated  from  the 
former  to  the  latter.  Here  they  live  as  strangers 
in  a  land  of  pilgrimage,  there  they  are  at  home, 
in  their  native  land.  So  they  called  the  latter 
place  the  Father's  house,  the  upper  church,  the 
heavenly  or  new  Jerusalem.  And  so,  compre- 
hensively, the  entire  sum  of  happiness  after 
death  and  in  the  future  world  was  called  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

Now  Jesus  and  the  apostles  frequently  use 
the  phrase  J3acutata  ®tov  or  ovptwwv,   in  this 
sense ;  and  still  more  frequently  do  they  con- 
nect the  two  senses  together.    One  who  is  a 
2o2 


354 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


member  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  upon 
the  earth,  and  obey  his  precepts,  has  a  title  to 
citizenship  in  the  kingdom  of  God  which  is  in 
heaven  (in  the  city  of  God,  in  the  new  Jerusa- 
lem), Phil.  iii.  20,  21,  coll.  Matt.  xxv.  34; 
James,  ii.  5  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  50  ;  2  Thess.  i.  5 ;  2 
Tim,  iv.  18;  2  Pet.  i.  11.  The  remark  made 
respecting  jSacftXevftv  avv  Xpun^,  x.  t.  %.,  be- 
longs in  this  connexion.  Vide  s.  98,  II.  1. 

(7)  From  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that 
images  derived  from  a  king  and  his  subjects, 
and  their  mutual  relations,  are  more  proper  and 
suitable  than  any  other  to  represent  and  de- 
scribe the  duties,  benefits,  and  privileges  of  the 
worshippers  of  God,  and  especially  of  the  true 
followers  of  the  Messiah.  But  the  Jews,  who 
had  little  taste  for  what  is  spiritual,  were  con- 
tent with  the  mere  image,  and  so  forgot  the 
thing  itself  which  the  image  was  designed  to 
indicate.  They  imagined  a  king  reigning  visibly 
upon  the  earth. 

Jesus  and  his  apostles  preserved  these  same 
images,  but  shewed  in  what  way  they  ought  to  be 
understood  and  applied.  They  shewed  that  the 
Messiah,  after  his  ascension,  did  not  visibly  and 
bodily  reign  on  the  earth,  but  that  henceforward 
he  reigned  in  heaven ;  and  there,  invisible  to 
mortal  eyes,  would  rule  the  inhabitants  of  hea- 
ven and  earth  (the  latter  by  his  religion  and  vi- 
sible support)  until  the  end  of  the  world.  They 
shewed,  moreover,  that  this  invisible  and  hea- 
venly government  was  of  far  wider  extent  than 
the  earthly  government  expected  by  the  Jews, 
and  would  embrace  not  one  nation  only,  but  all 
nations  without  distinction  ;  because  the  king- 
dom of  morality,  of  truth,  and  happiness,  is  a 
kingdom  for  all,  such  being  the  destination  of 
all,  and  God,  as  a  father,  being  solicitous  for  the 
happiness  of  all  his  children,  John,  x.  16; 
avaxefyahanAGav^ai  Tfa  rtdvta  tv  Xpttf-rcj,  Eph.  i. 
10,  also  rfkripovv  jtdvta,  (comprehendere  impe- 
rio,)  Ephes.  i.  23,  iii.  19;  Col.  i.  18.  They 
taught  that  the  whole  visible  disclosure  of  the 
majesty  of  Christ,  and  his  return  to  the  earth, 
would  not  take  place  before  the  end  of  the  pre- 
sent constitution  of  the  world.  Thus  they  pre- 
served the  ancient  expressions  and  phrases 
respecting  the  Messiah  and  his  royal  office, 
which  had  been  common  among  the  Israelites, 
but  so  defined  and  modified  the  meaning  of  them, 
a's  to  give  them  an  entirely  different  aspect — a 
different  and  far  more  elevated  sense  than  was 
common — a  sense,  too,  which  entirely  agreed 
with  the  real  meaning  of  the  Old-Testament 
predictions. 

Kings  are  the  sons  of  God  ,-  and  the  most  illus- 
trious kings  are  the  first-born.  And  so  the  Mes- 
siah ;  but  he,  in  a  far  higher  sense  than  all 
earthly  kings,  is  Ttoj  ©sov,  rtf>u>T?6i?oxo$,  fio- 
voyevris,  John,  i. ;  Heb.  i.  6 ;  Romans,  viii.  29  ; 
Col.  i.  15,  coll.  ver.  18.  The  sons  of  kings. 


i 


especially  the  first-born,  are  the  heirs  and  pos- 
sessors of  the  kingdom ;  and,  among  the  Israel- 
ites, themselves  ruled  as  representatives  and 
deputies  of  the  father  over  particular  provinces 
of  his  kingdom.  Vide  Anmerkung  zu  Ps.  xlv. 
17.  So,  too,  the  Messiah  rules  over  the  most 
important  parts  of  the  paternal  or  divine  king- 
dom. Hence  he  is  called  xx^povo^oj,  Lord, 
possessor  of  the  kingdom,  Heb.  i.  2.  Kings  de- 
cree justice  and  hold  judgment  in  the  name  of 
God,  as  his  ambassadors  and  deputies,  Psalm 
Ixxii.  1.  So,  too,  the  Messiah;  but  he  will 
hold  judgment  over  the  living  and  the  dead,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  at  the  end  of  the  world. 
In  the  same  way,  the  other  forms  and  expres- 
sions may  be  easily  solved. 

(6)  This  kind  of  representation  and  mode  of 
instruction  is  in  a  high  degree  intelligible  at  all 
times ;  it  possesses  internal  truth  and  reality. 
But  it  was  particularly  adapted  to  all  the  con- 
ceptions of  the  Jews,  and  even  of  the  heathen 
at  that  age.  It  conveyed  to  them,  when  it  was 
properly  understood,  the  most  exalted  and  proper 
ideas  respecting  God,  and  his  designs  in  the 
establishment  of  the  Christian  institute  and 
church.  At  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles, 
the  belief  universally  prevailed  among  the  Jews, 
and  indeed  appears  to  have  been  entertained 
even  by  the  prophets,  that  God  governed  the 
world  by  means  of  angels,  as  the  servants  and 
instruments  of  his  providence.  Vide  s.  58,  60. 
The  belief,  too,  of  many  subordinate  deities, 
through  whose  instrumentality  the  supreme 
God  governed  the  world,  prevailed  among  hea- 
then nations.  Cf.  1  Cor.  viii.  5,  6.  The  apos- 
tles, therefore,  shewed  that  God  had  now  en- 
trusted the  government  of  the  world  and  the 
care  of  our  spiritual  welfare  directly  to  the  man 
Christ ;  and  that  these  ministers  of  Divine  pro- 
vidence, as  well  as  all  the  other  instruments 
which  it  employed,  were  now  subjected  to  him, 
that  all  might  trust  in  him  alone,  as  the  author 
of  salvation.  Vide  1  Cor.  ut  supra.  And  so 
Paul,  Heb.  L,  ii.,  proves  that  Christ  is  far  ex- 
alted above  all  the  servants  and  ministers  of 
God  (angels),  who  are  now  indeed  made  sub- 
ject and  obedient  to  him.  This  reference  of  the 
apostolical  doctrine  is  very  clear  from  Hebrews, 
ii.  5,  ovx  dyyttotj  vjtt-ta%t  tv\v  oixovptvqv  fi\v  \ni^- 
hovaav,  (i.  e.,  the  times  of  the  New  Testament,) 
but  to  Christ  only,  although  he  lived  in  humi- 
liation upon  the  earth,  (vide  the  verse  follow- 
ing,) which  was  always  revolting  to  the  Jews. 

Note. — To  say  the  whole  briefly  :  the  phrase 
kingdom  of  God,  or,  of  Christ,  in  the  sense  in 
which  John  the  Baptist,  Jesus,  and  his  apostles, 
understood  it,  signifies,  the  whole  work  of  Christ 
for  the  good  of  men,  and  everything  which  is  ef- 
fected by  this  work.  Hence  the  phrase  denotes 
(a)  all  the  benefits,  rights,  privileges,  and 
ewards  which  his  followers  receive  in  this  and 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       355 


the  future  life;  comprising  the  doctrine  re- 
specting Christ,  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  all  the 
blessedness  which  we  owe  to  him;  and  some- 
times comprising,  too,  the  followers  of  Christ 
themselves  (cives),  who  enjoy  these  blessings; 
(6)  all  the  duties  and  the  worship  which  we 
owe  to  Cod  and  Christ ;  and  so  the  conditions 
on  which  we  obtain  the  blessings  above  enume- 
rated. Thus  are  the  comprehensive  phrases,  to 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  to  see  it,  &c.,  to 
be  understood.  Vide  especially  Morus,  p.  184, 
185,  n.  3.  Cf.  Storr,  "  De  notione  regni  cceles- 
tis  in  N.  T."  Opusc.  Acad.  t.  i.  n.  v. 

II.  Signification  of  the  phrase,  "  to  sit  on  the  right 
hand  of  God,"  as  applied  to  Christ.* 

(1)  The  phrase  is  borrowed  from  Psalm  ex. 
1,  which  the  Jewish  teachers  at  the  time  of 
Christ  must  have  considered  to  be  a  Messianic 
psalm,  as  appears  from  Matt.  xxii.  44,  seq. 
[Vide,  for  the  explanation  of  this  psalm,  the 
note  to  the  author's  German  translation,  3rd 
ed.]  The  origin  of  this  expression,  too,  is  to 
be  sought  in  a  comparison  of  God  with  earthly 
kings.  We  conceive  of  kings,  rulers,  judges, 
as  sitting  on  thrones,  when  they  exercise  rule, 
pronounce  judgment,  or  display  all  their  splen- 
dour and  majesty.  Hence  the  verba  sedendi  (as 
2tT)  signify  also  t°  rule,  to  reign.  God  has  his 
throne  in  the  heavens,  and  there  Christ,  after 
his  ascension,  seated  himself  with  God;  1 
Peter,  iii.  22;  Ephes.  i.  20;  Heb.  i.  13.  Now 
for  any  one  to  be  appointed  a  place  with  a  king, 
to  be  seated  with  him,  or  at  his  right  hand,  is 
frequently — 

(a)  A  mere  external  mark  of  honour,  shew- 
ing that  such  a  person  is  highly  respected,  es- 
teemed, and  loved  by  the  king.  So  1  Kings,  ii. 
19,  seq. ;  1  Sam.  xx.  25;  1  Mace.  x.  62 — 65. 
Standing  at  the  right  hand  is  the  same  thing, 
Psalm  xiv.  10.  The  Grecian  and  Roman  writers 
furnish  abundant  examples  of  the  same  usage. 
But  it  denotes — 

(6)  Participation  in  the.  government  and  asso- 
ciated rule,  though  not  full  equality  in  rank  and 
dignity.  Sitting  with  the  king  is  plainly  used 
in  this  sense,  Matt.  xx.  21,  and  frequently  in 
Grecian  and  Roman  writers,  and  in  Grecian 
mythology.  Minerva  is  represented  by  Homer 
as  sitting  beside  Jupiter,  and  by  Pindar  as  sit- 
ting at  his  right  hand,  and  as  giving  charges 
and  commands.  Apollo  is  represented  by  Cal- 
limachus  as  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  Jupiter, 
and  as  rewarding  singers  and  poets.  In  all 
these  cases,  participation  in  the  government  and 
associated  rule  are  indicated,  though  not  full 
equality. 

*  Vide  the  Prograratn  cited  in  the  preceding  Sec- 
tions, in  which  the  various  explanations  which  have 
been  given  to  this  phrase  are  enumerated  and  exa- 
mined. Cf.  Morus,  p.  185,  n.  6. 


(2)  Now  when  this  phrase  is  applied  to 
Christ,  we  easily  see  from  this  analogy  what  it 
must  mean,  and  how  it  must  have  been  under- 
stood by  ancient  readers  and  hearers.  The 
phrase  is  never  applied  to  Christ  except  when 
his  humanity  is  spoken  of,  or  when  he  is  men- 
tioned as  Messiah,  as  ©fct^pwTtoj.  It  is  not 
spoken  of  his  divine  character,  though  Michaelis 
so  explains  it,  referring  it  to  the  seat  of  Cod 
upon  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  The  language, 
"Christ  left  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father  in  order  to  become  man,"  was  first  used 
by  the  fathers  who  lived  after  the  fourth  century. 
Such  language  never  occurs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Silting  at  the  right  hand  of  God  is  always 
there  represented  as  the  reward  which  the  Mes- 
siah obtained  from  God,  after  his  death  and  as- 
cension, for  the  faithful  accomplishment,  when 
upon  earth,  of  all  his  work  for  the  salvation  of 
man.  It  is  the  promised  reward  (tftfouotft?,  j3pa- 
|3ftov,)  which  the  victor  receives  after  a  long  con- 
test. Vide  Acts,  ii.  31—36 ;  Heb.  xii.  2.  Hence 
the  Father  is  said  to  have  placed  Jesus  at  his  right 
hand,  Ephes.  i.  20.  This  phrase,  therefore, 
beyond  doubt,  implies  everything  which  belongs 
to  the  glory  of  Christ  considered  as  a  man, 
and  to  the  dominion  over  the  entire  universe, 
over  the  human  race,  and  especially  over  the 
church  and  its  members,  which  belongs  to  him 
as  a  king.  Vide  s.  98.  This  is  the  reward 
which  he  receives  from  the  Father ;  he  takes 
this  place,  as  a  man,  for  the  first  time,  imme- 
diately after  his  ascension  to  heaven,  1  Peter, 
iii.  22;  Mark,  xvi.  19;  Acts,  ii.  32,  seq.  &c. 
WTith  this  his  reign  in  heaven  commences. 
Paul  himself  explains  the  phrase  by  jSatftteiW, 
1  Cor.  xv.  25,  and  opposes  foitovpyilv  (which 
is  applied  to  angels,  vide  Heb.  i.  3,  4)  to  xa$%£iv 
tx  of^tMv  ®tov,  Heb.  i.  13, 14.  One  of  the  most 
decisive  texts  is  Ephes.  i.  20 — 22,  "  God  raised 
him  from  the  dead,  and  set  him  at  his  own  right 
hand,"  ver.  20.  The  exaltation  and  dominion 
of  Jesus,  which  extends  over  everything  in  all 
the  universe,  is  described  ver.  21 ;  and  finally 
his  reign  over  the  church  is  particularly  men- 
tioned, xa,i  ainfbv  touxe  x£<pa&r}v  trti  rtdvta.  (su- 
preme ruler)  ry  BxxhrjGM,  ver.  22.  Cf.  1  Pet. 
iii.  22. 


CHAPTER   III. 

ON  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST. 

SECTION  C. 

OF  THE  HIGHER   NATURE    IN  CHRIST,  AND  HOW  IT 
IS  PROVED. 

WE  have  before  shewn  (s.  93)  that  Christ  was 
a  true  man,  both  as  to  soul  and  body;  but  have 


356 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


now  to  shew  that,  according1  to  the  representa- 
tion of  the  New  Testament,  he  was  not  a  mere 
man,  but  that  he  possessed  at  the  same  time 
such  exalted  perfections  as  cannot  be  ascribed 
to  any  mere  man,  or,  indeed,  to  any  created  be- 
ing ;  or,  to  speak  in  the  language  of  the  schools, 
that  he  possessed  a  divine  nature.  Caution  is 
necessary  in  the  selection  of  the  texts  by  which 
this  doctrine  is  proved. 

(1)  This  doctrine  cannot  be  proved, 

(a)  By  every  text  in  which  Christ  is  called 
Ttoj  ®iov,  for  this  is  frequently  a  name  by  which 
his  work  and  office,  and  not  his  nature,  are  de- 
noted. There  are  passages,  however,  in  which 
Tl6$  ©sot)  and  ^ovoytp^j  clearly  indicate  the 
higher  nature  of  Christ.  Vide  s.  73,  6,  b.  Such 
texts  only  must  be  chosen  as  are  determined  by 
the  context  and  predicates  to  have  this  reference 
— e.  g.,  John,  v.  10;  and  the  appellation,  /iovo- 
yEVTJf,  John,  i. ;  also  the  texts  in  which  Christ 
calls  God  his  Father,  in  a  sense  in  which  this 
name  is  never  used  by  any  created  being;  those, 
too,  in  which  he  ascribes  attributes  to  himself, 
as  Son,  which  never  were  or  could  be  predicated 
of  a  mortal  or  created  spirit ;  the  texts,  e.  g.,  in 
which  he  says  that  he  works  in  common  with 
his  Father.  It  deserves,  however,  to  be  re- 
marked, that  many  theologians  ever  since  the 
earliest  ages  have  considered  the  appellation 
Son  of  God,  as  denoting  simply  the  divine  nature 
of  Christ.  These  remarks  apply  equally  to  the 
appellation  Aoyoj,  in  itse/f  considered. 

(6)  By  those  expressions,  when  taken  by 
themselves,  which  ascribe  to  Christ  resemblance 
to  God  in  some  high  degree — e.  g.,  slxwv  ®fov 
dopai'ov,  Col.  i.  15,  and  artavyaapa  Sdf^j  and 
rtoffr'acffcoj  a/ufov,  Heb.  i.  3.  'Artav- 
66|>7J  signifies  th»,  radiance  of  the  divine 
splendour  or  majesty ;  ^apaxr^p  vrtoatdatcos 
avtov — a  visible  image  (imago  expressa)  of  the 
divine  substance.  The  sense,  then,  of  these  re- 
presentations is  this,  "The  Son  is  he  through 
whom  God  hath  clearly  revealed,  or  visibly 
made  known  himself  to  men."  So  Paul  him- 
self explains  it,  2  Cor.  iv.  4,  "  As  God,  at  the 
creation,  gave  light  to  the  obscure  earth,  so 
Christ  by  his  religion  gave  light  to  men,  and 
led  them  to  a  clear  knowledge  of  God."  Vide 
John,  i.  14,  coll.  ver.  18.  But  other  expressions 
in  the  passages  just  cited,  clearly  ascribing  di- 
vine attributes  to  Christ,  are  proof  of  this  doc- 
trine, as  may  be  seen  below. 

(c)  Nor  is  this  doctrine  proved  by  those  pas- 
sages which  treat  of  Christ's  state  of  exaltation, 
and  of  the  eminent  privileges  which  were  con- 
ferred upon  him  as  a  man,  when  he  entered  upon 
that  condition — e.  g.,  a  large  portion  of  the  pas- 
sages, Phil,  ii.,  and  Heb.  i.  6,  seq.,  which  are 
often  improperly  adduced  as  proof-texts  of  his 
divine  nature. 

One  great  evil  of  an  incautious  selection  of 


, 


proof-texts  is  this,  that  when  one  particular  pas- 
sage is  found  not  to  prove  the  point  for  which 
it  was  adduced,  the  conclusion  is  readily  made 
that  the  whole  doctrine  is  incapable  of  scriptural 
support. 

(2)  This  doctrine  may  be  proved, 

(a)  By  the  texts  in  which  Christ  is  described 
as  far  exalted  over  all  the  creatures  of  God,  over 
men,  angels,  and  everything  in  the  universe 
besides  God  himself,  and  indeed  as  the  creator 
and  preserver  of  all  things.  Such  texts  are  Col. 
i.  15,  16,  and  others  already  explained,  s.  38. 
The  proof  in  point  is  not  derived  so  much  from 
the  term,  sixuv  ®sov,  as  from  what  is  there  pre- 
dicated of  Christ.  UpcoT'oT'oxo^  lio.^  x-tlatus, 
does  not  mean,  the  greatest  or  first  of  all  crea- 
tures; for  we  find  immediately  after,  that  he 
himself  created  all  things  ,-  and  we  must  there- 
fore conclude  that  he  is  not  the  first  of  all  crea- 
tures, since  he  is  himself  the  Creator,  npcor'o- 
roxoj  must  be  rendered  either  king,  ruler,  Heb. 
i.  6,  and  Rev.  iii.  14,  where  we  read  dp^  (i.  e., 
ap#cov)  xtiGfu$  ®eov  ;  or,  he  who  existed  prior  to 
all  creatures,  in  which  sense  the  Jews  called 
God  primogenitum  mundi. 

(6)  By  the  texts  in  which  attributes  are  as- 
cribed to  Christ  which  can  be  predicated  of  no 
mortal,  and  which  are  never  ascribed  to  angels, 
or  to  the  prophets,  or  other  inspired  teachers 
whom  God  has  employed  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  his  purposes  upon  the  earth.  Such 
texts  are  found  most  frequently  in  John.  Among 
them  are  those  which  contain  the  phrase  so  often 
occurring,  "  he  descended  from  heaven,"  John, 
iii.  31 ;  vi.  31,  seq.,  ver.  62;  viii.  23;  xiii.  3; 
xvi.  28.  This  phrase  denotes  superhuman,  hea- 
venly, or,  divine  origin  and  nature,-  and  is 
spoken  of  manna,  John,  vi.  31 ;  and  ofwisdorn, 
James,  i.  17;  cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  47.  This  language 
is  never  used  with  respect  to  any  mere  prophet 
or  inspired  teacher.  Even  John,  whose  bap- 
tism was  l|  ovpavov  (of  divine  origin),  distin- 
guishes himself  from  Christ,  who  came  from 
heaven,  (John,  iii.  31 ;)  and  speaking  of  Christ's 
return  to  heaven,  he  says,  "  he  returned  thither 
oTtov  >j'v  tfo  Ttpoffpov,  John,  vi.  62,  and  xvii.  The 
text  is  so  clear,  that  Socinus  and  others,  who 
denied  the  superhuman  nature  of  Christ,  invent- 
ed a  rapture  of  Christ  into  the  heavens,  (raptum 
in  coelum  ;)  or  considered  the  text  as  referring 
to  the  pre-existence  of  the  human  soul;  although 
not  a  trace  of  such  an  opinion  appears  in  the 
Bible. 

Here  it  might  indeed  be  objected,  "that 
Christ  is  described  as  an  exalted,  heavenly  spirit, 
but  not  as  God,-  he  might  still  have  been  created." 
So  the  Arians.  The  objection,  however,  is  not 
valid  ;  because,  in  these  passages  and  elsewhere, 
he  is  said  to  exist  before  any  created  things, 
(i.  e.,  ab  aeterno,)  John,  i.  1,  and  xvii.  Vide 
s.  37,  in  prin.  Before  the  creation  of  the  world 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       357 


nothing  existed  besides  God  ;  so  that  whatever 
had  existence  then  was  God  himself,  belonging 
to  his  being  and  his  attributes.  This  is  the  di- 
rect and  incontrovertible  conclusion  of  John  in 
the  passage  cited.  Indeed,  Christ  is  distinctly 
affirmed  to  have  enjoyed  supreme  divine  glory 
in  heaven.  "  Restore  to  me  (by  exultation)  the 
glory  f;v  sl%ov  rtpo  T'OV  T'OV  xoapov  flvat,  rtapa 
<7oc" — i.  e.,  in  heaven,  (referring  to  his  divine 
nature,)  John,  xvii.  5.  Such  language  is  never 
used  in  respect  to  any  prophet,  angel,  or  any 
created  intelligence.  A6|a,  in  the  last  case, 
cannot  refer  to  the  office  of  Christ,  or  to  his  do- 
minion, for  he  had  none  "before  the  creation  of 
the  world."  Hence  he  is  called  by  way  of 
eminence,  o  Ttoj  ®tov,  (John,  v.  10 ;)  6  povo- 
ytvrt$,  (John,  i.  14;)  because,  among  all  who 
are  elsewhere  called  the  sons  or  children  of  God, 
he  is  alone  in  his  kind,  and  bears  this  name  in 
an  exalted  sense,  in  which  no  man,  no  angel, 
no  created  being,  can  appropriate  it,  John,  v. 
Vide  s.  37. 

Christ  also  frequently  alludes  in  his  dis- 
courses to  his  divine  nature  in  another  way — 
e.  g.,  by  the  word  n/u,  John,  vii.  29,  34,  36; 
"  before  Abraham  was,  I  AM,"  John,  viii.  58. 
This  is  the  very  language  in  which  the  immu- 
table God  speak  of  himself  in  the  present  time. 
So  the  Jews  understood  it;  and  regarded  it  as 
blasphemy  for  Christ  to  apply  it  to  himself,  and 
on  this  account  began  to  stone  him,  ver.  59. 
For  never  had  a  prophet  or  any  created  being 
spoken  thus  of  himself. 

Christ  also  frequently  ascribed  the  miracles 
which  he  wrought  to  himself.  He  professed 
that  he  worked,  or  acted,  in  common  with  God, 
John,  v.  17;  x.  31.  This,  again,  was  never 
said  of  any  of  the  prophets.  In  the  miracles  of 
which  they  were  the  instruments,  nothing,  in- 
deed, was  done  by  them,  but  everything  by  God. 
Accordingly,  the  Jews  affirmed  that  by  this 
claim  Christ  made  himself  equal  with  God,  iaov, 
©«9,  John,  v.  18;  x.  31,  seq.  They  perceived 
that  he  used  the  term  filius  Dei  in  a  sense  in 
which  no  mere  man  could  use  it  with  respect 
to  himself;  and  that  he  made  himself  equal  with 
God,  by  ascribing  to  himself  what  can  belong  to 
God  only.  And  Christ  does  not  disapprove, 
but  rather  authorizes  their  conclusion,  John,  v. 
and  x. 

There  are  many  other  expressions  in  the  last 
discourses  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples  (John,  xiii., 
seq.)  which  never  are  used  in  the  Bible,  and 
never  can  be  used,  in  respect  to  any  created  be- 
ing :  as  John,  xiv.  6 — 9 ;  also  ver.  13, 14,  where 
Christ  ascribes  to  himself  the  hearing  of  prayer 
&c. 

These  classes  of  texts  prove  clearly  against 
Photinus  and  the  Socinians,  that  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  did  not  understand  Christ 
to  be  a  mere  man,  but  that  they  supposed  him 


to  possess  a  higher  nature,  far  exalted  above  that 
of  men  and  angels.  This  the  Arians  concede. 
But  they  affirm  that  these  texts  are  not  sufficient 
;o  prove  his  equality  with  the  Father.  Even 
these  texts,  however,  go  far  towards  proving  this 
loint.  But  it  is  proved  more  directly, 

(c)  From  the  third  class  of  texts,  which  shew 
that  Christ  is  represented  by  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  as  partaking  of  the  divine  na- 
ture as  fully  as  the  Father,  and  being  as  truly 
God  (toroj  rtar'pt)  as  the  Father;  and  from  texts 
n  which  he  is  called  God.  All  the  necessary 
considerations  respecting  these  texts  are  found 
s.  37,  38. 

SECTION  CI. 

OF  THE  CONNEXION  BETWEEN  THE  DEITY  AND 
HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST,  ACCORDING  TO  WHAT 
THE  BIBLE  DIRECTLY  TEACHES,  AND  THE  CON- 
SEQUENCES WHICH  MAY  BE  DEDUCED  FROM  ITS 
INSTRUCTIONS. 

I.  What  the  Bible  directly  teaches  respecting  the 
Union  of  the  two  Natures  in  Christ. 

(1)  WHEN  we  compare,  without  preposses- 
sion or  prejudice,  the  various  passages  which 
treat  of  Christ,  we  clearly  perceive  that  two 
parts,  as  it  were,  or  two  aspects,  are  distin- 
guished in  the  same  subject  or  person.  This 
subject,  called  Christ,  is  considered  as  God,  and 
as  man ;  divine  and  human  attributes  are  equally 
ascribed  to  him  in  one  and  the  same  context ; 
as  in  his  own  prayer,  John,  xvii.  5.  It  was  for 
this  reason  that,  even  as  early  as  the  third  cen- 
tury, the  appellation  ©fav^pcoTtoj,  or  ©savSpof,  was 
given  him.  Vide  s.  102.  The  clearest  passages 
in  point  are  found  in  John;  especially  i.  3,  coll. 
ver.  16,  which  clearly  teach,  (a)  that  the  same 
Aoyoj,  who  created  all  things,  and  existed  from 
eternity  with  the  Father,  as  his  Son  and  confi- 
dant— the  same  Aoyoj  (6)  became  man,  (crapfi 
and  lived  among  men.  Hence  the 
of  the  fathers.  The  passage  of  Paul, 
Gal.  iv.  4,  agrees  with  the  one  last  mentioned  ; 
but,  taken  by  itself,  is  not  so  clear.  So  the  text, 
John,  xvi.  28,  "  He  who  came  down  from  hea- 
ven, the  same  returns  again  to  heaven."  The 
same  person  who,  as  man,  lived  among  men, 
came  down  from  heaven,  and  existed  previously 
in  heaven;  John,  iii.  13;  vi.  62;  xvii.  5  ;  also, 
1  Tim.  iii.  16 ;  John,  viii.  40,  57,  58 ;  and  chap, 
xiv. 

From  these  texts  it  follows,  (a)  that  the 
Logos,  who  was  from  eternity  with  the  Father, 
is  the  same  person  who  afterwards  appeared 
upon  the  earth  under  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ; 
(6)  that  this  Logos  became  a  real  man,  (crapi 
sysWo,)  or  received  a  human  nature,  and  not 
merely  assumed  an  apparent  human  form. 
Now,  except  we  deviate  arbitrarily  from  the 


358 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


words  of  the  Bible,  we  can  explain  these  facts 
only  on  the  supposition  that  in  Christ  daily  and 
humanity  are  distinguished,  and  yet  connected. 

(2)  This  connexion  between  the  Son  of  God 
and  the  man  Jesus  commenced  when  Christ  was 
conceived  ;  vide  s.  93.     For  the  supposition  of 
the  Gnostic  sects,  and  of  Cerinthus,  that  the 
higher  nature  was  united  with  the  man  Jesus  at 
some  later  period,  as  at  his  baptism,  is  wholly 
unscriptural.     John  plainly  declares,  i.  14,  that 
the  Aoyoj  (the  same  to  whom  divine  predicates 
had  been  ascribed,  ver.  1)  ffopl  eyaWo.     From 
this  passage  we  are  compelled  to  conclude  that 
the  divine  nature  connected  itself  with  the  hu- 
man, when  the  latter  was  conceived.    Theolo- 
gians illustrate  this  by  the  human  soul,  which 
in  conception  is  united  with  the  human  body, 
and  thenceforward  animates  and  governs  it.     In 
the  same  way  was  the  divine  nature  united  with 
the  human,  thenceforward  composing  with  it 
one  person,  Christ;  as  our  soul  and  body  united 
constitute  one  individual  man,  consisting  of  two 
very  dissimilar  natures. 

(3)  Sopt  must  here  be  taken,  in  its  common 
scriptural  sense,  to  denote  not  merely  a  man,  but 
one  infirm  like  others,  only  without  sin.     The 
theologians  of  the  earliest  ages,  even  of  the  se- 
cond century,  took  occasion  from  this  term  to 
call  Christ's  becoming  man  ivadpxa>at>$  and  evav- 
£pu>rt>7<ji.j,  Lat.  incarnatio.     In  after  times  they 
denominated  the  same  event  rtpo^^tj,  assumtio, 
the  assuming  of  human  nature  ;  since  we  must 
suppose  that  the  superior  nature  condescended 
to  the  human  and  became  united  with  it,  and  not 
the  reverse.     This  mode  of  speech,  although 
in  itself  unobjectionable,  is  not  scriptural.    For 
the    phrase,   ff7t«p/*aroj   'Aj3paa/t  frtiAa/tjSavstat, 
Heb.  ii.  16,  means,  that  he  assisted,  took  care  of 
the  children  of  Abraham.     How  could 
'A3paaju,  denote  human  nature  ?  ' 

and  avtiha+ipdviaSai  tivo$  literally  mean,  to  take 
hold  of  any  one,  Acts,  xxiii.  19  ;  then,  to  assist, 
to  take  care  of  any  one,  Sir.  iv.  12;  Luke,  i.  54. 

II.  Conclusions  from  these  Scriptural  Statements  ,• 
and  a  more  precise  explanation  of  them. 

The  connexion  of  deity  and  humanity  in  Christ 
was, 

(1)  Not  of  such  a  nature  as  that  either  the 
deity  or  humanity  was  deprived  of  any  essential 
and  peculiar  attributes,  or  in  any  essential  re- 
spect changed.  For, 

(a)  The  divine  nature  connot  be  supposed  to 
have  changed.  Such  a  supposition  would  con- 
tradict our  very  first  ideas  respecting  God.  It  is 
not  therefore  just  and  proper  to  say,  as  some  of 
the  fathers  did,  The  eternal  SON  OF  GOD  (i.  e., 
the  Deity)  LEFT  heaven,  SURRENDERED  or  RE- 
NOUNCED his  glory,  and  condescended  to  suffering, 
indigence,  &c.,  on  the  earth.  Such  language  is 
never  used  in  the  Bible ;  and  the  idea  implied 


by  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  divine  glory.  But 
for  the  Deity  to  unite  itself  with  frail  humanity 
is  no  more  unsuitable,  derogatory,  or  dishonour- 
able, than  for  God  to  give  proofs  of  his  glory  in 
the  meanest  of  his  works,  to  connect  himself 
with  them,  and  in  and  through  them  to  exert  his 
power  and  agency. 

(6)  Nor  could  the  human  nature  be  altered  in 
any  essential  respect  by  this  its  connexion  with 
the  divine;  for  Christ  would  then  have  ceased 
to  be  a  true  man.  If  one  should  say  therefore 
that  Christ  as  a  man  had,  from  the  beginning  of 
his  existence,  the  possession  and  use  of  all  divine 
attributes — that  as  a  man  he  was  almighty,  om- 
niscient, omnipresent — and  that,  as  many  theolo- 
gians suppose,  he  merely  forbore  the  exercise 
of  these  attributes  as  a  man,  he  would  thus,  in 
reality,  deify  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  Vide 
s.  92,  III.  2.  Besides,  the  passages  of  the 
Bible  which  speak  of  the  increase  of  his  know- 
ledge, Luke,  ii.  52 — of  his  not  knowing,  Mark, 
xiii.  32,  &c.,  clearly  teach  the  contrary.  For 
these  representations  do  not  bear  the  explanation 
which  some  have  given  them,  that  he  merely 
pretended  that  he  did  not  know,)  simulabat  se 
nescire,  as  Augustine  said,)  that  he  pretended  to 
increase  in  wisdom,  &c.  In  short,  those  who 
form  such  hypotheses  confess  with  the  mouth 
the  true  humanity  of  Christ,  while  in  fact  they 
deny  it,  and  allow  to  Christ  only  the  veil  of  a 
human  body  and  the  external  appearance  of 
humanity. 

(2)  The  connexion  of  the  two  natures  must 
rather  be  placed  in  the  two  following  points — 
viz.,  (a)  in  a  close  and  constant  connexion  of  the 
deity  of  Christ  with  his  humanity  from  the  com- 
mencement of  his  existence ;  (6)  in  a  co-opera- 
tion of  the  two  natures  in  action,  where  it  was 
requisite  and  necessary,  and  as  far  as  the  nature 
and  attributes  of  each  admitted.  The  scriptural 
doctrine  is  this  :  "  the  glory  (6d|a)  which  Christ, 
in  his  superior  nature,  had  with  the  Father  from 
eternity  (jtpo  xatddohr-g  *6s(uoi)),  was  imparted 
to  his  human  nature,  and  shared  with  it  when 
he  became  man,  so  far  as  this  human  nature  was 
susceptible  of  his  glory;  and  was  manifested 
whenever  and  wherever  it  was  necessary  upon 
earth,"  John,  xvii.  5,  22,  24 ;  chap,  xiv.,  coll. 
Phil.  ii.  9—11. 

By  the  following  remarks  something  may  be 
done  to  elucidate  this  subject,  and  to  render  it  as 
intelligible  as  the  limitation  of  our  conceptions 
will  permit. 

(a)  The  agency  of  God  is  not  always  exhibited 
with  equal  clearness  in  his  creatures.  His  in- 
fluence at  certain  times  and  in  certain  circum- 
stances appears  more  strikingly  and  visibly  than 
at  others.  The  nature  of  God,  however,  remains 
unchanged,  amidst  all  these  changes  of  things 
which  are  extrinsic  to  himself.  He  is  indeed 
equally  connected  and  united  with  all  nature,  at 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       359 


all  times,  and  under  all  circumstances,  from  its 
first  origin.  In  a  similar  way  must  we  conceive 
of  the  relation  of  the  divine  to  the  human  in 
Christ.  In  the  state  of  humiliation,  the  divine  in 
Christ  supported  his  humanity,  wherever  and 
whenever  there  was  any  necessity  for  it;  espe- 
cially whenever  his  Messianic  offices  required. 
The  divine  nature,  however,  did  not  impart  to 
the  human  any  attributes  of  which  the  latter, 
especially  in  its  earthly  state  and  condition,  was 
incapable,  or  of  which  it  did  not  stand  in  need. 
Nor  did  the  divine  nature  in  itself  suffer  any 
alteration  by  the  fate  of  Jesus  while  he  was  upon 
earth,  his  sufferings,  death,  &c.  But  in  the 
state  of  exaltation  the  sphere  of  the  agency  of 
Jesus  was  infinitely  ennobled  and  enlarged. 
There  the  influences  and  the  effects  of  his  divi- 
nity could  appear  more  visibly.  There,  in  hea- 
ven, he  is  far  more  susceptible  of  its  co-opera- 
tion and  support,  in  the  government  of  the  world 
and  of  the  church,  than  in  his  humble  life  upon 
the  earth,  John,  xvii.  5,  22,  24.  Christ,  as  a 
man,  could  not  have  been  raised  to  such  a  de- 
gree of  dignity  and  glory  as  to  receive  supreme 
dominion  over  the  spiritual  and  material  world, 
if  his  nature  had  not  been  so  united  with  that 
of  the  Lord  of  the  universe,  that  the  boundless 
perfections  of  the  latter  became  also  the  perfec- 
tions of  his  nature.  The  Bible  always  regards 
the  subject  in  this  point  of  view ;  as  John,  i., 
xvii. ;  Phil.  ii.  9,  seq. ;  Heb.  i. ;  Ephes.  i.  20, 
seq. 

(6)  Writers  who  proceed  with  caution  upon 
this  subject  describe  the  manner  of  the  con- 
nexion of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in 
Christ  rather  negatively  than  positively.  Many, 
however,  endeavour  to  explain  the  subject  by 
supposing  a  praesentiam  arctiorem,  or  a  peculiar 
rem  praesentisR  grodum,  and  remark  that  a  prse- 
seniia  locclis,  or  approximation  cannot  be  under- 
stood. The  subject  has  been  frequently  illus- 
trated, ever  since  the  fifth  century,  by  a  compa- 
rison of  the  union  between  soul  and  body,  and 
from  this  comparison  the  ideas  and  phraseology 
relative  to  this  subject  have  been  derived.  Ac- 
cording to  this  comparison,  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  was  the  instrument  and  organ  of  the 
divine  nature,  as  the  body  is  the  organ  of  the 
human  soul,  with  and  through  which  it  acts  and 
operates  npon  things  extrinsic  to  itself.  The 
body  could  not  act  without  the  co-operation  of 
the  soul.  The  soul  has  a  deep  concern  in  every- 
thing which  affects  the  body,  and  the  reverse. 
And  yet  each  of  the  two  parts  remains,  as  to  its 
essential  nature,  unaltered.  Vide  Ernesti,  Progr. 
Dignitas  et  veritas  incarnationis  Opusc.  Theol. 
p.  395,  seq. 

This  comparison  casts  some  light  npon  the 
subject,  but  is  not  entirely  applicable,  and  must 
not  be  extended  too  far.  In  the  union  of  soul 
and  body,  the  question  regards  the  state  and  ac- 


tions of  a  spirit  in  a  body.  But  in  Christ,  as  a 
man,  his  deity  does  not  act  upon  his  body  <m/y, 
(as  Apollinaris  supposed,)  but  upon  the  human 
body  and  soul  both ;  and  indeed  upon  the  human 
body  principally  through  the  human  soul.  Here, 
then,  the  question  regards  the  union  and  co-ope- 
ration of  one  spirit  with  another. 

But  here  we  are  destitute  of  clear  conceptions 
and  definite  knowledge ;  as  we  know  not  even 
how  the  human  soul  acts  upon  the  body,  and  is 
united  with  it.  And  here  we  see  the  reason  at 
once,  why  this  subject  is  so  obscure  to  us  in  our 
present  condition,  and  why  we  are  so  little  able 
to  explain  the  modus.  When  we  hear  of  the  pre- 
sence of  a  spirit,  if  we  avoid  considering  it  as  ma- 
terial, we  shall  obtain  only  this  definite  idea,  that 
the  spirit  is  present  with  us  and  acts  upon  us  by 
thought.  So  we  are  present  in  spirit  with  an 
absent  person  when  we  think  of  him.  Further 
than  this,  we  know  nothing.  Vide  s.  23, 1.  on 
the  omnipresence  of  God. 

After  these  observations,  we  can  form  this 
general  conclusion :  that  the  deity  of  Christ,  as 
deity,  is  indeed  everywhere  present — i.  e.,  acts 
in  everything;  but  that  it  is  present  with  the  hu- 
manity of  Jesus  in  a  peculiar  manner,  in  which 
it  is  not  present  with  any  other  man,  or  any 
other  created  being — that  is,  that  his  divinity 
acts  in  and  through  his  humanity,  so  far  as  the 
latter  is  susceptible  of  this  co-operation,  in  such 
a  way  that  this  deity  and  humanity  united  in 
Christ  must  be  considered  as  one  person.  This  , 
union  is  represented  in  a  similar  manner  by 
Origen,  Ilfpt  'Apzwv,  1.  2.  This  union  or  con- 
nexion of  the  humanity  of  Jesus  with  God  is 
not  limited  and  temporary,  as  in  other  spirits 
with  whom  God  is  connected,  John,  v.  26. 
That  here  there  is  something  peculiar,  which 
does  not  take  place  with  respect  to  others,  is 
shewn  by  the  very  peculiar  expressions  which 
are  used  in  the  Bible  with  respect  to  this  union, 
and  which  are  never  used  with  respect  to  the 
union  of  God  with  his  creatures  in  general. 

(c)  These  thoughts  may  afford  us  some  con- 
ception of  the  union  of  the  two  natures ;  but  they 
are  very  insufficient  to  render  the  subject  entirely 
intelligible,  or  to  explain  the  manner  of  this 
nnion  in  a  satisfactory  way.  Morus  gives  the 
right  view  of  this  subject,  p.  138,  s.  10.  The- 
ologians call  it,  mysterium  incarnationis,  and 
the  more  judicious  fathers  are  unwilling  to  give 
any  further  distinctions  respecting  the  modus 
(to  *wj)  than  the  holy  scriptures  warrant.  But 
nothing  more  can  be  determined  with  certainty 
from  the  New  Testament  than  what  has  just 
been  remarked.  From  the  limitation  of  all  hu- 
man conceptions  we  cannot  believe  that  even 
the  apostles  or  first  Christians  understood  the 
subject  better  than  we  do.  But  they  did  not 
pretend  to  insist  upon  an  explanation  of  things 
beyond  the  reach  of  their  senses,  and  the  sphere 


360 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


of  human  knowledge  and  science.  They  did  not 
doubt  or  deny  these  things  because  they  could 
not  be  satisfactorily  explained.  Cf.  1  Cor.  ii., 
iii.  Such  was  the  fact,  only  after  men  adopted 
the  oracular  decisions  of  an  arbitrary  metaphy- 
sical philosophy,  as  pronounced  first  by  the  Pla- 
tonists,  then  by  the  Aristotelians,  and  in  modern 
times  by  other  philosophical  schools.  They  now 
began  to  insist  upon  having  everything  demon- 
strated ;  by  a  natural  consequence  they  refused 
to  believe  anything  which  could  not  be  demon- 
strated ;  and  the  direct  consequence  of  this  was 
scepticism. 

The  union  of  soul  and  body  in  one  person  is 
as  inexplicable  to  philosophy  as  the  union  now 
under  consideration.  Indeed,  if  we  were  mere 
spirits,  and  did  not  know  from  experience  that  a 
spirit,  which  is  immortal,  and  which  belongs  en- 
tirely to  the  moral  and  spiritual  world,  is,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  united  with  an  animal  body,  which 
is  dust  and  earth,  into  one  personal  /,  we  should 
consider  it  as  highly  improbable,  and  indeed  con- 
tradictory ;  and  our  metaphysicians  would  per- 
haps make  bold  to  demonstrate  a  priori  its  impos- 
sibility from  principles  of  reason. 

Note. — Some  have  questioned,  whether  the 
ideas  entertained  upon  this  point  might  not  be 
illustrated  by  a  comparison  of  the  religious  opi- 
nions of  other  nations.  We  find  that  many  na- 
tions not  only  worshipped  deities  who  had  been 
men,  and  had  lived  upon  the  earth,  but  believed 
that  certain  deities  had  assumed  bodies,  and  be- 
come incarnate.  This  is  true  especially  of  those 
nations  which  believed  in  the  transmigration  of 
the  soul,  and  were  extravagant  in  their  venera- 
tion for  tine  founders  of  their  religions — e.  g.,  the 
Indians,  Mongoli,  Tartars,  Druses,  and  Persians. 
But  these  nations  exhibit  a  rudeness  and  coarse- 
ness of  conception,  and  a  gross  anthropomorph- 
ism, from  which  Christ  is  far  removed,  and 
which  never  appear  among  the  first  Christians, 
nor  indeed  in  the  whole  age  in  which  they  lived. 
Whatever  distinct  conceptions  they  had  upon 
this  subject  were  evidently  more  refined  and 
suitable  to  the  nature  of  God  than  those  of 
other  nations.  The  idea  held  by  the  Greeks  of 
an  attendant  demon  or  genius,  who  constantly 
abode  in  men,  is  also  entirely  different  from  the 
Christian  view. 

(d)  Considering,  then,  how  much  there  is  in 
this  subject  which  is  obscure  and  inexplicable, 
we  ought  neither  to  prescribe  any  universal  for- 
mulae respecting  all  the  more  minute  distinctions 
of  this  doctrine,  further  than  they  are  clearly 
founded  in  the  scriptures;  nor,  after  the  exam- 
ple of  Cyril  and  Leo  the  Great  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, to  condemn  those  who  are  unwilling  to 
assent  to  these  human  formulae.  One  particular 
view  may  be  very  important  to  us,  and  contri- 
bute greatly  to  our  satisfaction  and  conviction ; 
but  we  ought  not  for  this  reason  to  force  it  upon 


all  other  Christians,  or  to  consider  them  as  less 
pious  and  devoted  to  Christ,  because  they  dif- 
fer, on  some  points  of  this  doctrine,  from  our 
creed  and  our  phraseology.  In  fact,  the  subject 
lies  too  much  beyond  and  above  our  sphere.  The 
opinions  of  men,  therefore,  respecting  the  modus 
of  this  truth,  and  their  formulae  of  this  doctrine, 
will  always  continue  divided  and  various ;  and 
and  the  hypotheses  of  the  learned  will  always 
be  differently  modified,  according  to  the  differ- 
ent systems  of  philosophy  and  different  modes 
of  thinking  which  may  prevail. 

During  the  first  ages  of  the  church  nothing 
was  decided  upon  this  subject;  the  simple  doc- 
trine of  the  Bible  was  adopted ;  and  the  more 
learned  Christians  were  left  at  liberty,  from  the 
second  century,  to  philosophize  upon  this  sub- 
ject at  pleasure.  So  it  continued  till  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century.  The  creeds  only  decided, 
Jesum  esse  Dei  filium  e  Maria  nntum.  Even 
during  the  violent  controversies  which  began  to 
rage  in  the  fifth  century,  many  of  the  more  mo- 
derate concurred  with  the  views  just  expressed. 
Melancthon  remarked,  justly  and  excellently, 
in  his  "  Loci  Theologici,"  that  it  is  not  worth 
while  to  bestow  much  laborious  diligence  on  the 
minute,  development  of  this  subject;  that  to 
know  Christ  is  to  know  the  salvation  which  he 
has  procured  for  us ;  and  not  studiously  to  in- 
vestigate his  nature,  and  the  manner  of  his  in- 
carnation :  "  Christum — oportet  alioquodam  modo 
cognoscamus,  quam  exhibent  scholastici."  To 
scholars,  indeed,  the  historical  knowledge  of 
these  investigations  is  useful  and  necessary. 
But  all  these  subtile  inquiries  and  distinctions 
are  not  proper  for  the  instruction  of  the  common 
people  and  of  the  young.  This  wise  counsel 
of  Melancthon  was  very  much  disregarded  in 
the  Lutheran  church  at  the  very  period  in  which 
it  was  given;  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  the 
theologians  prescribed  definite  forms  of  doctrine, 
upon  which  the  greatest  stress  was  laid.  Vide 
s.  102. 

(e}  The  instructions  of  the  holy  scriptures 
upon  this  subject,  (I)  are  intended  to  shew  that 
this  exalted  dignity  of  the  person  of  Christ  con- 
fers a  very  high  value  upon  all  that  he  taught, 
performed,  and  suffered  for  men ; — that  we  are 
thus  bound,  according  to  his  precepts,  to  believe 
his  whole  doctrine  and  work,  and  to  apply  these 
to  our  own  benefit; — and  that  his  doctrines  are 
the  doctrines  of  God,  his  works  the  works  of 
God,  his  guidance  and  assistance,  those  of  God. 
Morus  gives  some  fine  views  to  enable  religious 
teachers  to  present  this  subject  in  a  truly  practi- 
cal manner,  p.  139,  seq.,  s.  12,  13. 

(2)  But  there  is  one  more  principal  circum- 
stance, to  which  the  scriptures  often  direct  the 
attention,  and  by  which  the  importance  of  this 
doctrine  in  a  practical  respect  is  still  more  illus- 
trated. Almost  all  men  feel  the  necessity  of 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       301 


laving  a  human  God     It  is  difficult  to  love  and 
heartily  confide  in  that  immeasurable,  invisible, 
naccessible  God,  whom  we  learn  from  philo- 
sophy.    But  Jesus  Christ  (the  Logos  become 
nan)  is  not  merely  the  immeasurable,  the  invi- 
ible,  the  inaccessible  God ;  he  is  a  true  man 
f  our  own  race,  and  we  are  his  brethren.     It  is 
herefore  easy  to  love  him,  and  heartily  to  con- 
ide  in  him ;  especially  considering  how  much, 
s  a  man,  he  deserves  of  the  human  race,  by  suf- 
fering and  dying  for  us.     Thus  our  love  to  him 
and  our  dependence  upon  him  rest  mostly  upon 
the  fact  that  he  is  man,  and  indeed,  a   man 
united  with  God,  in  such  sense  as  no  other  man 
ever  was.     Vide  1  Tim.  ii.  5 ;  Heb.  ii.  14—18 ; 
iv.  15;  (John,  xiv.  1 ;)  John,  v.  27. 

(/)  There  have  been  some  theologians  who 
have  maintained  that  the  interposition  of  a  di- 
vine person  was  necessary  for  the  recovery  of 
men  ;  that  men  could  not  have  been  delivered  in 
any  other  way.  Some  have  carried  this  so  far 
as  to  seem  to  set  limits  to  the  divine  freedom, 
and  to  force  from  God,  by  presumptuous  demon- 
stration, what  was  merely  a  free  gift.  Vide  s. 
88,  ad  finern.  It  were  enough  to  shew  the 
suitableness  of  this  means,  without  attempting  to 
prove  its  absolute  necessity.  This  plan  of  God 
is  wise,  and  fully  suited  to  the  wants  of  men; 
and  therefore  God  has  chosen  it.  The  Bible 
always  labours  to  exhibit  this  fact  as  the  great- 
est proof  of  the  free  and  unmerited  love  of  God, 
John,  iii.  16.  How  opposite  to  this  is  the  at- 
tempt to  demonstrate  this  truth  a  priori!  So 
thought  Athanasius;  and  Augustine  calls  those 
stultos,  who  undertake  to  demonstrate  metaphy- 
sically that  God  could  not  have  saved  men  in 
another  way.  Still  we  find  this  mistaken  wish 
to  have  every  thing  demonstrated  even  among 
the  fathers.  Tertullian  said,  "  God  must  have 
become  man  in  order  to  unite  God  with  men  and 
men  with  God."  Anselmus  of  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury argues  thus  : — "  Without  satisfaction,  men 
could  not  be  saved.  To  give  this  satisfaction 
to  God  was  the  duty  of  men,  but  the  duty  was 
too  hard  for  them.  None  but  God  was  able  to 
give  it.  But  to  him,  as  the  Judge  of  men,  it 
must  be  given.  Therefore  the  Son  of  God  must 
become  man,  in  order,  as  God-man,  to  afford  this 
satisfaction  to  God."  Vide  s.  114,2.  Some 
theologians,  even  in  modern  times,  especially 
from  the  school  of  Wolf,  have  pretended  to  de- 
monstrate that  this  was  the  only  means  of  res- 
cuing man,  and  was  absolutely  necessary  for 
this  purpose. 

Such  demonstrations  are  entirely  unsuitable 
for  promiscuous  popular  instruction.  Christ 
commissioned  his  disciples  not  to  demonstrate 
this  truth  philosophically,  but  to  exhibit  it  (1 
Cor.  i. — iii.);  to  teach  it,  from  their  own  con- 
viction and  experience,  with  plainness  and  sim- 
plicity, but  still  with  sincere  interest,  and  then 
46 


quietly  to  leave  the  consequences  with  God. 
This  was  surely  very  wise;  and  this  is  the 
course  which  we  should  pursue.  Besides,  in 
this  constant  vicissitude  of  philosophical  opi- 
nions and  schools,  there  is  this  evident  disad- 
vantage, that  the  truth  itself,  which  is  demon- 
strated by  the  help  of  the  philosophy  of  the 
schools,  is  either  doubted  or  rejected  as  soon  as 
the  school  goes  down. 

SECTION  CII. 

HISTORICAL  OBSERVATIONS  EXPLANATORY  OF  THE 
ORIGIN  AND  PROGRESSIVE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE 
ECCLESIASTICAL  SYSTEM,  RESPECTING  THE  PER- 
SON AND  THE  TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST,  UNTIL 
THE  EIGHTH  CENTURY. 

I.  Earliest  Opinions,  from  the  Second  to  the  Fourth 
Century. 

As  early  as  the  third  century  many  points  had 
been  established  by  the  catholic  councils  respect- 
ing both  the  divine  and  human  nature  of  Christ, 
separately  considered,  in  opposition  (a)  to  those 
who  denied  that  Christ  had  a  real  human  body 
(the  Docetae),  or  (6)  to  those  who  either  main- 
tained that  he  was  a  mere  man,  or,  allowing  his 
higher  nature,  yet  denied  his  essential  divinity 
and  equality  with  the  Father.  From  that  pe- 
riod the  catholic  fathers  introduced  into  their 
authorized  symbols  such  distinctions  and  for- 
mulas as  were  calculated  to  oppose  the  above- 
named  errors. 

But  it  was  not  until  the  fifth  century  that 
anything  definite  was  established  respecting  THE 
UNION  of  these  two  natures  in  Christ ,•  and  on  this 
subject  the  most  various  modes  of  thinking  and 
speaking  prevailed,  even  among  the  catholic 
fathers  themselves.  Those  difficult  points  in 
this  doctrine,  respecting  which  so  much  contro- 
versy existed  after  the  fourth  century,  do  not 
seem  to  have  occasioned  much  trouble  to  the 
earlier  Christians,  who  had  not  as  yet  learned 
to  apply  the  metaphysics  of  the  schools  to  the 
doctrines  of  religion.  And  it  is  found  to  be  pre- 
cisely so  with  common  unlearned  Chrislians  at 
the  present  day,  who  have  not  their  heads  filled 
with  those  metaphysical  systems,  in  conformity 
with  which,  as  their  models,  others  adjust  and 
square  all  their  opinions.  Hence  it  does  not 
appear  that  any  Christian  teacher  of  the  first  two 
centuries  made  any  attempt  to  elucidate  the 
mysteries  of  this  subject,  and  even  the  heretics 
of  this  period  passed  them  by  without  taking 
offence.  All  which  was  distinctly  conceived 
of  during  this  early  period  respecting  the  manner 
in  which  God  became  man,  was  simply  this, 
that  God,  or  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  became 
visible  in  a  true  human  body,  and  assumed  real 
human  flesh.  Hence  the  earliest  fathers  and 
symbols  are  satisfied  with  the  term, 
2H 


CHRISTIAN 


362 


without  going  into  further  explanations : 
ttj  Ttoj/  ©fov  aapxu&vta.  So  Justin  the  Mar- 
tyr, Irenzeus,  Tertullian,  (Adv.  Prax.  c.  2,)  and 
even  Origeo,  (rttpt  'Apywf.) 

[The  general  truth  of  the  above  statement  of 
our  author,  that  the  early  fathers  supposed  that 
the  Logos  assumed  only  a  human  body,  is  con- 
firmed by  the  testimony  of  Muenscher,  Dogma- 
tic History  (Translation),  p.  63 ;  of  Hahn,  Lehr- 
buch,  s.  456;  of  Neander,  Al.  Kirchengesch,  b. 
i.  Ab.  iii.  s.  1063.  But  there  is  one  exception 
to  this  statement  in  the  opinions  of  Justin,  which 
were  formed  under  the  influence  of  the  Platonic 
philosophy.  Adopting  the  threefold  division  of 
man  into  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  which  was  so 
common  with  the  Platonic  fathers,  and  of  which 
a  fuller  account  has  been  given  in  the  first  vo- 
lume, (s.  51, 1.  1,  note,)  he  supposed  that  Christ 
consisted,  like  other  men,  of  these  three  parts, 
except  that,  in  place  of  the  erring  human  reason, 
(Germ.  Vtrnunft,  in  opposition  to  Perstand,  or 
Gr.  jtvtvpa  as  opposed  to  40^17,)  which  is  only 
a  ray  of  the  divine  Logos,  he  had  this  Logos 
himself,  as  the  higher  controlling  principle  of 
his  being.  In  these  speculations  with  regard  to 
the  manner  of  the  connexion  between  the  divine 
and  human  in  Christ,  Justin  went  before  the  age 
in  which  he  lived,  and  furnished  the  germ  of  the 
system  which  was  afterwards  further  developed 
by  Apollinaris,  whose  doctrinal  predecessor 
Justin  may  therefore  rightly  be  considered.  Cf. 
Neander,  Allg.  Gesch.  der  chr.  Rel.  und  Kir., 
b.  i.  Abth.  iii.  s.  1063.— TR.] 

The  systems  of  religion  from  which  many  of 
the  earlier  Christians  were  converted,  appear  to 
have  contributed  something  towards  enabling 
them  to  receive  without  difficulty  the  doctrine 
of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God.  They 
were  familiarized  from  their  youth,  in  the  midst 
of  heathenism,  with  the  idea  of  the  visible  ap- 
pearance of  the  Deity  in  human  forms ;  and  al- 
though when  they  afterwards  became  Christians, 
they  considered  the  accounts  of  the  incarnations 
of  the  heathen  gods  as  fabulous,  still,  by  having 
been  familiar  with  such  accounts,  they  were 
prepared  to  receive  more  easily  the  fact  of  the 
incarnation  announced  in  Christianity;  they 
now  had  a  seeming  analogy  for  it.  But  on  this 
very  account,  many  of  them  conceived  of  the  in- 
carnation as  a  degradation  of  the  Deity.  Vide 
s.  93.  The  converts  from  Judaism  to  Christian- 
ity had  also  some  analogy  for  this  doctrine  in 
their  previous  system  of  belief,  which  very  much 
facilitated  their  reception  of  it,  since  they  were 
taught  by  their  ancient  books,  even  by  those  of 
Moses,  to  believe  in  the  appearance  of  angels 
and  of  God  himself  in  human  form.  The  stu- 
dent may  find  many  interesting  views,  illustrat- 
ing the  relation  of  the  various  systems  of  hea- 
thenism to  Christianity,  in  SchlegePs  "Philos. 


THEOLOGY. 

der  Geschichte ;"  also  in  Kreutzer's  "  Symbo- 
lik."— TR.] 

But  while,  in  opposition  to  the  Docetae,  the 
early  fathers  contended  zealously  for  the  real- 
ity of  the  human  body  of  Christ;  none  in  either 
of  the  contending  parties,  before  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  thought  it  necessary  to  prove 
particularly  that  he  had  also  a  true  human  soul. 
This  was  not  indeed  directly  denied,  [except 
by  Justin,  as  just  mentioned — TR.,]  still  the 
necessity  of  proving  its  existence  was  not  at 
that  time  felt;  nor  indeed  was  the  essential  dis- 
tinction between  the  nature  of  the  soul  and  body 
at  all  so  obvious  at  that  time,  certainly  it  was 
not  used  in  common  practice,  as  it  has  since 
been. 

[Tertullian  was  the  first  who  distinctly  taught 
the  doctrine  of  a  proper  human  soul  in  Christ. 
In  his  anthropology  he  rejected  the  common 
division  of  man  into  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  and 
admitted  only  two  distinct  principles  in  all  ani- 
mated existences — viz.,  body  and  soul,-  the  lat- 
ter of  which,  however,  in  man  he  supposed  en- 
dowed with  higher  properties  than  in  the  infe- 
rior orders.  He  had  not  therefore  the  convenient 
resort  of  the  Platonic  theologians,  of  interposing 
an  animal  4^77  between  the  Logos  and  the  body 
in  Christ;  but  must  either  connect  the  Logos 
immediately  and  without  intervention  with  the 
body,  (which  would  be  to  attribute  at  once  to 
the  divine  Logos  the  pain  and  sorrow,  the  pro- 
gress in  knowledge,  the  ignorance,  and  all  the 
other  indications  of  an  imperfect  human  soul, 
which  appear  in  the  life  of  Christ;)  or  he  must 
ascribe  to  Christ  a  proper  and  entire  human 
soul.  With  this  necessity  in  view,  he  chose 
the  latter  part  of  the  alternative,  preferring  the 
mystery  and  complexity  attending  the  connexion 
between  the  divine  and  human  to  the  absurdities 
resulting  from  the  former  theory,  though  com- 
mended by  its  simplicity  to  the  speculative  rea- 
son. Cf.  Neander  Geschichte,  b.  i.  Abth.  iii. 
s.  1064.— TR.] 

After  the  third  century,  Origen  first  [?]  gave 
importance  to  this  doctrine  of  the  human  soul 
of  Christ  in  his  Theology,  and  brought  it  dis- 
tinctly into  light,  though  not  on  the  same  grounds 
by  which  the  doctrine  is  now  supported.  [Al- 
though Origen  agreed  with  Tertullian  in  main- 
taining an  entire  human  soul  in  Christ,  his 
views  respecting  the  mode  of  union  between 
the  two  natures,  differed  widely  from  those  of 
Tertullian,  and  took  their  colouring  from  his 
peculiar  philosophical  system.  The  union  of 
believers  with  Christ  furnished  him  with  an 
analogy  for  the  connexion  between  the  Logos 
and  the  human  nature  in  Christ.  If  believers, 
he  argued,  are  one  spirit  with  their  Lord,  as  Paul 
affirms,  much  more  must  this  be  true  of  that 
soul  which  the  Logos  had  taken  into  insepara- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       363 


ble  union  with  himself.  As  the  jtvevfta  in  be- 
lievers is  the  actuating  principle  from  which  all 
their  feelings  and  actions  spring,  much  more  is 
it  in  Christ,  the  forerunner  of  believers,  the  ac- 
tuating, controlling,  and  pervading  principle,  by 
which  his  entire  humanity  is  guided  and  filled. 
By  urging  this  analogy  he  drew  upon  himself 
the  objection  which  has  often  been  repeated 
against  the  same  view,  that  he  made  Christ  a 
mere  man,  distinguished  from  other  believers 
only  by  a  higher  degree  of  the  same  participa- 
tion in  the  divine  nature  which  they  enjoyed. 
Whether  this  objection  fairly  lies  against  the 
views  of  Origen  this  is  not  the  proper  place  to 
inquire. — TR,] 

[But  the  theory  respecting  the  person  of 
Christ  advanced  by  Tertullian,  and  developed 
and  supported  by  Origen,  was  particularly  of- 
fensive to  Arius  and  Eunomius,  and  to  all  who 
contended  for  the  subordination  of  the  Logos  to 
the  Father.  According  to  the  earlier  doctrine 
of  the  church,  which  they  adopted,  and  which 
connected  the  Logos  immediately  with  the  body 
of  Christ,  they  had  been  able  to  allege  all  the 
appearances  of  limitation  and  natural  imperfec- 
tion which  he  exhibited  as  proofs  against  the 
doctrine  of  the  absolute  divinity  of  the  Logos, 
and  in  favour  of  their  own  views  of  his  subordi- 
nation. But  of  this  argument  they  were  de- 
prived when  a  human  soul,  of  which  all  these 
imperfections  could  be  predicated,  was  ascribed 
to  Christ,  and  his  higher  nature  was  allowed  in 
no  sense  to  infringe  upon  his  full  and  proper 
humanity.  On  the  theory  of  Origen,  it  was  no 
longer  possible  for  them  to  invalidate  the  proofs 
of  the  absolute  divinity  of  Christ  by  opposing 
the  numerous  evidences  of  subordination  ap- 
pearing in  his  life  and  words,  since  all  these 
must  of  course  be  understood  of  his  humanity, 
leaving  his  divine  nature,  though  intimately 
connected  with  the  human,  unimpaired  by  the 
limitations  of  the  latter.  Hence  Arius  and  his 
followers  strenuously  opposed  the  doctrine  of 
the  proper  humanity  of  Christ,  and  insisted 
upon  the  older,  indistinct,  and  undeveloped 
form  of  belief,  by  which  the  Logos  merely  ani- 
mated the  body  of  Christ.  Cf.  Neander,  Ges- 
chichte,  u.  s.  w.,  b.  ii.  Abth.  ii.  s.  904,  ff.— 
TR.] 

[While,  on  one  side,  the  Arians  at  this  pe- 
riod infringed  upon  the  human  nature  of  Christ, 
on  the  other  side,  Marcellus  and  Photinus,  of 
whom  we  have  before  spoken,  (s.  43,)  infringed 
upon  the  divine  nature  and  its  personal  union 
with  the  human.  Marcellus,  inclining,  as  he 
did,  to  Sabellianism,  supposed  there  was  a 
merely  outward  and  temporary  operation  of  the 
Logos  upon  Christ,  though  still,  it  must  be  al- 
lowed, in  such  a  way  as  to  secure  the  being  of 
God  in  him.  Photinus  went  further,  and  giv 
ing  great  prominence  to  the  human  in  Christ, 


made  nothing  more  of  the  divine  in  him  than  the 
general  illuminating  influence  which  he  enjoyed 
in  common  with  the  prophets  and  other  ambas- 
sadors of  God,  though  in  a  higher  degree.  This 
doctrine  is  properly  called  Photinianism. — TR.] 

[Between  these  diverging  tendencies  of  opi- 
nion, Arianism  and  Photinianism,  the  catholic 
fathers  (e.  g.,  Gregory  of  Nazianz,  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  and  others)  endeavoured  to  reconcile  the 
personal  union  of  two  natures  in  Christ  with  the 
completeness  of  the  human  nature.  We  have 
thus  all  the  elements  of  that  violent  controversy 
respecting  the  person  of  Christ  which  shortly 
followed.— TR.] 

Now,  after  the  middle  of.  the  fourth  century, 
Apollinaris  arose,  and  denied  the  existence  of  a 
human  soul  in  Christ,  or  at  least  of  the  higher 
power  of  the  soul.  Vide  s.  93,  II.  [His  theory 
was  in  general  the  same  as  that  of  Justin,  before 
mentioned,  only  more  systematically  developed. 
It  seems  to  have  resulted  in  a  great  measure  from 
the  speculative  interest  which  endeavoured  to 
conceive  clearly  and  to  explain  what  had  before 
been  indistinct.  And  it  has  certainly  the  ad- 
vantage in  many  respects,  and  especially  in 
point  of  distinctness  and  consistency,  over  the 
older  indefinite  belief,  and  over  the  Arian  theory 
respecting  the  person  of  Christ,  with  which  in 
general  it  agreed.  It  also  sprung  from  the 
Christian  interest  to  see  in  Christ  the  full,  im- 
mediate, undisturbed  manifestation  of  the  Deity, 
which,  as  it  seemed  to  Apollinaris,  could  not  be 
on  the  theory  of  Origen,  where  a  human  soul 
was  made  the  organ  of  the  divine  operations. 
The  controversy  against  Apollinaris  brought 
distinctly  into  view  the  necessity,  in  order  to 
the  purposes  of  man's  redemption,  of  the  entire- 
ness  of  the  human  nature  of  our  Redeemer. — 
TR.] 

After  this  period,  the  investigation  of  this 
point  took  a  new  turn,  the  first  ground  of  which 
was  laid  in  the  Arian  controversies  of  the  same 
century.  The  endeavour  now  became  to  make 
everything  clear  and  determinate;  and  since  the 
metaphysics  of  the  schools  were  becoming  more 
and  more  common,  the  ancient  simplicity  was 
thought  to  be  no  longer  sufficient. 

II.  The  two  opposing  systems,  having  their  origin 
in  the  Fourth  Century,  and  appearing  in  con- 
flict in  the  Fifth. 

The  foundation  of  both  of  these  was  laid  by 
the  Arian  and  Apollinarian  controversies. 

(1)  Some  of  the  Christians  of  the  East — 
e.  g.,  those  of  Syria,  [and  in  general  the  disci- 
ples of  the  school  at  Antioch,]  always  made  the 
most  accurate  distinction  between  the  two  na- 
tures in  Christ,  and  in  all  their  discourses  used 
terms  which  indicated  this  distinction  between 
the  divine  and  human  in  his  person,  in  the  most 
definite  and  discriminating  manner.  This  had 


364 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


been  before  done  by  some  of  the  earlier  teach- 
ers— e.  g.,  Tertullian,  (Adv.  Prax.  c.  27,)  still 
more  frequently  by  Origen,  and  by  some  of  the 
earlier  councils.  But  after  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century,  when  the  Apollinarian  contro- 
versies commenced,  the  orthodox  teachers  in 
Syria  and  the  other  Oriental  provinces  became 
still  more  accurate  in  making  these  distinctions, 
and  especially  were  more  decidedly  opposed  to 
every  theory  which  took  from  the  humanity  of 
Christ  its  peculiar  properties.  These  were  the 
precursors  of  the  Nestorians. 

(2)  Others  observed  no  such  accuracy,  and 
often  employed  phraseology  which  appeared  to 
indicate  an  entire  mixture  of  the  two  natures, 
and  a  deification  of  the  human  nature.  This 
was  occasioned  by  the  Arian  controversies ;  for 
many,  in  order  to  exalt  Christ  in  opposition  to 
the  Arians,  seemed  almost  to  forget  that  he  was 
also  a  true  man.*  This  tendency  exhibited  it- 
self more  particularly  in  Egypt  and  in  the 
Western  church,  and  was  carried  out  into  fur- 
ther development  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  and 
commencement  of  the  fifth  century.  Those  who 
opposed  this  tendency  were  of  opinion  that  by 
phraseology  of  the  kind  which  the  Alexandrine 
theologians  used  the  doctrine  of  Apollinaris  was 
countenanced  ;  for  his  followers  often  used  terms 
like  the  following — viz.,  God  is  man,  is  born, 
suffered,  died,  &c. ;  Mary  is  the  mother  of  God, 
(££0^0x05.)  But  the  Alexandrine  teachers  could 
plead  in  their  justification  the  example  of  many 


*  There  is  reason  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  the 
reason  here  assigned  by  Dr.  Knapp  for  this  tendency 
of  the  Alexandrine  school,  (for  it  was  this  school 
which  objected  to  the  distinction  of  natures  contend- 
ed for  by  the  school  of  Antioch.)  The  Arians 
wholly  agreed  with  the  followers  of  Apollinaris,  and 
with  the  theologians  of  Alexandria,  in  objecting  to 
the  distinction  of  natures  in  Christ,  and  in  contend- 
ing for  their  mixture  and  oneness,  and  the  transfer 
of  the  attributes  belonging  to  each.  And  it  is  easy 
to  see  how  this  want  of  distinction  should  be  pro- 
motive  of  their  belief;  since  it  enabled  them  to  trans- 
fer to  the  higher  nature  of  Christ  the  appearances 
of  limitation  in  his  life,  and  thus  to  obtain  a  proof 
of  the  subordination  of  the  Logos,  of  which  they 
would  be  deprived  were  an  accurate  distinction  of 
natures  introduced,  and  the  application  to  the  one 
of  the  predicates  belonging  to  the  other  forbidden. 
It  is  a  fact  deserving  of  particular  notice,  that  those 
who  have  contended  most  strenuously  for  the  abso- 
lute divinity  of  Christ,  have  been  also  those  who 
have  insisted  most  upon  the  rights  of  his  humanity, 
and  for  a  careful  distinction  between  the  predicates 
of  the  two  natures ;  while  those  who  have  held  that 
the  Logos  is  the  most  perfect  among  all  created  be- 
ings, but  not  God  in  the  proper  sense,  have  equally 
infringed  upon  the  humanity  of  Christ,  and  have 
always  opposed  the  distinction  of  natures.  It  was 
not,  then,  in  opposition  to  the  Arian,  but  rather  to 
the  Photinian  form  of  doctrine  with  regard  to  the 
person  of  Christ  that  the  Alexandrine  tendency 
found  the  occasion  for  its  further  development. — 
Ta.1 


\ 


of  the  older  fathers  who  had  used  similar  phrase- 
ology. Even  Athanasius  had  spoken  of  a  deifi- 
cation of  the  body  of  Christ  after  the  resurrec- 
tion. Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  and  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  had  said  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
was  swallowed  up  by  the  divine,  &c.  Some- 
times even  Origen  had  used  similar  expressions. 
These  were  the  precursors  of  the  Monnphysites. 
In  reality,  however,  these  parties  were  more 
agreed  than  they  believed  themselves  to  be,  or 
than  they  seemed  to  be,  judging  from  their  dif- 
ferent terminologies.  Everything  was  now 
ready  and  prepared  for  the  controversy,  which 
finally  broke  out  in  the  fifth  century. 

[Neander,  in  his  Church-History,  (b.  ii. 
Abth.  iii.  s.  946,  ff.,)  traces  back  these  diverg- 
ing tendencies  to  the  fundamental  difference  be- 
tween the  Alexandrine  school  and  that  at  Anti- 
och, as  to  the  relation  between  reason  and 
revelation.  The  Alexandrine  school,  in  follow- 
ing its  more  contemplative  and  mystical  direc- 
tion of  mind,  was  disposed  to  assert  the  unin- 
telligibleness of  the  union  of  the  two  natures, 
and  to  magnify  the  mystery  of  this  union,  and 
to  resist  all  attempts  at  definite  conception  and 
explanation.  The  school  at  Antioch,  on  the 
contrary,  in  conformity  with  its  more  free  and 
speculative  bias,  while  it  did  not  assume  fully 
to  explain  the  vrtep  x6yoi>  of  this  union  of  na- 
tures, still  undertook  to  discover  how  much  in 
it  was  xcrta  X,oyoj>. — TR.] 

III.  Theory  of  Nestorius,  and  the  Controversy 
relating  to  it. 

Nestorius,  Patriarch  at  Constantinople,  being 
born  and  educated  in  Syria,  adopted  the  Syrian 
form  of  doctrine  with  regard  to  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  endeavoured  to  employ  terms  which 
would  accurately  distinguish  between  his  divine 
and  human  natures.  This,  however,  had  never 
before  been  done  in  Constantinople.  After  the 
Arian  controversies,  the  term  ^EOT'OXOJ  had  been 
used  very  frequently  in  application  to  Mary,  the 
mother  of  Christ,  which  was  also  a  favourite 
term  with  the  followers  of  Apollinaris  in  Syria. 
But  when,  in  the  year  428,  Nestorius  became 
patriarch  at  Constantinople,  he  was  much  sur- 
prised by  this  language.  He  objected  to  the 
term  ^OT'OXOJ,  on  the  ground  that  it  could  not  be 
said  that  God  was  born  or  died  ;  and  instead  of 
this  term  he  proposed  to  substitute  'Xpustotoxos. 
With  this  the  controversy  commenced. 

His  doctrine,  as  appears  from  his  homilies, 
was  this  :  "  Christ  had  two  vrtoatdasts,  a  divine 
and  human,  (meaning  by  vito^a^,  as  many  of 
the  ancients  did,  natura,  ^vcrtj,  or  as  Tertullian 
himself  employed  it,  substantial  and  only  rfpo- 
ccortov  fAovabixov,  one  person.  These  two  natures 
stood  in  the  closest  connexion  (eri>va<j>£ia),  which 
he  considered  as  consisting  principally  in  the 
agreement  of  will  and  action,  but  were  not 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       3G5 


mixed  or  transformed.  Each  nature  still  re- 
tained its  peculiar  attributes,  as  is  the  case  in 
man,  who  consists  of  two  vrtoatdaeis,  soul  and 
body.  All  these  attributes  and  actions  were 
predicable  of  one  person,  (rtpotfcortov,)  but  not 
of  both  the  natures;  the  inferior  were  predica- 
ble only  of  the  human  nature ;  the  superior  only 
of  the  divine  nature.  Accordingly,  the  terms, 
Deus  natus,  mortuus  est,  Mater  Dei,  ®f  6j  * vcrapxoj, 
were  very  unsuitable  and  unscriptural.  These 
could  be  properly  predicated  only  of  Christ,  (the 
name  of  the  person.)" 

Hereupon  Nestorius  was  openly  attacked,  at 
first  in  Egypt.  His  chief  opponent  was  Cyril, 
the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  who  maintained  his 
own  theory  in  opposition,  and  accused  Nestorius 
of  dividing  Christ  into  two  persons;  because 
$rfli£  was  the  word  used  at  Alexandria  for  what 
Nestorius  called  vrtoorratfi?,  and  rTtocftfacnj  for 
what  he  called  rtpotfwrtov.  They  disagreed, 
therefore,  more  in  words  than  in  reality.  At 
length,  in  the  year  431,  the  followers  of  Nesto- 
rius were  condemned  as  heretics  by  the  council 
at  Ephesus.  The  whole  party  separated  from 
the  catholic  church,  and  continues  in  the  East  to 
the  present  day.  [For  a  more  full  account  of 
the  doctrines  of  Nestorius,  with  the  original  pas- 
sages, cf.  Gieseler,  Lehrb.  d.  k.  Gesch.  b.  i.  s. 
85,  ff.  Neander,  Gesch.  b.  ii.  Abth.  iii.  s.  951. 
As  to  the  separate  community  of  the  Nestorians, 
cf.  Neander  in  his  Appendix  to  the  History  of 
this  Doctrine,  b.  ii.  Abth.  iii.  s.  1171.  Also 
Mosheim  (Murdock's  Trans.),  vol.  i.  p.  431, 
note.  Whether  the  whole  dispute  between  Nes- 
torius and  Cyril  was  mere  logomachy  is  a  matter 
of  dispute.— Tr.] 

IV.  The  Doctrine  of  Eutyches,  and  the  Controversy 

respecting  it  in  the  Fifth  Century. 
Eutyches,  an  abbot,  and  presbyter  in  cloister 
at  Constantinople,  was  one  of  the  most  zealous 
opponents  of  Nestorius.  In  order  to  oppose  his 
doctrine  more  successfully,  he  affirmed,  after  the 
year  448,  that  Christ  had  only  one  nature  (,iua 
fyvois}  after  his  deity  and  humanity  were  united. 
He  called  this  nature,  $vcuj  stsapx^fievrj,  the  na- 
ture made  human.  In  this  way  he  supposed  he 
could  express  the  most  intimate  connexion  be- 
tween the  two  natures,  which,  in  his  opinion, 
were  too  widely  separated  by  Nestorius,  so  as  to 
make  two  persons  in  Christ.  He  meant,  in  fact, 
to  say  nothing  more  nor  less  than  that  there  was 
only  one  Christ.  The  whole  obscurity  consisted 
in  the  word  ^votj,  which  he  understood  to  mean 
person,-  as  Athanasius  himself  did  in  the  fifth 
century,  and  also  Ephraem  the  Syrian.  This 
controversy,  therefore,  like  the  former,  was,  in 
fact,  mere  logomachy.*  Eutyches  appealed,  and 

*  [The  doctrine  of  Eutyches  respecting  the  person 
of  Christ  has  been  more  definitely  stated  by  other 


with  truth,  to  Athanasius,  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
and  other  ancient,  and  especially  Egyptian, 
teachers,  who  appeared  to  abolish  the  distinction 
of  the  two  natures.  Eutychianism  may  therefore 
be  truly  said  to  have  existed  before  Eutyches ; 
to  prove  which  Salig  published  a  treatise  at 
Wolfenbutel,  1724,  4to. 

Hence  arose  another  unhappy  division  in  the 
church.  The  patriarch  of  Constantinople  joined 
with  Pope  Leo  the  Great  in  opposing  Eutyches, 
and  accused  the  latter  of  reviving  the  heresy  of 
Apollinaris,  and  of  denying  the  true  humanity 
of  Christ.  He  protested  against  this  conclusion  ; 
but  they  would  not  allow  that  his  words  admitted 
any  other  sense,  and  he  was  too  obstinate  to  alter 
his  terminology.  At  the  Council  at  Chalcedon  in 
the  year  451,  his  doctrine  was  condemned  as  he- 
retical. Here  arose  the  sect  of  the  Monophy  sites, 
which  continues  in  the  East  to  the  present  day. 

In  order  to  render  the  difference  between  them- 
selves and  the  catholics  and  Nestorians  clearly 
discernible,  some  of  these  Monophysites  em- 
ployed paradoxical  statements  and  phrases,  like 
the  following : — viz.,  one  of  the  Trinity  suffered 
and  was  crucified  ;  the  deity  of  Christ  so  pene- 
trated his  humanity  as  to  render  his  body  incor- 
ruptible, (a^op-i'ov.)  This,  however,  was  denied 
by  others,  because  it  favoured  the  Docetse.  Some 
also,  even  of  the  Monophysites,  believed  that 
the  divine  nature  was  omniscient,  but  not  the 
human  nature  connected  with  it,  (Mark,  xiii, 
32.)  These  were  called  Agnoetae. 

[Note.— As  Photinianism  and  Apollinarianism 
were  the  opposite  extremes  of  this  doctrine  in 
the  former  period,  so  now  were  Nestorianism 
and  Eutychianism.  Between  these  the  catholic 
fathers  took  a  middle  course,  and  condemned,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  ewdtysia,  of  Nestorius,  as  indi- 
cating a  mere  external  and  moral  connexion  be- 
tween the  two  natures  in  Christ,  and,  on  the 
other,  the  ovy^txJt?  or  ^ust'a.So^  of  Eutyches,  as 
indicating  such  an  entire  interpenetration  of  the 
two  natures  as  must  destroy  the  peculiarities  of 
each.  The  catholic  doctrine  in  opposition  to 
these  extremes  is  expressed  in  the  following 
symbol,  established  at  the  Council  at  Chalcedon, 
451,  under  Marcian. 


writers  on  doctrinal  history.  The  principal  peculi- 
arity of  it  is  placed  in  this  point :  while  Eutyches 
admitted  that  before  the  incarnation  (or,  which  was 
doubtless  his  meaning,  according  to  conception,  and 
not  in  reality}  there  were  two  natures  in  Christ,  yet 
after  this  they  did  not  remain  distinct,  but  consti- 
tuted one  nature,  not  merely  by  a  owa<peia,  as  Nesto- 
rius held,  but  by  a  real  ovyx»°ts  or  /^ra.tfoA)?,  so  that 
his  human  nature  could  no  longer  be  said  to  be  con- 
substantial  with  that  of  other  men.  Briefly,  it  is 
Eutychianism  to  say  that  Christ  is  constituted  of  or 
from  two  natures,  but  does  not  exist  in  two  natures, 
(ix  tvo  Qioeuv,  not  iv  fao  </>W£<TI.)  Cf.  Neander,  Gesch. 
b.  ii.  Ab.  iii.  s.  1078.  Also  Murdock's  Mosheim, 
vol.  i.  p.  433,  Note.— TR.] 

2H2 


366 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


fovvv  tfotj  ytotj  rtafporn',  sva  xac 
•fov  av-gbv  (tytoX,oy£tv  vlbv  "fbv  xvpt<ov  rjpuv  'IqGovv 
"Xpwtbv  (3vlu.<|)u)i'Wj  artavti  $  ex8(,8daxo/AEv,  7*  £  X  £  i<  o  v 
r'oi'  avtbv  ev  Ssbtyti  xal  tshsiov  -tov  avtbv 
EV  dv^ptortoT'^T't,  ®ebv  dx^wj  xat  w$fMMM» 
d7,>7^u>£  few  avtbv  EX  i^v^^^Xoytx^s  xat  tfto- 
jua-foj,  o/j,oov0iov  tfqj  rtaf  pt  xatfd  tfijv  ^EOT^-TO,,  xac 
o^oovcftoj/  T-OV  avtbv  r^lv  xata  tqv  dr^pcortot^-r'a, 
xard  rtavfa  o^totov  ^jiuv  #wptj  d/tapr'taj'  rtpo  cucoi/cov 
/tEv  ex  tfov  Tta^poj  ywwjdlnMl  xatfd  r1 

T'WV  j^ufpwv  T'OV  avT'oi',  6t"  s^itd 


6td  •z'Jjv  qps'tepafV  tfcoT^ptav,  EX  Maptas  T'T)?  rtap^f 


xar     t 

,  vlbv,  xvpioi/, 


,  sva  xa 
sx  Svo 


8vo 


£  cop  ctf  r1  co  £ 

vov  ovSa^tou  T1^  T'WV  $t>ff£cov 
s 

f'v  rt  p  o  <?co  7t  o  v,  xat 
ovx  £tj  6vo  rfpd- 
',  aM,"  cva  xat  T'OV 

ar-r'ov  vtoj/  xat  (jLOVoysvy,  gtsv  T^oyor,  xvpiw  ' 
XptcfT'ov  xa^drt£p  dvco^fv  ol  Ttpo^^r'at  Ttspt 
xat  avtfoj  ^dj  o  xvptoj  'l^ffovj  Xptcf-foj  E 
xat  1*6  -fuiv  Ttcvr'fpcoi/  ^|tttv  TtapaSfScoxs 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  which  of 
the  two  readings,  EX  Svo  $vtf£coi>,  or  sv  8vo  (j>v<jfcft, 
ought  to  be  preferred.  The  whole  force  of  the 
symbol,  as  far  as  it  is  directed  against  Euty- 
chianism,  lies  in  the  latter  reading,  since  Euty- 
ches  would  allow  that  Christ  was  constituted 
£x  8vo  $>vff£cov.  The  reading  tV  8vo  fyvasat,  is  sup- 
ported by  good  authority,  probably  from  the 
whole  course  of  events  at  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  and  more  consistent  than  the  other  with 
the  context,  as  the  word  yvcopt^o^fvov  is  of  diffi- 
cult construction  with  EX,  and,  on  the  contrary, 
reads  naturally  with  sv.  Cf.  Neander,  b.  ii. 
Abth.  iii.  s.  1110.—  TR.] 

V.  The  Theory  and  Sect  of  the  Monothelttes. 

This  sect  arose  in  the  seventh  century,  from 
the  attempt  of  some,  who  were  rather  inclined 
to  the  side  of  the  Monophysites,  to  unite  the 
Nestorians  and  Monophysites  with  the  catholic 
church.  They  persuaded  the  emperor  Heraclius 
to  enact,  that  Christ,  after  the  union  of  his  two 
natures,  had  only  one  will  and  one  action  of  the 
will.  To  this  it  was  thought  all  parties  might 
assent,  and  thus  become  united.  At  first,  many 
were  inclined  to  adopt  this  opinion,  and  among 
others,  the  patriarchs  at  Constantinople  and 
Rome.  But  a  number  of  councils  were  held 
upon  the  subject,  and  the  catholics  at  last  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  opinion  would  intro- 
duce only  a  different  form  of  the  doctrine  of 
Eutyches.  They  therefore  maintained  a  twofold 
will  in  Christ  —  i.  e.,  one  for  his  divine,  and  one 
for  his  human  nature;  but  at  the  same  time  that 
these  were  never  opposed  and  always  agreed. 
The  other  party  maintained  that  there  was  but 


one  will ;  since  the  human  will  of  Christ  did  not 
act  separately,  but  was  subject  to  the  divine  will, 
and  governed  by  it.  Both  parties  were  Tight  in 
opinion,  and  only  misunderstood  each  other. 
The  latter,  however,  was  outvoted,  and  at  the 
third  Council  at  Constantinople,  in  the  year  G80, 
was  condemned  as  heretical ;  and  thus  the  sect 
of  the  Monothelites  arose  in  the  East.  [Cf. 
Hahn,  s.  464.  Gieseler,  s.  162.] 

Note. — Another  controverted  point  was  the 
relation  of  Christ  to  the  Father,  in  the  union  of 
his  two  natures.  The  ancient  fathers  had  com- 
monly used  the  appellation  Son  of  God,  as  a  name 
of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  and  not  as  a  name 
of  his  person  and  office.  They  found  some  texts 
of  scripture,  however,  in  which  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  is  also  plainly  designated  by  this  name ; 
as  Luke,  i.  35.  In  order  to  relieve  themselves 
from  this  difficulty,  without  relinquishing  their 
position,  they  said,  "  Christ,  as  God,  was  the 
natural  Son  of  God,  (i.  e.,  he  was,  in  a  literal 
sense,  eternally  generated  by  the  Father,  he  re- 
ceived his  deity  communicated  to  him  from  eter- 
nity, Ps.  ii.,)  but  as  man  he  was  the  Son  of 
God  by  adoption — i.  e.,  by  the  communication 
of  the  divine  nature  at  the  time  of  his  concep- 
tion, he  was  raised  as  a  man  to  this  dignity. 
And  in  this  there  is  no  heresy.  But  as  these 
terms  and  representations  respecting  adoption 
were  frequently  employed  by  the  Nestorians, 
they  were  gradually  omitted  by  the  catholics. 
This  doctrine  was,  however,  revived  in  Spain  in 
the  eighth  century,  783,  et  seq.,  by  Felix,  Bi- 
shop of  Urgel  (Urgelitanus),  and  was  approved 
by  many  in  the  West.  Others  regarded  it  as  a 
revival  of  Nestorianism ;  councils  were  held 
upon  the  subject  in  Italy  and  Germany  ;  and  at 
length  the  opinion  of  the  Adoptionists  was  con- 
demned as  heretical. 

Respecting    all    these    controversies,    vide. 
Walch,  Ketzergeschichte. 

These  unhappy  dissensions  should  serve  as  a 
warning  to  every  Christian  who  loves  peace,  not 
to  take  upon  himself  to  define  and  decide  respect- 
ing subjects  which  the  holy  scriptures  have  left 
undecided;  as  Morus  truly  observes,  p.  138,  s. 
10,  coll.  s.  101. 

SECTION  CIII. 

HISTORICAL  OBSERVATIONS  CONTINUED ;  THE  AN- 
CIENT ECCLESIASTICAL  TERMINOLOGY  RESPECT- 
ING THIS  DOCTRINE  EXPLAINED. 

I.  Terminology  of  the  Fathers. 

THE  ecclesiastical  terminology  on  this  subject 
came  gradually  into  use,  and  originated  partly 
before  the  controversies  of  the  fifth  century, 
partly  at  the  time  of  these  controversies,  and  in 
consequence  of  them.  Many  ancient  terms  were 
differently  defined  and  understood  after  that 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       367 


period.  This  indefmiteness  of  phraseology,  and 
the  various  use  of  terms,  were  the  principal  occa- 
sion of  these  controversies.  The  terms  em  ployed 
ought,  first  of  all,  to  have  been  explained  and 
understood. 

(1)  Some  ANCIENT  general  terms  respecting  the 
person  of  Christ,  and  the  relations  and  actions  of 
his  deity  and  humanity. 

(a)  The  ancient  fathers  were  in  the  habit  of 
calling  the  mutual  relation  of  the  deity  and  hu- 
manity united  in  Christ,  oixovoplo,,  which  signi- 
fies arrangement,  institution,  regulation;  also, 
the  fashion  and  manner  in  which  anything  is 
done  or  arranged.  So  it  is  used  by  Polybius, 
and  Cicero,  in  his  letters  to  Atticus,  and  by 
Paul,  Ephes.  i.  10.  In  the  same  way,  Tertul- 
lian  (Adv.  Prax.  2)  used  the  word  ceconomia, 
and  rendered  it  dispensatio. 

(V)  They  endeavoured  to  find  some  term 
which  should  appropriately  designate  the  whole 
person  of  Christ,  as  composed  of  deity  and  hu- 
manity. As  the  New  Testament  contains  no  sin- 
gle word  of  this  kind,  they  at  last  decided  upon 
the  word  &avSpo$  or  ^ecij&pwrtoj,  God-man;  as 
Tertullian  had  been  accustomed  to  say,  Deus  et 
homo,  and  Origen  ®tb$  xai  ai^pwTtoj. 

(c)  They  called  the  power  which  the  deity 
and  humanity  of  Christ  had  of  working  in  com- 
mon, fvtpyFia  ^-sowSptxTj,  vis,  sive  operatio  deovi- 
rilis.  This  phrase  first  occurs  in  the  Pseudo- 
Dionysius  Areopagitus,  Epist.  4.  Theologians, 
therefore,  afterwards  called  the  particular  actions 
of  Christ,  as  God  and  man,  or  his  mediatorial 
works,  operationes  deoviriles ;  also,  ajto-fs^afiata. 
Vide  s.  105. 

(2)  Various  terms  were  originally  used  to  de- 
note the  two  subjects  (rtpdypa-ta,  res,  as  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  calls  them)  connected  in  Christ. 
In  the  Latin  church  the  oldest  term  was  substan- 
.tia.     So  Tertullian,  "substantiae  duse, — CARO  et 
SPIRITUS,"  Adv.  Prax.  27.     They  had  previous- 
ly been  contented  with   the  simple  formula : 
"  Christum  esse  Deum   et  hominem  verum." 
The  word  substantia  was  still  used  in  this  sense 
by  the  Latin  church  in  the  fourth  century,  and 
sometimes  evep  by  Leo  the  Great  in  the  fifth 
century.     It  signified,  as  they  used  it,  ens  sin- 
gulare,  or  individuum.     It  was,  however,  re- 
garded as  ambiguous,  since  it  also  signified  ex- 
istence itself  and  that  which  really  is.    The  word 
natura  was  gradually  found  to  be  more  appro- 
priate and  definite.     It  had  been  early  used  by 
Ambrosius ;  but  after  the  Council  at  Chalcedon, 
in  the  fifth  century,  it  became,  by  means  of  Leo 
the  Great,  the  usual  and  characteristic  term  of 
the  catholic  fathers. 

In  the  Greek  church,  also,  many  terms  were 
originally  in  use.  (a)  'TTtoataai?.  This  word 
answers  exactly  to  the  Latin  substantia.  It  was 
used  by  Nestorius,  and  before  him  by  many 
whose  orthodoxy  was  never  doubted.  (6)  <i>v<jij. 


This  word  was  used  at  the  same  time  in  Egypt, 
and  was  one  cause  of  the  controversy  between 
Cyril  and  Nestorius.  Vide  s.  102,  iii.  (c)  Ovcaa. 
This  Word  was  early  in  frequent  use ;  but  through 
the  efforts  of  Cyril  and  the  Roman  bishop,  in  the 
fifth  century,  the  word  $v<si$  became  current  as 
orthodox. 

(3)  The  terms  used  to  denote  the  whole  Christ, 
as  consisting  of  two  natures. 

The  Latin  church  used  the  word  persona  for 
this  purpose ;  and  this,  being  very  definite  and 
unambiguous,  has  been  retained.  Respecting 
its  definition,  &c.,  vide  s.  104.  But  the  Greek 
church  had  a  great  variety  of  terms  to  express 
the  same  thing,  which  occasioned  the  greatest 
confusion. 

(a)  npootorfov.  This  word  was,  in  fact,  the 
least  ambiguous,  and  answered  exactly  to  the 
Latin  persona,  (a  suppositum  intelligent,  which 
has  its  own  proper  subsistence.)  In  many 
churches  this  was  originally  the  most  common 
word.  It  was  so  even  among  the  Syrians,  who 
derived  their  word  parsopa  from  it.  Accordingly, 
Nestorius  said,  rtpoauttov  sv  xai  Svo  vrtoo- 
(natures)  lv  Xptaty.  But  the  word 
was  uncommon  in  Constantinople,  Egypt,  and 
elsewhere.  In  these  places  they  used  instead 
the  word — 

(6)  'Trtoat aoftj.  Among  the  Greeks  this  word 
means  the  actual  existence  (vrtopfjis)  of  a  thing, 
the  existing  thing ;  also,  an  individual.  It  was 
therefore  a  far  more  ambiguous  word  than  the 
other.  Cyril  used  it  to  denote  the  whole  Christ; 
but  Nestorius,  his  separate  natures.  Vide  s.  102, 
III.  Cyril  and  the  Roman  bishop  said :  d? 
ta  I'Ttotf-ratftj,  8vo  fyv  3  e  i$  tv  Xpttf- 
This  party  prevailed,  and  introduced  vitoa- 
tfacus  as  the  common  word  by  which  the  orthodox 
were  distinguished.  Even  they,  however,  some- 
times still  used  the  word  rtpocwtoj/.  The  word 
may  also  have  been  regarded  as  more 
scriptural,  from  Hebrews,  i.  2,  ^apaxr'jjp  vnovtd- 
fffco$;  but  here  the  person  is  not  the  subject  of 
discourse.  Vide  s.  100.  The  Nestorians  still 
adhered  to  their  rtpoatojtov  and  parsopa. 

(c)  &vai$.  This  word  was  applied  to  the  per- 
son of  Christ  by  many  teachers  of  the  fourth 
century,  long  before  Eutyches.  Athanasius  and 
Ephraem  the  Syrian  had  affirmed,  without  being 
pronounced  heretics,  that  there  was  jwt'a  <j>v<n$ 
in  Christ.  Eutyches,  then,  in  the  fifth  century, 
thought  that  this  word,  already  authorized  by 
the  catholic  fathers,  was  the  best  adapted  to 
express  the  most  intimate  connexion  between 
the  deity  and  humanity,  in  opposition  to  Nesto- 
rius. Vide  s.  102,  iv.  His  opponents,  how- 
ever, understood  the  word  differently,  and  so 
made  heresy  out  of  it. 

(4)  The  words,  comparisons,  and  established 
distinctions  employed  to  illustrate  the  manner  of 
the  union  of  the  two  natures. 


3G8 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


(a)  The  most  ancient  words  used  by  the 
fathers  to  denote  the  union  of  the  two  natures 
convey  the  idea  of  a  mixture  of  these  natures. 
Among  others  was  the  word  <n>yxpa<ji$,  commixtio, 
and  misceri,  which  is  used  by  Tertullian  (adv. 
Prax.)  and  by  Cyprian,  and  even  in  the  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and 
Ephraem  the  Syrian.  This  word  occasionally 
escaped  even  from  Leo  the  Great,  the  zealous 
opponent  of  Eutyches.  Of  the  same  kind  were 
the  words  which  frequently  occur  in  the  writings 
of  the  Grecian,  and  more  especially  the  Egyp- 
tian, teachers  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries — 
viz.,  ^u.£T'a/8o?ijj,  jU-ET'aTtotjjKjtj,  jitsra/idp^coffts.  But 
the  word  awdfyfia  was  preferred  by  Nestorius 
and  some  others.  But  for  this  very  reason  it 
was  rarely  employed  by  his  opponents.  The 
other  words  uvyxpa^tj,  x.  *.  A,.,  which  denote  a 
mixture  of  natures,  were  rejected  at  the  Council 
at  Chalcedon,  because  they  were  used  by  Euty- 
ches, and  the  word  f'nocrts,  unio,  was  there  esta- 
blished in  their  place. 

(6)  The  illustrations  of  the  manner  of  this 
union  employed  by  the  ancients. 

(a)  Comparisons  and  images.  Some  of  these 
are  very  gross,  and  exhibit  very  imperfect  con- 
ceptions. Tertullian  said,  (Adv.  Prax.  27,) 
"The  deity  and  humanity  in  Christ  were  mix- 
tara  qusedam.)  ut  eledrum  ex  auro  et  argento" 
Origen  and  Basilius  the  Great  compared  this 
union  to  iron  heated  in  the  fire,  (penetrated 
through  and  through  by  the  fire ;)  Ephraem  the 
Syrian,  to  a  compounded  medicine  ;  Origen,  in 
another  passage,  and  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia, 
to  the  marriage  connexion  (two,  one  flesh} — a 
comparison  of  a  more  moral  cast ;  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria and  Leo  the  Great,  to  the  union  of  soul 
and  body,  which  comparison  they  particularly 
advocated. 

(j3)  Many  new  terminologies  were  invented 
after  the  controversies  commenced,  in  order  to 
distinguish  one  sect  from  another,  and  to  obviate 
various  unscriptural  representations.  Thus,  the 
natures  in  Christ  were  said  to  be  connected 
d^copwfwj,  dSwupET'cof,  and  dStaXu-rcof — i.  e.,  in- 
dissolubly  and  permanently,  and  not  merely  for 
a  season;  for  the  Gnostics  taught  that  the  Mon 
Christ  was  separated  from  the  man  Jesus  at  the 
time  of  the  death  of  the  latter;  and  Marcellus 
taught  that  the  Logos  would  at  some  future  time 
return  to  the  Father.  In  opposition  to  these 
and  similar  errors,  the  above  determinations 
were  therefore  adopted  by  the  Council  at  Chal- 
cedon. Thus,  too,  in  opposition  to  Eutyches, 
this  union  was  said  to  be  dtfvy^-r'cdj,  (such  that 
a  third  nature  had  not  arisen  from  the  union  of 
the  two  natures,  as  when  material  things  are  min- 
gled ;)  each  nature  existed  by  itself,  unaltered  in 
its  kind,  afpfrtrcoj.  Christ,  it  was  said,  should 
be  one,  sv  rtpoffwrtov,  pia,  vrtoataais  ^ai^pwrtou. 
This  svu><ji$  was  said  to  be  ovtftwS^s,  (not  appa- 


rent,  but  real ;)  vrtoatatLxr;,  (such  that  the  tw 
natures  remained  unchanged  as  to  their  kinc 
although  they  were  essentially  united — a  ten 
used  by  Cyril ;)  vjtsp^wstx^  (supernatural,)  &( 
After  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries,  th< 
schoolmen  of  the  West  adopted  these  termino- 
logies into  their  systems.   The  orthodox  Greeks 
also  constantly  preserved  them,  in  opposition  to 
the  Monophvsites,  Nestorians,  and  other  here- 
tics. 

II.  Later  Distinctions. 

Daring  the  sixteenth  century,  after  the  death 
of  Luther  and  Melancthon,  not  only  were  the 
old  subtilties  in  the  doctrine  respecting  the  na- 
ture and  person  of  Christ  revived  by  many  Lu- 
theran theologians,  but  many  new  ones  were  in- 
troduced. The  occasion  of  this  was,  the  contro- 
versy respecting  the  Lord's  Supper  between  tho 
zealous  adherents  of  Luther  and  the  Reformed 
theologians.  The  Reformed  doctrine  was  at  that 
time  approved  by  many  Lutheran  theologians. 
The  opposing  party,  therefore,  and  especially 
James  Andrea,  Chancellor  at  Tubingen,  and 
Mart.  Chemnitz,  endeavoured,  by  new  distinc- 
tions in  the  doctrine  respecting  the  person  of 
Christ,  to  draw  the  line  of  distinction  between 
the  two  systems  as  finely  as  possible.  Eccle- 
siastical authority  was  given  to  these  distinc- 
tions by  the  "Form  of  Concord."  Such  sub- 
tilties as  these  do  not  appear  in  the  "  Loci  Tne- 
ologici"  of  Melancthon.  On  this  subject  the 
following  particulars  should  be  known — viz., 

(1)  Luther  affirmed  the  true  and  substantial 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.     But  in  the  sixteenth  century 
many  of  his  disciples  and  zealous  followers  went 
beyond  their  teacher  in  this  matter.     Some  of 
them  advocated  in  fact,  if  not  in  words,  a  physical 
presence  of  the  body  of  Christ.     Beza,  on  the 
other  hand,  and  other  Reformed  theologians, 
shewed,  as  Zwingli  had  done  before,  that  this 
could  not  be  supposed ;   considering   that   the 
human  body  of  Christ  is  now  in  heaven,  and 
could  not,  as  a  real  human  body,  be  present  in 
more  than  one  place  at  the  same  time. 

(2)  Against  these  objections  the  Lutherans 
maintained,  either  the  actual  constant  omnipre- 
sence of  the  body  of  Christ,  as  Andrea  appears 
to  have  done,  or,  that  it  could  be  present  every 
where    (ubique),  whenever  and   wherever  he 
would,  and  the  case  required.     This  was  the 
view  of  Luther,   Chemnitz,   Hulsemann,  and 
many  others.     Hence  they  were  called  by  their 
opponents  Ubiquitarians,  and  there  was  much 
controversy  respecting  the  omnipresence  of  the 
body  of  Christ. 

(3)  In  order  to  render  this  presence  of  the 
body  of  Christ  more  intelligible,  assistance  was 
sought  from  the  doctrine  de  communicatione  idio- 
matum  intcrna  et  reali.     Here  Chemnitz  was 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       3G9 


the  most  active.  They  proceeded  on  the  ground 
that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  united  in 
the  most  intimate  manner  with  the  divine  nature, 
'that  it  was  penetrated,  as  it  were,  hy  the  divine 
nature,  and  received  all  divine  attributes  by  com 
munication.  They  invented  for  this  purpose 
the  "genus  communicationis  idiomatum  majes- 
taticum."  At  length  they  displayed  this  fine 
web  of  subtilty  and  terminology  in  the  "  Form 
i  of  Concord." 

1(4)  Hereupon  new  dissensions  and  schisms 
arose  in  the  Lutheran  church  in  the  sixteenth 
i  and  seventeenth  centuries.  For  the  theologians 
of  Brandenburg  rejected  the  "  Form  of  Concord" 
altogether,  and  the  theologians  of  Helmstadt  dis- 
approved and  rejected  particular  doctrines  con- 
tained in  it,  such  as  the  doctrine  of  the  omni- 
presence of  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  The 
controversy  which  thus  arose  did  great  injury 
i  to  the  Lutheran  church. 


SECTION  CIV. 

A  BRIEF  EXHIBITION  OF  THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  SYS- 
TEM RESPECTING  THE  PERSON  AND  THE  TWO 
NATURES  OF  CHRIST;  AN  EXPLANATION  OF  THE 
ECCLESIASTICAL  PHRASEOLOGY  NOW  IN  USE  IN 
THE  DOCTRINE  "  DE  COMMUNICATIONE  IDIOMA- 
TUM ;"  AND  A  CRITICAL  JUDGMENT  UPON  THE 
SAME. 

FROM  s.  102,  103,  the  gradual  origin  and  in- 
crease of  the  learned  ecclesiastical  distinctions 
and  terminologies  is  clearly  seen.  The  most 
important  of  these  only  are  still  retained.  How 
many  of  them  are  plainly  founded  in  the  holy 
scriptures  may  be  determined  by  s.  100,  101. 

I.  Established  Form  of  Doctrine  respecting  the  Person 
of  Christ,  and  the  Union  of  his  Two  Natures. 

There  are  two  natures  in  Christ,  the  divine 
and  human.  The  Son  of  God  (i.  e.,  the  divine 
nature)  united  himself  so  closely  and  intimately 
with  the  human  nature,  that  one  person  is  made 
from  these  two  united  natures.  Person,  in  philo- 
sophical language,  is  a  rational  existence,  (beasts 
then  are  not  persons,)  which  has  its  being  and 
subsistence  in  itself,  (subjectum  intelligens,  vo- 
lens,  libere  agens.)  Thus  Boethius  in  his  book, 
"de  persona  et  natura,"  cap.  2.  The  abstract 
of  person,  or  the  existence  of  such  a  being,  is 
called  personalitas.  This  union,  therefore,  in 
being  personal,  (unio  personalis,)  is  distin- 
guished from  the  other  kinds  of  union  of  God 
with  his  creatures,  and  even  from  that  of  God 
(the  Father)  with  the  man  Jesus;  vide  s.  101. 
We  may  say  that  the  triune  God  is  in  some 
sense  united  with  Jesus.  But  neither  the  Fa- 
ther nor  the  Holy  Spirit  have  so  connected 
themselves  with  the  human  nature  of  Christ, 
that  we  can  say  that  the  Father  or  the  Holy 
Spirit  became  man.  This  can  be  said,  on  the 
47 


authority  of  the  Bible,  only  of  the  Son  of  God. 
The  condition  which  arises  from  this  union  is 
called  unio  (n/wffij) ;  the  beginning  of  this 
union,  or  the  act  of  uniting,  unitio,  which  is 
therefore  synonymous  with  incarnatio,  (tvadpxu- 
tftj.)  This  personal  union  is  a  real,  not  simply 
a  moral,  mystical,  or  figurative  union ;  still  it  is 
a  supernatural  union,  such  that  one  nature  is,  as 
it  were,  penetrated  by  the  other  (permeata  ,•)  al- 
though the  manner,  the  internal  modus,  of  this 
is  to  us  inexplicable,  and  such  that  the  most  in- 
timate connexion  subsists  between  the  two  in 
their  mutual  actions.  Theologians  call  this 
union  of  one  nature  with  the  other,  and  their 
mutual  relations,  Ttfpt^copjyotj,  observing,  how- 
ever, that  no  mixture  (avy^ucas)  of  the  two  na- 
tures takes  place,  and  also  that  this  union  is  in- 
separable and  indissoluble,  (d^QptWcoj.)  Other 
distinctions  and  terminologies,  which  had  their 
rise  in  the  controversies  relating  to  this  subject, 
may  be  seen  in  s.  103. 

II.  Effects  of  this  Personal  Union  of  the  Two  Natures,- 
and  the  Consequences  deduced  from  it. 

(1)  The  impersonality,  avvrto(rta,ai,a,  imperso- 
nalitas,  of  the  man  Jesus,  or  of  the  human  nature 
of  Christ.  Theologians  maintain  that  the  hu- 
man nature  of  Christ  does  not  subsist  in  itself, 
but  in  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God,  or  that  in 
itself  it  is  aw'toa'tato*;,  and  that  it  has  tvurtooffa- 
caav  in  him.  For,  if  personality  is  ascribed  to 
the  human  nature  of  Christ,  he  must  be  con- 
ceived as  composed  of  two  distinct  persons. 
This  distinction  was  directed  principally  against 
the  opinions  ascribed  to  the  Nestorians,  and 
also  against  the  opinions  of  the  Apollinarians, 
Monotheletae  and  Agnoetae.  If  we  would  form 
any  clear  idea  from  this  distinction,  we  must 
understand  it,  not  in  a  physical,  but  in  a  moral 
sense,  as  Ernesti  remarks  in  his  programm  "De 
incarnatione."  All  that  is  intended  by  it  is  this, 
that  the  man  Jesus  never  was  a  mere  man,  and 
never  acted  from  simple  human  power  (<x<|>'  «av- 

),  in  any  such  way  as  to  be  separated  from 
the  Son  of  God,  and,  as  it  were,  independent  of 
him.  And  this  is  the  representation  of  the  New 
Testament.  When,  therefore,  Christ  says,  /do, 
/  teach,  &c.,  he  speaks  of  the  whole  Christ,  in 
which  the  divine  is  the  superior  and  reigning 
nature,  by  which  the  inferior  or  human  nature  is 
governed  and  used  as  an  instrument,  just  as  we, 
when  we  speak  of  ourselves,  our  persons,  mean 
soul  and  body  together. 

Note. — In  this  way,  and  in  this  way  only,  can 
we  explain  the  fact  that  Christ  should  speak  of 
himself  in  the  very  same  discourse,  and  indeed 
in  the  very  same  sentence,  as  man,  and  again  in 
such  terms  as  the  eternal  and  immutable  God 
alone  uses  of  himself— e.  g.,  John,  xvii.  5, 
"Glorify  me  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with 
thee  before  the  world  was ;"  in  the  same  man- 


370 


C IT  HISTI AN  TH EO LO G Y. 


ner  as,  when  we  speak  of  ourselves,  we  some- 
times employ  terms  which  are  applicable  only 
to  a  spiritual  nature,  and,  at  other  times,  terms 
which  are  applicable  only  to  a  corporeal  nature; 
the  former  in  relation  to  the  soul,  the  latter  in 
relation  to  the  body ;  because  these  two  natures 
are  united  in  us  in  one  person. 

(2)  Another  consequence  deduced  from  this 
community  of  the  two  natures  is,  that  one  nature 
communicates  its  own  attributes  to  the  oilier,  (com- 
muni  care  idiomata.} 

(a)  If  by  this  statement  it  is  meant  that  the 
properties  of  each  of  the  two  natures  are  regarded 
as  belonging  to  the  whole  person,  it  is  unobjec- 
tionable. For  in  the  very  same  way  we  ascribe 
to  man  the  attributes  of  soul  and  body,  though 
exceedingly  diverse.  Accordingly,  the  New 
Testament  and  the  discourses  of  Christ  himself 
represent  that  the  glory  which  Christ,  as  to  his 
divine  nature,  had  with  the  Father  from  eternity, 
belonged  also  to  his  human  nature,  and,  so  far  as 
this  nature  was  susceptible  of  this  glory,  was 
communicated  to  it,  and  became  particularly 
visible  from  the  commencement  of  his  state  of 
exaltation.  Vide  John,  xvii.  5 ;  Phil.  ii.  9 — 11. 
Cf.  s.  101. 

(A)  There  is  great  objection,  however,  to  the 
opinion,  that  all  the  attributes  of  one  nature  are 
really  (interne  et  realiter}  communicated  to  the 
other.  But  the  strict  Lutheran  theologians  of  the 
sixteenth  century, and  especially  Chemnitz,  were 
led  by  their  views  respecting  the  Lord's  supper 
to  insist  strongly  upon  this  opinion.  Vide  s. 
103,  II.  To  meet  the  objections  which  would 
be  brought  against  it,  they  made  the  following 
limitations — viz., 

(a)  Because  the  Deity  is  incapable  of  change, 
the  attributes  of  the  human  were  not  eommu- 
•  nicated  to  the  divine  nature,  but  only  the  attri- 
butes of  the  divine  to  the  human.  This  com- 
munica'io  idiomalum  was  not,  then,  mutual  or 
reciprocal. 

(|3)  Jill  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature  can- 
not*be  communicated  to  the  human,  but  only  the 
attributa  operativa,  (those  which  imply  action 
and  activity,)  e.  g.,  omnipotence,  goodness,  jus- 
tice, &c.  The  attributa  quiescent ia,  (those  which 
imply  rest  and  inaction,)  e.  g.,  infinity,  eternity, 
&c.,  are  incommunicable.  Vide  s.  18,  III.  2. 

But  this  opinion,  after  all  these  fine  distinc- 
tions, is  not  founded  in  the  scriptures,  and  the 
texts  cited  in  its  behalf  do  not  prove  it.  Vide 
infra,  de  propositionibus  idiomafieis.  Moreover, 
it  is  liable  to  many  objections. 

(x)  Nothing  more  was  necessary  in  order  to 
the  action  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  than 
for  it  to  be  determined  and  impelled  by  the  di- 
vine nature  in  something  the  same  way  as  the 
human  body  is  impelled  by  the  soul;  in  which 
case  each  part  retains  its  own  attributes,  and 
there  is  no  necessity  for  the  attributes  of  the 


soul  to  be  communicated  to  the  body.  This  was 
the  view  of  many  of  the  most  ancient  and  or- 
thodox fathers  of  the  church. 

(2)  The  attributes  of  the  Deity  are  insepara- 
ble.   Where  there  is  one,  there  are  all.    And  no 
conception,  certainly  no  clear  conception,  can  be 
formed  of  such  a  division.     The  divine  nature 
is  altogether  incapable  of  change.     And  if  the 
human  nature  were  changed  in  any  essential 
respect,  Christ  could  not  continue  a  true  man. 

(j)  Christ  himself  said,  that  as  a  man  he  was 
unacquainted  with  many  things.  He  changed 
his  place  as  a  man.  He  learned,  and  increased 
in  wisdom.  How,  then,  can  I  say,  that  as  a 
man  he  was  omniscient,  omnipresent,  and  all- 
wise1? 

It  is  far  better  to  be  content  with  the  more 
simple  and  more  scriptural  opinion,  that  each 
nature  retained  its  peculiar  attributes,  and  that 
the  human  nature  was  supported,  guided,  and 
endowed  with  strength  and  wisdom  by  the  di- 
vine nature,  whenever  there  was  occasion.  Vide 
s.  100,  101.  And  many  good  Lutheran  theolo- 
gians, even  of  the  sixteenth  century,  acknow- 
ledged that  this  was  sufficient. 

(3)  Still  another  consequence  deduced  from 
the  personal  union  of  the  two  natures  is  the 
communio   operationum — i.    e.,  all  the  actions 
done  by  either  of  the  two  natures  must  be  con- 
sidered as  the  actions  of  the  whole  person.     So 
Whether  Christ  acts  from  the  impulse  of  the  di- 
vine nature,  or  as  man,  in  either  case  the  whole 
person  acts.     In  the  same  way  the  actions  of 
a  man,  whether  of  his  soul  or  his  body,  are 
ascribed,  without  hesitation,  to  the  whole  per- 
son.   The  most  rational  and  intelligible  opinion 
on  this  subject,  however,  is  this,  that  the  hu- 
manity of  Christ  is  the  instrument  by  which  his 
deity  acts;  though  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
peculiar  attributes  and  properties  of  his  humani- 
ty are  not  set  aside.    In  all  those  actions,  there- 
fore, where  the  humanity  of  Christ  had  occasion 
for  instruction,  support,  and   guidance,  it  re- 
ceived the  same  from  his  divinity.    Such  actions 
(and  all  which  belong  to  his  mediatorial  work 
are  such)  are  called  by  theologians,  operationts 
deoviriles.     Vide  s.  103,  I.  1. 

The  ancients  expressed  the  same  thing  by 
saying  that  there  was  one  will  in  Christ,  arid 
that  his  humanity  assented  to  the  will  of  his  di- 
vinity, and  acted  according  to  it.  So  Nestorius, 
and  even  the  orthodox  of  that  age.  But  after 
the  controversy  of  the  catholics  with  the  Mono- 
theletse,  the  former  advocated  two  wills  in 
Christ,  the  latter  only  one.  Vide  s.  102,  V. 

(4)  From  the  theory  of  the  personal  union, 
and  the  communication  of  attributes,  various  for- 
mulae and  modes  of  speech  have  been  derived. 
Only  a  part  of  them  occur  in  the  scriptures. 
The  rest,  which  should  have  been  omitted,  were 
occasioned  by  theological  controversies.     They 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       371 


are  called  propositions,  and  are  divided  into  two 
principal  classes.  Respecting  all  the  minutiae 
of  this  subject,  vide  Baumgarten,  Glaubens- 
lehre,  where  they  are  treated  at  length.  [Of. 
also  Hahn,  s.  94,  s.  445.] 

I.  "  Propositiones  Personates  sive  Hypontaticse'* — i. 
e.,  such  as  are  derived  from  the  notion  of  the  Per- 
sonal Union  itself  of  the  Two  Natures  in  Christ. 
These  are  again  divided  into  two  classes. 

(1)  Propositions  in  which  the  peculiar  proper- 
ties of  either  of  the  two  natures  are  ascribed  to 
the  whole  person,  or  in  which  the  concrete  of  the 
person  is  connected  with  the  concrete  of  cither  of 
the.  two  natures — e.  g.,  Christ  is  man,  the  son  of 
man,  the  son  of  David,  where  the  concrete  of  the 
person  is  connected  with   the  concrete  of  the 
human  nature;  or,  Christ  is  God,  the  only  begot- 
ten Son  of  God  (in  the  theological  sense),  where 
the  concrete  of  the  person  is  connected  with  the 
concrete  of  the  divine  nature.    Such  propositions 
occur  in  the  Bible  and  occasion  no  mistake. 

(2)  Propositions  in  which  the  concrete  of  one 
nature  is  predicated  of  the  other  nature  (concreta 
naturarum  de  se  inviccm  jiricdicantur) — e.   g., 
God  is  man,  ihe  man  Jesus  is  God,  the  son  of 
Mary,  or  of  David,  is  God.   Theologians  observe 
here,  that  the  case  is  not  the  same  with  the  ab- 
stracta  naturarum.     Thus  it  would  be  improper 
to  say,  the  humanity  (of  Christ)  is  the  deity  (of 
Christ.)    Anciently,  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  cen- 
turies, such  propositions  were  frequently  em- 
ployed, vide  s.  102;  but  they  were  objected  to 
by  Nestorius.     They  are  indeed  capable  of  a 
proper  explanation,  but  they   easily   occasion 
mistake.     Besides,  they  have  no  analogy ;  as 
nobody  says,  animus  est  corpus,  corpus  est  ani- 
mus,  &c.     The   texts  which  are  appealed  to 
(Rom.  i.  3;  Luke,  i.  35;  Matt.  xvi.  13,  16)  are 
not  in  point.     For  the  appellation,  Son  of  God, 
in  these  texts,  may  be  the  name  of  person  and 
of  office,  and  is  not  necessarily  the  name  of  na- 
ture.    In  the  text,  1  Cor.  xv.  47,  "the  second 
Adam  is  the  Lord  from  heaven,"  xvptoj  also  is 
the  name  of  person,  and  not  of  nature. 

II.  "  Propositiones  Idiomaticse,  sive  de  Communica- 
tione  Idiomatum ,-"  such  as  denote  the  Communi- 
cation of  Attributes,   ("  Idiomata,  Proprietates, 
AJfectiones")    These,  again, are  divided  into  two 
principal  classes. 

(1)  Propositions  in  which  the  attributes  of  one 
nature  are  ascribed  to  the  whole  person  (named 
from  one  of  the  two  natures),  or  in  which  the 
subject  is  either  a  concrete  of  person  or  a  con- 
crete of  nature,  but  ihe  predicate  is  an  idioma  of 
the  divine  or  human  nature.  These  are  divided 
into  three  classes — viz., 

(A)  Propositions  in  which  the  attributes  and 
actions  of  one  nature  or  the  other  are  ascribed 
to  the  whole  person;  or,  where  the  subject  is  a 


concrctum personx,  but  the  predicate  an  idiomu 
alterutrius  naturae.  A  proposition  of  this  kind 
is  called  idiomatica,  or,  u.vti&oTixrt,  (ovf  i8«ortfn 
retributio.)  This  has  analogy  in  its  favour — 
e.  g.,  man  (the  sou/)  thinks  ,•  -man  (tht  body^)  cats. 
In  this  case,  both  of  these  actions  are  predicated 
of  the  whole  person.  Such  propositions  fre- 
quently occur  in  the  scriptures — e.  g.,  Christ 
suffered,  rose  from  the  dead,  wrought  miracles  by 
his  own  poiuer,  is  mortal,  is  omnipotent.  Thus 
in  John,  xvi.  51,  "  I  (the  whole  person  speaks) 
came  from  heaven,  (the  divine  nature;")  John, 
x.  12,  "  I  lay  down  my  life  (the  human  nature) 
for  the  sheep  f"  and  in  many  other  texts.  Vide 
Morns,  p.  143,  s.  4. 

(B)  Propositions  in  which  the  attributes  pecu- 
liar to  each  nature  are  predicated  of  the  same,  or 
in  which  the  subject  is  a  concrete  of  one  nature, 
and  the  predicate  an  idioma  of  the  same  nature; 
as  when  we  say,  the  soul  is  immortal,  the  body  is 
mortal.   Thus  Matt.  ii.  1,  Jesus  was  born ;  Acts, 
ii.  22,  23,  Jesus  was  crucified;  or,  making  the 
subject  a  concrete  of  the  divine  nature,  the  only 
begotten  Son  of  God,  (if  this  name  is  given  to  the 
divine  nature,)  was  from  the  beginning,  created 
the  world,  is  omnipotent,  &c.     This  language  is 
very  common   in   the   Bible;   and   the   nature 
which  is  the  subject  of  discourse  is  often  ex- 
pressly mentioned — e.  g.,  Christ  xata  aupxa. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  142,  s.  1,  n.  1. 

(C)  Propositions  in  which  the  peculiar  attri- 
butes of  one  nature  are  predicated  of  the  other. 
These  propositions  are  divided  into  two  classes, 
corresponding  to  the  two  natures  in  Christ. 

(a)  Propositions  in  which  the  attributes  of 
the  human  nature  are  predicated  of  the  divine 
nature,  or  where  the  subject  is  a  concretum  di- 
vinx  naturae,  but  the  predicate  an  idioma  nature 
humanse.  This  is  called  tStorto/^tft?,  because 
the  divine  nature  appropriates  to  itself  what  be- 
longs to  the  human  nature.  The  texts  cited  as 
examples  are  the  following: — viz.,  Gal.  iv.  4, 
"  God  sent  his  Son,  born  of  a  woman;"  Rom. 
v.  10,  "We  are  reconciled  with  God,  through 
the  death  of  his  Son ;"  Acts,  iii.  15,  "  The  prince 
(auctor)  of  life  was  slain;"  1  Cor.  ii.  8,  "Ye 
have  crucified  the  Lord  of  glory  ;"  but  especially 
Acts,  xx.  28,  "  God  bought  the  church  with  his 
blood."  But  the  reading  in  the  last  passage  is 
very  uncertain.  Vide  s.  37.  And  though  some 
of  these  and  other  texts  may  possibly  be  exam- 
ples in  point,  they  are  not  distinctly  so.  For 
the  appellation  Son,  Son  of  God,  in  these  pas- 
sages, may  be  the  name  of  the  whole  person  of 
the  God-man  (Messiah),  and  is  not  necessarily 
the  name  of  the  divine  nature. 

(6)  Propositions  in  which  the  attributes  of 
the  divine  nature  are  predicated  of  the  human 
nature;  or  in  which  the  subject  is  a  concrete  of 
the  human  nature,  but  the  predicate  an  attribute 
of  the  divine  nature.  This  is  called,  XGI, 


372 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


j,  genus  a,v%t}i*,artix6v,  sive  majcstaticitm, 
because  divine  attributes  are  communicated  to 
the  man  Jesus — e.  g.,  Jesus,  or  the  Son  of  man, 
is  almighty,  omnipresent,  omniscient,  &c.  The 
most  probable  texts  are  John,  iii.  13;  vi.  62, 
*'  The  Son  of  man  will  return  to  heaven,  where 
he  was  before."  But  these  do  not  teach  that 
divine  attributes  are  communicated  to  the  human 
nature  of  Christ;  and,  in  truth,  the  phrase  Tioj 
di/^piortov  here  denotes  the  whole  person,  the 
Messiah,  although  the  appellation  is  taken  from 
his  humanity.  The  texts,  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  20, 
"All  power  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,"  and  "  I  am  with  you,"  &c.,  (from  which 
the  communication  of  omnipotence  and  omnipre- 
sence to  the  humanity  of  Christ  has  been  con- 
cluded,) are  irrelevant  to  this  point;  for  they 
treat  of  the  state  of  exaltation,  and  the  whole 
Christ  speaks  of  himself,  and  not  merely  his 
humanity.  For  .other  texts,  vide  Morus,  p. 
144,  n.  3. 

Note. — This  whole  third  class  of  propositions 
was  disapproved  even  by  many  of  the  ancient 
fathers,  who  were  of  the  opinion  that  it  should 
be  entirely  discarded,  because  it  has  no  clear 
authority  from  scripture.  So  Origen  and  many 
others.  But  Cyril  and  Leo  the  Great,  in  the 
fifth  century,  advocated  these  propositions  in 
opposition  to  Nestorius.  And  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  Chemnitz  and  the  "Form  of 
Concord"  brought  them  again  into  vogue;  and 
especially  the  genus  propos.  auchematicum,  on 
account  of  their  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  Morus,  1,  1.  n.  2. 

They  ought  to  be  discarded  for  the  following 
reasons — viz.,  (1)  They  have  no  clear  support 
from  scripture ;  vide  supra.  (2)  They  are  con- 
tradictory to  all  the  analogies  to  which  we  can 
appeal  in  other  cases.  Who  would  say,  the 
soul  dies ;  the  mind  eats,  digests ;  the  body 
thinks,  philosophizes  ?  although,  indeed,  the 
concretum  naturse,  man,  is  used  in  such  cases. 
They  give  rise  to  propositions  which,  though 
capable  of  a  reasonable  explanation,  are  very 
offensive  in  their  form,  and  the  occasion  of  ridi- 
cule from  the  thoughtless.  Such  are  the  fol- 
lowing: God  died,  and  was  buried,-  the  man 
Jesus  is  eternal,-  Mary  was  the  mother  of  God ,- 
one  of  the  Trinity  was  crucified,  &c.  All  the 
otfensiveness  of  these  propositions  is  removed 
by  using  the  name  of  the  person,  Christ.  (3) 
Such  expressions  lead  the  great  mass  of  men 
into  gross  and  material  conceptions  of  God,  and 
confirm  them  in  such  conceptions,  which  they 
are  always  inclined  to  form.  For  this  reason 
they  were  discarded  by  Nestorius,  though  even 
he  admitted  that  they  might  be  explained  in 
such  a  way  as  to  give  a  true  sense.  Cf.  Morus, 
p.  145,  n.  2. 

(2)  The  second  class  of  propositiones  idioma- 


ticse,  comprises  those  propositions  in  which  the 
works  belonging  to  the  mediatorial  office  of 
Christ  are  ascribed  to  the  person,  named  from 
either  of  the  two  natures,  or  from  both  united. 
This  class  is  called  genus  propositionum  drto- 
Of*.atixov,  from  arto-r^^ara,  effectus  sive 
opus,  sc.  mediatorium.  This  is  thus  described 
in  the  language  of  the  schools  :  "  rfpotelesmata, 
sive  actiones  ad  opus  mediatorium  pertinentes 
tribuuntur  subjecto,  vel  ab  humana,  vel  a  divina, 
vel  ab  utraque  natura  denominate."  This  cor- 
responds with  analogy;  because  these  actions 
were  performed  through  the  union  of  the  two 
natures.  Such  propositions  frequently  occur  in 
the  scriptures,  and  are  founded  upon  the  com- 
munio  operationum  utriusque  naturas.  Thus  I 
can  say,  CHRIST  raises  the  dead,  redeems  and 
judges  men.  But  I  can  also  say,  either  that  the 
Son  of  God,  (in  the  theological  sense,)  or  that 
Jesus,  the  Son  of  man,  does  the  same  things; 
Luke,  ix.  56;  Gal.  iii.  13;  1  John,  iii.  8;  Heb 
i.  3  ;  vi.  20. 

This  genus  apotelesmaticum  is  made  very  pro- 
minent in  the  "Form  of  Concord,"  on  accoun) 
of  the  controversy  in  the  sixteenth  century  be- 
tween Osiander  and  Stancarus,  theologians  of 
Konigsberg.  Osiander  taught  that  Christ  atoned 
for  the  sins  of  men  only  as  God,  and  not  as  man. 
Stancarus,  on  the  other  hand,  taught  that  the 
human  nature  only,  and  not  the  divine,  was 
concerned  in  the  mediatorial  work.  The  other 
theologians  decided  justly  that  both  natures 
were  here  concerned.  These  two  theologians, 
indeed,  expressed  themselves  inaptly,  but  ap- 
pear not  to  have  been  so  unscriptural  in  their 
opinions  as  many  supposed  them  to  be.  Osian- 
der only  designed  by  his  declarations  to  exhibit, 
in  a  clear  light,  the  high  worth  of  the  merits  of 
Christ;  and  Stancarus  only  wished  to  obviate 
the  mistake  that  Christ  endured  sufferings  and 
death  as  God.  As  for  the  rest,  vide  Morus,  p. 
146,  last  note. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST,  AND  WHAT  HAS  BEEN 
EFFECTED  BY  IT. 


SECTION  CV. 

SCRIPTURAL  NAMES  AND  DESCRIPTIONS  OF  THE 
WORKS  OF  CHRIST,  AND  THEIR  SALUTARY  EF- 
FECTS J  ALSO,  THE  NAMES  OF  CHRIST  AS  THE 
SAVIOUR  OF  THE  WORLD. 

I.  General  Names  of  the  Works  of  Christ  for  the 

good  of  Men. 

(1)  "Epyov  is  frequently  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament in  the  discourses  of  C hrist  himsel f,  Joh n, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       373 


/  iv.  34 ;  xvii.  4.  It  signifies  the  business,  works, 
/  which  he  had  undertaken.  In  the  passages 
cited,  his  business  is  called  cpyov  tov  rtatpoj,  or 
tfov  ii t/A-^avto j ;  because  it  is  considered  as  a 
commission  given  him  by  the  Father.  It  is 
also  called  fofofaft  mandatum,  commission,  John, 
x.  18;  xii.  49. 

(2)  Many  ecclesiastical  terms  were  afterwards 
adopted  in  addition  to  these  scriptural  terms. 
Among  these  is  the  word  munus,  which  is  very 
appropriate,  as  it  means  business,  work;  and 
thus  answers  to  Ipyov.  The  word  qfficium  was 
used  in  the  same  sense,  and  became  the  most 
common  name  for  the  work  of  Christ  in  the 
Latin  church.  Tertullian  says  (con.  Marc.  iii. 
16),  respecting  Christ,  "  Officium  prophetae, 
nuntiantis  divinam  voluntatem."  Hilarius,  of 
Poictiers,  in  the  fourth  century,  says,  "  Officium 
Christi  proprium  cognitionem  Dei  afferre,"  and 
"  Officium  Christi  prenale."  These  terms  were 
retained  in  the  protestant  church,  and  officium 
and  offieia  were  the  most  common  terms  with 
Melaricthon,  Chemnitz,  and  others.  But  be- 
cause, in  Germany,  munus  and  qfficium  were 
commonly  rendered  by  words  which  denoted 
offices,  posts  of  honour,  (Germ.  Jlmt,  Ehrenamt,~) 
they  were  so  rendered  here,  and  in  this  way 
occasion  was  given  to  associate  several  incor- 
rect ideas  with  this  subject.  So  they  spoke  of 
the  mediatorial  office  of  Christ,  instead  of  his 
mediatorial  work ;  and  of  the  three  offices  of 
Christ,  instead  of  his  threefold  work,  or  the 
three  parts  of  his  mediatorial  work.  On  ac- 
count of  this  ambiguity  of  the  words  officium 
and  munus,  Ernesti  preferred  to  say,  "  De  opere 
Christi  salutari." 

II.  General  Description  of  the  Objects  of  the  Mission 
of  Christ,  and  of  the  Benefits  flowing  to  Men 
through  him. 

(1)  In  some  passages  the  object  of  his  advent 
to  the  earth  is  stated  in  general  terms  to  be  to 
rescue  men  from  their  unhappy  condition,  and 
to  transfer  them  into  a  more  happy  situation — 
e.  g.,  John,  iii.  16,  "Those  who  believe  in  him 
shall  not  be  miserable,  (p,rj  drtoM/uo&cu,,)   but 
shall  become  happy,  (£coijv  £#«i>.)"   Also,  Heb. 
ix.  15,  where  drto^vT'pcocrtj  means  liberalio  ab  in- 
fortunio,    and    jejuypcwyua,  possessio    beatitatis. 
Cf.  Luke,  xix.  10;  1  Tim.  i.  15.     Christ  is 
said  to  have  come,  1  John,  iii.  5,  8,  d/*apfiac 
cupfn/  and  hvstv  f'pya  tov  SiajSotou,  peccata.    The 
word  0w£W  which  occurs  frequently  in  these 
passages,  like  the  Hebrew  jprin,  involves  the 
two  ideas  of  freeing  from  misery  and  translat- 
ing into  a  happy  condition.     The  same  is  true 
of  the  word  ccoT^pta. 

(2)  In  other  passages    the  benefits  which 
Christ  has  bestowed,  and  his  desert  of  the  hu- 
man race,  are  comprised  in  a  shorter  descrip- 
tion, and  only  particular  parts  of  his  work  are 


mentioned— e.  g.,  John,  i.  17,  which  treats  of 
the  great  advantages  which  Christianity  has 
over  the  Mosaic  doctrine  and  institute,  (j/o^oj.) 
Christianity  bestows  the  greatest  blessings, 
#a'pij  xai  ahfasia — assurance  of  the  most  sincere 
love  of  God,  or  of  his  free,  unmerited  grace,  and 
of  his  truth.  John,  xiv.  6,  "  I  am  the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life" — i.  e.,  I  am  he  through 
whom  you  come  to  God,  who  qualifies  you  to 
enter  the  abodes  of  the  blessed ;  and  this  my 
promise  is  true ;  you  may  safely  confide  in  it ; 
I  am  the  author  and  giver  of  life — i.  e.,  of  hap- 
piness. Heb.  ii.  14,  "  By  his  death  he  deprived 
the  devil,  the  author  of  all  injury  and  wretched- 
ness, of  his  power  to  harm ;  he  freed  us  from  the 
fear  of  death,  and  procured  us  the  pardon  of  our 
sins."  The  passage,  1  Cor.  i.  30,  should  be 
cited  in  this  connexion:  "Through  him  God 
has  bestowed  upon  us  true  wisdom — has  esta- 
blished a  dispensation  which  truly  deserves  the 
name  of  a  wise  dispensation,  (in  opposition  to 
the  pretended  wisdom  of  men,  ver.  21  ;)  he  is 
the  cause  of  OUT  forgiveness — God  pardons  us 
on  his  account;  he  sanctifies  us  through  him, 
(after  forgiveness  has  been  bestowed ;)  to  him 
we  owe  deliverance  from  the  power,  dominion, 
and  punishment  of  sin." 

III.  Scriptural  Titles  which  are  given  to  Christ  as 
the  Saviour  of  the  World. 

The  names,  Messiah,  Christ,  King,  Lord, 
which  denote  the  elevation  and  dignity  of 
Christ,  have  also  a  reference  to  the  benefits 
which  he  bestowed  upon  us,  and  to  the  works 
which  he  performed  for  the  good  of  men.  For 
he  is  Messiah,  King,  Lord,  for  the  very  purpose 
of  delivering  us  from  misery,  and  of  bestowing 
blessings  upon  us.  These  titles  have  been  con- 
sidered, s.  89",  98.  Their  doctrinal  meaning, 
then,  as  applied  to  this  subject,  is  Swtfjp,  (xoo- 
pnj,)  Saviour,  Benefactor  of  men.  The  follow- 
ing titles  imply  more  directly  the  idea  of  his 
being  the  Benefactor  of  our  race. 

(1)  'Ir;aoi>$.  This  is  indeed  the  name  by 
which  he  is  more  properly  distinguished  as 
man ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  may  have  been 
given  to  him  as  a  significant  name,  denoting  his 
future  works  and  destination,  according  to  the 
custom  in  giving  names,  common  in  the  East. 
Indeed,  the  New  Testament  expressly  declares 
that  he  received  this  name  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, on  the  command  of  the  angel :  Stocrft  Xa6i> 
ojviov  arto  a^uaptfitov,  Matt.  i.  21 ;  Luke,  i.  31 ; 
ii.  21.  This  name  was  common  among  the 
Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ,  and  is  the  name  of 
the  Jewish  leader,  Joshua,  which  is  accordingly 
rendered  'Iqaovs  by  the  LXX.,  and  Heb.  iv.  8. 
The  Hebrew  name  j?v^  or  pmv  is  derived  from 
jxS  Hiph.  ^rm,  which  answers  to  o^fiv,  (as 
tfcoT^pta  does  to  re??,)  and  signifies,  according  to 
Hebrew  and  Greek  usage,  not  merely  a  del-;- 
21 


374 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


verer,  but  in  general,  a  benefactor,  one  who  be- 
stows blessings. 

(2)  Swr^p.   This  word  agrees  in  signification 
with  'I^oCj,  and  answers  to   the  old  German 
word,  Heilund,  (Saviour.)     For  <j<or»jp  denotes 
one  who  has  not  only  saved  a  person  from  ex- 
tremity and  wretchedness,  but   translated  him 
into  a  happy  condition.     Cicero  says,  (in  Verr. 
ii.  63,)  "  Is  est  Soter,  qui  salutem  dedit,"  and 
remarks  that  it  is  "  ita  magnum,  ut  latino  uno 
verbo  exprimi  non possit.    Vide  Ernesti,  Cl.  Cic. 
in  h.  v.     In  this  sense  the  Greeks  applied  it  to 
their  gods — e.  g.,  to  Jupiter,  (so  also  it  is  applied 
to  God,  Luke,  i.  47 ;)  also  to  their  rulers — e.  g., 
Antiochus,  Ptolemy  Soter.   So  Philo  names  the 
emperor.     The  LXX.  give  this  name  to  Moses 
and  other  Jewish  leaders.     Christ  now  is  called 
in  the  New  Testament,  by  way  of  eminence, 
2wr»jp  -rov  xoifjiov,  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  the 
Benefactor  of  the  human  race,  Luke,  ii.  11 ;  John 
iv.  42.     So  when  the  word  a^fiv  is  spoken  of 
Christ,  it  signifies  to  bless,-  and  cfco^o^tfj/ot,  the 
blessed,  is  a  name  given  to  pious  Christians,  2 
Cor.  ii.  15  ;  and  tfcor^pta  signifies  all  the  bless- 
edness which  Christians  receive  from  Christ,  not 
only  in  the  life  which  is  to  come,  but  in  that 
which  now  is,  1  Pet.  i.  10,  seq. 

(3)  MfottV^j.    This  word  was  used  in  various 
senses  by  the  ancients.     Among  the  Greeks  it 
meant  conciliator,  (a  negotiator,  or  peace-maker 
between   contending  parties,)   sponsor,  arbiter. 
When  this  term  is  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New 
Testament,  it  is  taken  from  Moses,  and  implies 
a  comparison  of  Moses  with  Christ.     Moses  is 
called  hy  Philo  (de  v.  Mos.),  and  by  Paul ;  Gal. 
iii.  19,  n£<st,tr]S,  in  the  sense  of  mediator,  ambas- 
sador, negotiator  (inter nuntius,  interpretes'),  as 
mediator  between  God  and  the  Israelites ;  because 
lie  spoke  and  acted  in  the  name  of  the  Israelites 
with  God,  and  in  the  name  of  God  with  the 
Israelites.     The   passage,   Deut.   v.   5,   where 
Moses  describes  himself  as  standing  ava  psaov 
Kupiou  xai  TUXOP,  affords  the  origin  of  this  appel- 
lation.   With  this  the  works  of  Christ  were  com- 
pared ;  he  was  called,  1  Timothy,  ii.  5,  ptaltrj 
&fov  xai  ai£pwrtov,  partly  inasmuch  as  he  treats 
with  God  in  the  name  of  men,  and  does  with 
God  everything  which  is  possible  for  our  good  ; 
and  partly  because  he  treats  with  men  in  the 
name  of  God,  and,  as  his  ambassador,  founds  a 
new  institute,  and  assures  to  men  the  compla- 
cency and  favour  of  God.     In  this  respect  he  is 
called,  Heb.  viii.  6,  peai-tys  xpsi-rtovos  8ia%rj- 
xyr  ix.  14,  xaivqs  &t,a&rtxrts,  the  founder  of  a 
new  and  more  excellent  dispensation  than  the 
ancient  Mosaic  dispensation.     Cf.  xii.  24. 

(4)  'O  Tfpoc^T'^,  N-OJ,  the  prophet,  an  ancient 
Jewish  appellation  of  the  Messiah,  since  he  was 
conceived  to  be  the  greatest  of  all  the  messen- 
gers and  teachers  sent  from  God.     This  term  is 
derived   principally   from    the  passage,   Deut. 


xviii.  15,  which  is  referred  to  Jesus  by  Peter 
Acts,  iii.  22,  seq. ;  and  by  Stephen,  Acts,  vii 
37.  Vide  s.  91. 

(5)  'O  ttrtosT'ctf.oj.  This  appellation  occurs 
Heb.  v.  1,  &rtoatfyo$ — tr^  o^uoXoytos  r^^v — i.  e. 
the  messenger,  ambassador  of  God,  whom  wt 
(Christians)  profess.  Christ  frequently,  espe 
cially  in  John,  applies  to  himself  the  phrase  6; 
urtttf-mtoi/  o  ©EOJ,  John,  xvii. 

The  various  other  titles  which  were  given  t< 
Christ,  from  the  particular  benefits  which  hi 
conferred  upon  men,  including  the  figurativi 
names,  dpgccpcvft  oyii/oj,  aprt&os,  £vpa,  will  bi 
noticed  in  their  proper  places. 

SECTION  CVI. 

WHAT  IS  CONSIDERED  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES  AS  PRO 
PERLY  BELONGING  TO  THE  WORK  WHICH  CHRIS' 
PERFORMED  FOR  THE  GOOD  OF  MEN?  EXPLANA 
TION  OF  THE  WORD  "  REDEMPTION,"  AS  USED  I! 
THE  BIBLE  ;  AND  WHAT  IS  THE  MOST  CONVE 
NIENT  AND  NATURAL  ORDER  AND  CONNEXIOI 
FOR  EXHIBITING  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  ENTIR] 
MERITS  OF  CHRIST. 

I.   What  belongs  to  the  Work  of  Christ,  or  to 
Redemption. 

(1)  THE  declaration  of  his  doctrine,  and  in 
struction  respecting  it.     To  this  many  of  tin 
titles  applied  to  him  refer :  as  o  Ttpo^tjjj,  o  artoa 
10^0$,  (s.  105,)  diSuaxu-hos,  x.  T.  7..     Kespectinj 
the  discharge  of  his  office  as  teacher,  vide  s.  94 
It  needs  only  to  be  remarked  here,  that  instruc 
tion  in  this  divine  doctrine  is  by  no  means  men 
tioned  in  the  New  Testament  as  the  only  objec 
of  the  advent  of  Christ ;  still  it  is  represented  ai 
a  great  object,  and  as  an  essential  part  of  his  worl 
upon  the  earth,  or  of  the  work  of  redemption 
So  he  himself  represents  it.   In  John,  xvii.  3,  4 
he  expressly  mentions  instruction   in  the  trui 
religion  ("  that  they  should  acknowledge  thei 
as  the   true  God")  as  belonging   to  the  tpyo 
which  was  given  him  by  the  Father  to  do;  ant 
in  John,  xviii.  37,  he  says,  that  he  was  bori 
and  had  come  into  the  world  in  order  to  propa 
gate  the  true  religion,   (UT^HOU-.)     He  every 
where  taught  that  he  was  lawgiver  and  kin< 
so  far  as  he  was  a  true,  an  infallible  teacher 
that  he  reigned  over  the  minds  of  men,  not  bi 
external  power  and  constraint,  (like  the  king; 
of  the  earth,)  but  by  the  internal  power  of  tin 
truth  which  he   preached.     Cf.  John,  iii.  34 
xii.  49,  50. 

(2)  The  sufferings  and  death  which  he  enduret 
for  the  good  of  men.     This,  too,  Christ  hirnselt 
always  mentions  as  an  essential  part  of  this,  wort 
— e.  g.,  John,  iii.   14,  seq.     In  the  allegory 
John,  vi.  51,  where  he  compares  himself  wit! 
the  manna,  he  means  by  the  bread  of  heaven  the 
doctrine  respecting  his  person,  and  especially  re- 
specting the  sacrifice  of  his  body  for  the  good 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      375 


'of  men,  (rrfep  £w>jj  tov  x6a/.iov ;)  which  he  incul- 
cates as  a  doctrine  of  the  first  importance.  In 
John,  xii.  27,  he  says,  "For  this  purpose  (to 
die  for  the  good  of  men,  vide  ver.  24)  God  had 
brought  him  into  such  distress,  and  therefore  he 
would  r.eadily  and  cheerfully  endure  it."  Cf. 
John,  xiv.  31.  The  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  designated  to  commemorate  "his 
blood  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins;"  Matt. 
xxvi.  28.  That  Christ  died  for  the  good  of  all 
men  is  the  universal  doctrine  of  all  the  apostles; 
Heb.  ii.  9.  Paul  calls  this  suffering  of  Jesus 
{•TtaxoTj;  Rom.  v.  19,  coll.  Phil.  ii.  8;  Heb.  v. 
8;  because  he  endured  it- in  obedience  to  the 
will  of  God.  He  contrasts  it  with  the  jtapaxor- 
of  Adam,  and  says  that  by  it  we  have  obtained 
forgiveness  and  the  remission  of  sins.  If,  then, 
we  would  adhere  to  the  declarations  of  the 
scriptures,  we  shall  not  separate  this  part  from 
the  other  ;  but  consider  them  both,  one  as  much 
as  the  other,  as  belonging  to  the  work  of  Christ. 

Many  indeed  maintain  that  the  annunciation 
and  diffusion  of  his  doctrine  was  the  only  object 
of  the  life  of  Christ  upon  earth,  and  that  his 
death  is  to  be  considered  merely  as  a  martyr- 
dom^ by  which  he  gave  an  example  and  pattern 
of  steadfastness  and  devotion  to  the  will  of  God, 
and  a  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  his  doctrine. 
But, 

(«)  The  assertion  that  this  was  the  only  object 
of  his  life  is  inconsistent  with  the  declarations 
of  scripture.  We  do  not  find  that  the  scriptures 
particularly  mention  his  death  as  an  example  of 
steadfastness;  at  least,  they  do  not  dwell  upon 
this  view,  or  regard  it  as  the  principal  point. 
Remission  of  sins  and  eternal  life  are  mentioned 
by  Christ  himself  as  the  principal  object  which 
he  had  in  view,  John,  iii.  16;  Matt.  xxvi. 

(6)  As  to  the  other  assertion,  that  his  doctrine 
was  proved  and  confirmed  by  his  death,  we  find 
not  a  single  passage  among  all  that  speak  of  his 
death  and  the  object  of  it  which  give  us  to  un- 
derstand that  the  truth  and  divinity  of  his  reli- 
gion was  proved  and  confirmed  by  this  means, 
although  they  were  so  by  his  resurrection  and 
ascemion.  The  passage,  Heb.  ii.  10,  cannot  be 
appealed  to  in  proof  of  this  assertion;  for  Sia 
rta^rpoituv  means,  after  sufferings  and  death  had 
been  endured,  and  refers  to  Christ.  Nor  can  the 
passage,  John,  xvii.  19,  be  appealed  to,  "  I  have 
sanctified  (according  to  some,  sacrificed)  myself, 
that  they  also  might  be  sanctified  by  the  truth." 
The  meaning  of  this  passage  is  :  "  I  have  entirely 
consecrated  (as  ver.  17)  myself  to  this  service,  in 
order  to  give  them  an  example  which  they  should 
follow  in  the  proclamation  of  the  true  religion; 
that  they  also  may  deny  themselves,  take  up 
my  cross,  renounce  all  worldly  prospects,  and 
live  solely  for  me  and  my  cause."  Thus  we 
see  that  on  this  subject  the  opinions  of  Christ 
and  of  the  first  Christians  were  entirely  differ- 


ent from  those  above  mentioned  ;  and  we  ought 
not  to  ascribe  to  those  times  and  writers  the 
ideas  which  are  now  current  among  so  many. 
But,  in  not  considering  the  death  of  Christ  as 
designed  to  confirm  the  truth  of  his  doctrines, 
the  scriptures  are  entirely  right.  And  if  they 
had  so  considered  it,  they  would  plainly  have 
been  wrong.  It  is  strange  that  those  who  ad- 
vocate this  point  should  have  overlooked  this. 
For, 

(c)  The  steadfast  death  of  a  martyr  can  never 
prove  the  troth  of  the  doctrine  for  which  he  dios  ; 
for  almost  all  religions  can  point  to  their  heroic 
martyrs.  His  own  firm  belief  of  the  truth  for 
which  he.  died  is  all  that  can  be  concluded  from 
the  death  of  a  martyr.  The  religion  of  Jesus, 
therefore,  would  have  a  very  uncertain  ground 
if  it  rested  upon  this  fact,  and  depended  foi 
proof  upon  this  argument.  Besides,  although 
Jesus  died  with  great  firmness  and  magnani- 
mity, it  is  still  certain  that  he  did  not  endure 
death  with  that  tranquillity  and  joy  which  have 
been  admired  in  so  many  martyrs  of  the  Chris- 
tian and  the  other  religions.  Consider  his 
agony  in  Gethsemane,  Luke,  xxii.,  and  previ- 
ously, John,  xii.  27.  If  this,  then,  were  all, 
Jesus  has  been  surpassed  by  many  martyrs. 
Vide  s.  95,  II. 

(rf)  During  the  short  continuance  of  his  office 
as  teacher,  Jesus  did  not  exhibit  the  whole  com- 
pass of  the  doctrines  of  his  religion,  even  to  his 
apostles,  because  he  was  with  them  but  a  short 
time,  and  the  truths  to  be  taught  were  many,  and 
the  di?ciples  were  as  yet  incapable  of  receiving 
most  of  them;  John,  xvi.  12.  It  was  not  till 
after  his  death  that  these  doctrines,  in  all  their 
extent,  were  exhibited,  developed,  and  applied 
by  the  apostles,  and  were  at  the  same  time  in- 
creased by  the  addition  of  many  others  about 
which  Jesus  had  said  nothing  clearly.  He  de- 
signed to  prepare  the  ground,  and  to  begin  to 
sow.  but  they  were  to  enter  into  the  full  harvest ; 
John,  iv.  If,  then,  as  is  frequently  said,  he  de- 
signed to  seal  or  confirm  his  doctrine  by  his 
death,  he  could  only  confirm  so  much  of  it  as  he 
himself  had  already  taught,  leaving  us  in  uncer- 
tainty respecting  the  rest,  and  respecting  its 
whole  later  development. 

(e)  If  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  be- 
lieved that  Jesus  lived  upon  the  earth  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  teaching^  it  is  hard  to  see  why 
they  should  ascribe  such  distinguished  excel- 
lences to  his  person  ;  and  why  the  Deity  should 
be  united  with  him  in  a  manner  in  which  it  never 
was  with  any  other  man,  or  any  other  created 
being.  As  a  mere  man,  he  might  have  been 
taught  by  God,  and  have  preached  a  doctrine 
revealed  to  him  by  God,  and  have  founded  a 
new  religion  and  religious  institutions,  as  Moses 
and  the  prophets  did,  and  afterwards  the  apos- 
tles themselves.  He  himself  delivered  only  the 


376 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


smallest  part  of  his  doctrines  ;  nor  did  he  widely 
disseminate  even  these.  He  taught  only  three 
years,  in  a  few  provinces,  within  the  small  cir- 
cuit of  Judea  and  Galilee  ;  and  he  saw  but  little 
fruit  of  his  labours.  The  apostles,  on  the  other 
hand,  li  ved  through  a  long  course  of  years,  added 
to  the  number  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  widened  their  scope,  disseminated 
them  through  many  countries,  and  saw  the  hap- 
piest results  of  their  labours.  In  short,  they  did, 
as  Christ  himself  predicted,  greater  things  than 
he  himself  accomplished  ;  John,  xiv.  12.  Were 
Christ,  then,  a  mere  teacher,  he  must  in  many 
respects  give  place  to  his  apostles,  and  rank  as 
inferior  to  them.  On  this  supposition,  he  would 
only  have  the  preference  of  originating,  founding, 
and  giving  the  tone  to  his  religion;  while,  on 
the  contrary,  according  to  the  representations  of 
the  apostles,  and  before  them  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, he  had  an  infinite  superiority  over  them, 
and  over  all  the  teachers  who  had  preceded  or 
would  follow  them.  These  had  done  and  could 
do  nothing  which  could  bear  any  comparison 
with  what  he  had  done  for  the  human  race  ;  for 
to  him  alone  are  men  indebted  for  their  entire 
happiness  here  and  hereafter.  Even  John  the 
Baptist,  whom  Christ  described  as  the  greatest 
of  all  prophets,  esteemed  himself  unworthy  to 
offer  him  the  most  menial  service;  John,  i.  and 
iii.  28  —  36.  "Whosoever  believes  in  him  has 
eternal  life."  Where  was  this  ever  said  of  a 
prophet  or  apostle]  Where  is  it  said  that  who- 
ever believes  on  Moses  or  Paul  has  eternal  life? 
The  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  then,  must 
have  supposed,  if  they  do  not  speak  and  judge 
quite  inconsistently,  that  the  design  of  God,  in 
the  mission  and  death  of  Christ,  extended  to 
something  more  than  mere  instruction  and  ex- 
ample. They  must  have  believed  that  he  was 
a  far  more  exalted  person  than  any  human 
teacher  who  preceded  or  would  follow  him. 

(/)  Where  is  it  said,  respecting  James,  Ste- 
phen, or  any  other  martyr,  that  he  died  for  men  ? 
But  this  would  have  been  said  of  them  if  this 
language  had  meant  nothing  more  than  giving 
an  example  and  furnishing  confirmation  to  a 
doctrine.  Paul  himself  protests  against  this 
idea,  as  derogatory  to  Christ,  and  abhorrent  to 
the  feelings  of  Christians,  1  Cor.  i.  13. 


II.  Explanation  of  the  word  diro\vrpuvis  or 

(Redemption,)    and  a  development  of  the  idea 
contained  in  it. 

(1)  The  primary  and  literal  signification  of 
5u>rpoco  is,  to  redeem  by  the  payment  of  a  ransom 
of  money  or  something  else.  For  hv-tpov  is  pre- 
lium  redemptions,  and  is  used  by  the  LXX.  to 
translate  the  Hebrew  noa,  Exodus,  xxx.  12, 
seq.  Thus  it  is  used,  e.  g.,  when  speaking  of 
redemption  from  captivity  or  slavery,  which  is 
effected  by  the  payment  of  a  ransom,  or  when 


speaking  of  a  person's  property  which  is  in  th 
hands  of  another,  and  which  he  then  redeem, 
In  this  sense  tofpow  frequently  corresponds  1 
the  Hebrew  words  Sxa  and  rn2,  and  jiv*  peatus  t 
the  substantives  derived  from  them — e.  g.,  Lei 
xxv.  25,  30,  48,  49.  But, 

(2)  Av-fpovv  and  Xv^pco^j  frequently  conve 
the  general  idea  of  any  rescue  and  deliveram 
from  an  unhappy  situation,  as  from  slavery  ,•  c 
deliverance  from  any  other,  even  moral  evi 
without  either  the  literal  payment  of  a  ranson 
or  anything  like  it;  precisely  like  rns  and  SN 
Slavery  and  captivity  so  often  befel  the  Hebrew 
that  they  were  in  the  habit  of  comparing  ever 
species  of  wretchedness  with  this  severe  cab 
mity.     Captivity  stood  with  them  for  great  c< 
lamity ;  as  Job,  xlii.  10,  God  freed  Job  fror 
captivity  when  he  restored  him  to  health  an 
prosperity.     Captured  people,  Ps.  liii.  7,  sign 
fies  unhappy  people.     Every  deliverance  fror 
misfortune,  even  where  no  ransom,  in  the  liten 
sense,  was  paid,  was  with  them  jtvi-pwcrij ;  th 
deliverer,  tai'pwT'jj's;  the  means  of  deliveranct 
hvtpov,  as  Morus  properly  translates  it.     It  i 
not  said  merely  of  deliverance  from  bodily  evi 
but  is  transferred  to  spiritual  evil.     According 
ly,  the  LXX.  frequently  translate  rnp  and  hx*  b 
cru>£W,  Job,  xxxiii.  28  ;  and  by  jj-wo^at,  Is.  1.  2 
which  are  then  synonymous  with  hvtpovv. 

(3)  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  follo\ 
this  Hebrew  and  Hebrew-Greek  usage,  and  era 
ploy  these  words  to  denote  any  preservation  an 
deliverance,  even  in  cases  where  no  ransom,  i 
the  proper  sense,  is  paid — e.  g.,  ^f'pa  aTtohvtp^ 
fffwj,  Eph.  iv.  30 ;   iyyt£«  ctTtoXiii'pcotjtj,  Luke 
xxi.  28 ;    and  artohv-tptdais  T'OU   #wjtiaT'oj,  Rom 
viii.  23 ;  and  Moses  is  called,  Acts,  vii.  35,  th 
tan'pwT'jyj  of  the  Israelites,  although  he  paid  n 
ransom  for  them.     In  this  sense  is  drto^vr'pcorfi 
applied  by  Jews  and  Christians  to  the  Messiah 
and  denotes,  when  spoken  of  him,  the  rescue  am 
deliverance  which  he  has  procured  for  us. 

In  all  the  variety  of  their  opinions  respectinj 
the  Messiah  and  his  designs,  the  Jews  differei 
also  in  opinion  respecting  this  deliverance  whicl 
they  were  expecting  from  him. 

(a)  Many  Jews,  who  supposed  the  Messial 
would  be  a  temporal  ruler,  placed  this  fa&rpwcrt 
xao-u,  principally,  at  least,  in  a  temporal  deliver 
ance  of  their  nation  from  its  enemies  and  op 
pressors.  Cf.  hv-tpovv  'lapafo  spoken  of  th< 
Messiah,  Luke,  xxiv.  21 ;  which  is  expresset 
by  o.itoxa&KS'fdv at  jScwi^stctv  T'Q  'Itfpa?^,  Acts,  i.  6 

(6)  But  those  of  the  Jews  who  were  bette 
instructed  understood  this  artoTwr'pcofjtj  whicl 
was  ascribed  to  the  Messiah  in  a  spiritual  am 
moral  sense  only.  In  this  sense  Christ  himseli 
and  his  apostles  always  understood  it.  Now  i 
was  common  to  conceive  of  Sin  as  having  c 
power  and  dominion  which  it  exercised  ovei 
sinners,  (vide  s.  85,  I.,)  and  to  conceive  of  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       377 


author  of  sin  (the  deceiver  of  our  first  parents) 
in  the  same  way  ;  and  so.  of  Death,  (the  conse- 
quence and  punishment  of  sin,)  which  is  de- 
scribed as  a  tyrant,  who  has  men  in  his  power. 
One  who  perishes,  or  becomes  miserable,  is  his 
captive  and  slave.  But,  according  to  the  repre- 
sentations of  the  New  Testament,  Christ  frees  us 
(a)  from  the  power  and  dominion  of  sin  by  means 
of  instruction  and  counsel  received  by  us  in  faith. 


x.  •?.  Jt.,  John,  viii.  32  —  36.  He  accomplishes 
this  deliverance  by  means  of  his  doctrine  and 
example.  But  (j3)  he  frees  us  also  from  the  pu- 
nishment of  sin,  or  procures  us  forgiveness,  by 
his  death,  (atonement.)  We  cannot  experience 
the  good  resulting  from  the  first  part  of  this 
redemption,  and  have  no  true  capacity  for  it, 
before  we  are  made  sure  of  the  second. 

This  twofold  deliverance  is  expressed  by  va- 
rious phrases,  which  sometimes  denote  the  one 
kind,  sometimes  the  other,  and  sometimes  the 
two  together.  Among  these  phrases  are  the  fol- 
lowing: —  GG&IV  drto  a/iopi'frwv,  Matthew,  i.  21  ; 
xo&ap^fi'V  drto  d^uapT'taj,  John,  i.  7,  9,  &c.  So 
also  hvtpou  and  Xvfpwcrts  are  used  sometimes  to 
express  the  one  kind  of  deliverance  or  the  other, 
and  sometimes  both  together,  Heb.  ix.  12;  1 
Pet.  i.  18  ;  Rom.  hi.  24.  What  is  expressed 
by  the  phrase  hvtpovv  drto  dSwctaj,  Titus,  ii.  14, 
is  expressed  by  tfcwpftv,  Gal.  i.  4;  and  Christ 
himself  says  he  gave  his  life  jivrpov  avti  Tto/K- 
^uv  —  i.  e.,  he  died  for  the  delivery  and  rescue 
of  men,  Matt.  xx.  28.  In  the  same  way,  the 
other  words  of  buying  and  redeeming  are  used 
mostly  for  every  kind  of  rescue  and  deliverance, 
and  in  this  sense  are  transferred  to  Christ  ;  as, 
ayopd^siv,  gfayopa^ftj/,  1  Cor.  vii.  23.  "The 
Lord  that  bought  them,"  2  Bet.  ii.  1  ;  Gal.  iii. 
13;  Rev.  v.  9. 

III.  The  Order  and  Connexion  in  which  the  parti- 
cular topics  belonging  to  the  Article  respecting  the 
Merits  of  Christ  may  be  most  conveniently  and 
naturally  treated. 

It  is  most  natural  here  to  have  respect  to  the 
twofold  object  of  the  mission  of  Christ;  (a)  to 
free  men  from  the  unhappy  condition  into  which 
they  are  brought  by  sin,  "that  they  may  not 
perish,"  John,  iii.  16;  and  (6)  to  procure  for 
them  true  happiness  in  the  present  and  the  fu- 
ture world,  "that  they  should  have  eternal 
life,"  John,  ubi  supra.  Hence  appears  the  pro- 
priety, in  the  systematic  treatment  of  theology, 
of  separating  the  doctrine  respecting  the  work 
(opus)  of  Christ,  from  the  doctrine  respecting 
the  good,  or  the  benefits  themselves,  which  Christ 
has  procured  for  us  by  his  work,  (beneficia 
Christi.')  The  first  part  exhibits  the  means 
which  God  employs  to  recover  the  human  race 
through  Christ;  the  second  part,  the  results  of 
what  Christ  did.  This  same  distinction  is  made 
48 


in  the  holy  scriptures  in  ether  places  besides 
John,  iii. ;  as  Rom.  v.  9,  10,  §dvato$  is  the  opus 
Chrisli  ,-  xa.'ta.M.a/yri  is  the  result,  or  the  blessing 
which  Christ  bestows;  2  Tim.  i.  10,  "through 
the  gospel  (opus  Christi}  he  has  brought  life  and 
immortality  to  light,  (beneficia.y  According  to 
the  example  of  the  Bible,  therefore,  the  whole 
subject  may  be  arranged  in  the  following  man- 
ner— viz., 

I.  Of  the  work  of  Christ,  or  the  redemption 
which  he  has  effected, — his  mediatorial  work, 
(redemptio.)     This  comprises, 

(1)  Deliverance  or  redemption  from  the  pu- 
nishment of  sin,  which  is  effected  by  his  death 
or  his  blood,  together  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
justification  or  forgiveness  of  men,  the  fruit  of 
this  redemption.     S.  108 — 115,  incl. 

(2)  Deliverance  from  the  power  and  dominion 
of  sin,  which  is  effected,  through  divine  assist- 
ance, by  the  instruction  which  Christ  gives  by 
his  doctrine  and  example.     S.  116,  117. 

Each  of  these  kinds  of  deliverance  belongs 
equally  to  this  drfoTukpcotfcj,  or  redemption.  Only 
we  must  have  the  forgiveness  of  our  past  sins, 
and  assurance  of  the  same,  before  we  can  avail 
ourselves  of  what  is  contained  in  the  second 
part.  Hence  we  have  adopted  this  order.  And 
so  the  Bible  teaches;  we  are  first  pardoned, 
then  sanctified.  The  first  is  effected  by  the  death 
of  Christ,  the  second,  with  divine  assistance, £y 
the  instructions  of  Christ,  when  received  and 
obeyed  in  faith. 

II.  On  the  result  of  all  these  works  under- 
taken for  the  good  of  men,  or  the  blessedness  to 
which  men  attain  in  this  life  and  the  life  to 
come,  in  consequence  of  these  works,  (benefi- 
cia Christi.)     S.  118—120,  incl. 

But  before  we  enter  upon  this  plan,  we  must 
say  a  few  words  respecting  the  method  com- 
monly pursued,  especially  in  former  times,  in 
discussing  the  doctrine  of  the  mediatorial  work 
of  Christ ;  s.  107. 

SECTION  CVII. 

OF  THE  METHOD  FORMERLY  ADOPTED  OF  CONSI- 
DERING THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST,  AS  CONSISTING 
OF  THE  PROPHETIC,  PRIESTLY,  AND  KINGLY 
OFFICES. 

IT  has  been  for  a  long  time  the  custom  in  the 
protestant,  and  especially  in  the  Lutheran 
church,  to  consider  the  mediatorial  work  of 
Christ  as  consisting  of  three  offices,  (munera, 
qfficia,  Germ.  JEmtern} — viz.,  the  prophetic, 
priestly,  and  kingly.  This  method  was  not 
universal  among  the  Lutheran  theologians, 
though  it  was  the  most  general  from  the  se- 
venteenth century  down  to  the  time  of  Ernesti. 
In  1768 — 69  he  wrote  two  Programma,  "De 
officio  Christi  triplici,"  which  are  found  in  his 
"  Opusc.  Theolog.,"  p.  411,  seq.,  and  in  which 
2i2 


373 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


he  objects  to  this  method,  for  many  reasons. 
Most  of  his  reasons  (for  they  are  not  all  of 
equal  validity)  have  so  much  weight,  that 
Zacharia,  Doderlein,  and  many  other  protest- 
ant  theologians  since  his  time,  have  pursued  an 
entirely  different  method.  Seiler,  Less,  in  his 
"Prakt.  Dogmat."  and  others,  adhered  to  the 
old  method,  and  endeavoured  to  defend  it.  Also 
Dresde,  whose  "  Obss.  in  tripartitam  divisionem 
muneris  mediatorii;"  Vitel.  1778,  4to ;  contain 
many  excellent  historical  remarks.  We  shall 
speak  first  of  the  origin  and  history  of  this  me- 
thod, and  then  of  the  reasons  why  it  does  not 
appear  to  be  proper  in  the  systematic  treatment 
of  theology. 

I.  Origin  and  History  of  this  Division. 

The  title  twp,  Xpistd?,  Unctus,  gave  rise  to 
this  division.  In  its  common  use,  it  properly 
signifies  a  king.  But  it  was  considered  accord- 
ing to  its  etymology,  and  thus  new  significa- 
tions were  formed.  The  question  was,  "  Who, 
in  the  Old  Testament,  was  anointed,  or  conse- 
crated to  office,  by  unction?"  This  was  found 
to  have  been  the  custom  most  frequently  with 
respect  to  kings  and  priests.  Accordingly, 
Arnbrosius,  Ruffinus,  and  other  ecclesiastical 
fathers,  declared  that  rwn  denoted  the  kingly 
and  priestly  office.  But  it  was  found  that  pro- 
pJtcts  also  were  sometimes  anointed.  And  so 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  others  declared  that 
Christ  was  called  rpcto  because  he  was  a  pro- 
phet.- Vide  Dresde,  s.  5.  Now  when  they  saw 
that  Christ  was  actually  called  king, priest,  and 
prophet  in  the  scriptures,  they  put  these  two 
things  together,  and  declared  that  the  whole 
mediatorial  work  of  Jesus  consisted  in  these 
three  kinds  of  works.  Eusebius,  in  the  fourth 
century,  in  his  Church  History,  and  also  in  his 
"Demonstratio  Evangelica,"  (iv.  15,)  is  the 
first  who  appears  to  have  distinctly  connected 
these  three  parts,  and  to  have  considered  them 
as  belonging  to  the  mediatorial  work. 

This  division,  then,  is  not  so  modern  as  Er- 
nesti  appears  to  suppose.  Indeed,  it  may  have 
been  originally  derived  by  the  Christians  from 
the  Jews.  For  the  Rabbins  and  Cabalists  as- 
cribe to  the  Messiah  a  threefold  dignity  (crown) 
— viz.,  the  crown  of  the  law,  of  the  priesthood, 
and  of  the  kingdom.  Vide  Schoettgen,  in  his 
work  on  the  Messiah,  s.  107,  298.  At  least  both 
of  them  formed  the  division  in  the  same  way. 
But  among  Christians  it  was  never  the  general 
rule  of  faith,  but  only  employed  as  a  figurative 
mode  of  representing  the  doctrine.  Anciently  it 
was  most  common  in  the  Greek  church.  Chry- 
sostom,  Theodoret,  and  others,  shew  traces  of  it. 
It  was  therefore  seen  in  the  Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  modern  Greek  church  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  and  it  is  still  common  in  the  Russian 
church.  Anciently  in  the  Latin  church  it  was 


sometimes,  though  seldom  used-  But  the  school- 
men never  used  it  in  their  acroamatical  instruc- 
tions; for  which  reason  the  theologians  of  the 
Romish  church  in  after  times  used  it  but  seldom, 
although  Bellarmin  and  many  others  do  not  dis- 
card it.  For  the  same  reason,  Luther  and  Me- 
lancthon,  and  other  early  Lutheran  theologians 
who  separated  from  the  Romish  church,  do  not 
make  use  of  this  method  in  treating  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  mediatorial  work  of  Christ.  But  after  the 
seventeenth  century  it  was  gradually  introduced 
into  the  systems.  It  appears  to  have  been  first 
introduced  by  Job.  Gerhard,  in  his  "Loci  Theo- 
logici."  At  least  it  is  not  found  in  Chemnitz. 
It  was  afterwards  employed  in  popular  religious 
instruction,  and  was  admitted  by  Spener  into  hia 
Catechism;  until  at  last  it  became  universal  to 
treat  of  the  doctrine  respecting  the  mediatorial 
work  of  Christ  according  to  this  division  and 
under  these  heads.  In  the  reformed  church  it 
was  adopted  by  Calvin,  who  was  followed  by 
many  others.  It  is  also  adopted  by  many  Ar- 
minian  and  Socinian  writers. 

II.  A  Critical  Judgment  respecting  this  Method. 

Morus,  indeed,  acknowledges  that  nothing 
depends  upon  exhibiting  the  doctrine  in  this 
particular  form,  and  that  the  truths  themselves 
may  be  expressed  in  other  words,  and  with- 
out this  figurative  phraseology.  At  the  same 
time  he  undertakes  to  defend  it,  though  not  in 
a  very  satisfactory  manner.  The  following  rea- 
sons seem  to  render  it  unadvisable  for  theolo- 
gians to  make  use  of  this  form  in  the  scientific 
treatment  of  this  doctrine. 

(1)  It  appears  from  No.  I.  that  this  manner 
of  presenting  the  subject  arose  entirely  from  an 
etymological  explanation  of  the  word  rvp'p,  and 
from  an  allegorical  sense  of  this  title  founded 
upon  its  etymology.     For,  according  to  the  true 
use  of  the  word  in  the  Bible,  Messiah  signifies 
only  king.     Many  were  anointed,  but  kings 
were  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  anointed. 

(2)  All  these  words,  when  applied  to  Christ, 
are  figurative.    Such  figurative  expressions  are, 
indeed,  very  good  and  instructive  in  themselves, 
and  must  be  suitably  explained  in  the  acroama- 
tical and  popular  treatment  of  theology.  But  it  is 
more  convenient  to  express  the  ideas  themselves 
in  the  first  instance  by  literal  language,  and  not 
to  make  figurative  expressions,  although  they 
may  be  scriptural,  the  ground  of  our  divisions. 
And  so  indeed  we  proceed  with  respect  to  the 
other  figurative  terms  applied  to  Christ  in  the 
Bible,  as  lamb,  physician,  shepherd,  door,  vine. 
And  why  should  we  proceed  differently  here  ? 
Thus  we  can  consider  Christ  as  king,  and  as 
a  divinely  authorized  teacher  (prophet),  in  both 
his  states;  and  especially  as  making  atonement 
(High  Priest);  and  then  we  can  explain  the 
figurative  terms,  and  shew  the  meaning  of  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       379 


words  sacrifice,  intercede,  and  bleas,  when  spoken  j 
of  Christ. 

(3)  When  theologians  attempt  to  determine 
definitely  which  of  the  works  of  Christ  are  de- 
noted by  each  of  these  titles,  they  themselves 
differ  widely  from  one  another;  because  these 
titles  are  figurative,  and  so  admit  of  various  sig- 
nifications, according  as  they  are  understood  in 
a  more  limited  or  a  wider  sense.     On  this  ac- 
count, it  is  inconvenient  to  make  this  division 
the  basis  of  our  treatment  of  this  subject.     It 
may  easily  occasion  confusion  of  ideas.     Some 
(No.  I.)  admit  only  two  offices,  the  royal  and 
priestly,  and  comprise  the  prophetic  office  in  the 
priestly,  because  the  priests  were  employed  in 
teaching.     But  even  those  who  admit  three  of- 
fices are  not  united.     The  opinion  which  Baier 
formerly  held,  and  which  Seller  follows,  is  one 
of  the  most  current  in  the  Lutheran  church — 
viz.,  the  prophetic  office  comprehends  the  works 
of  Christ  as  divine  teacher,  in  order  to  free  men 
from  ignorance  and  to  point  out  to  them  the  way 
to  happiness  (oblatio  amissae  salutis) ;  the  priest- 
ly office  comprehends  the  whole  work  of  atone- 
ment, or  deliverance  from  guilt  and  the  punish- 
ment of  sin   (acquisitio  amissae   salutis);   the 
kingly  office  comprehends  the  labours  of  Christ 
for  the  good  of  his  followers  and  of  his  church, 
and  for  the  more  general  diffusion  of  truth  over 
the  earth,  (collatio  amissae  salutis.)     But  others 
again  define  and  divide  differently. 

(4)  The  advocates  of  this  division  appeal  to 
the  Bible,  where  these  figurative  titles,  king, 
prophet,  high  priest,  frequently  occur  in  appli- 
cation to  Christ.     But  the  sacred  writers  do  not 
mean  to  designate  by  these  titles  the  very  works 
of  Christ,  as  Redeemer,  which  theologians  un- 
derstand by  them.     The  sacred  writers  mean 
frequently  to  describe  by  these  titles  the  whole 
object  of  the  mission  of  Christ  and  his  whole 
work.     These  titles  were  derived  from  the  an- 
cient Jewish  constitution,  and  were  used  by  the 
apostles,  for  the  most  part,  in  their  instructions 
to  Jews  and  converts  from  Judaism,  to  whom 
the  sense  concealed  under  these  figures  was  at 
once  intelligible.     At  first  the  Jewish  institute 
was  administered  by  prophets  and  priests  only, 
and  if  this  state  of  things  had  continued,  and 
the  Israelites  had  never  been  governed  by  kings, 
Christ  would  not  have  received  the  name  of 
king,  and  would  not  have  been  compared  to  a 
king.     But  since  the  royal  dignity  was   the 
highest  among  the  Israelites,  the  dignity  of 
Christ  was  compared  with  it,  and  so  he  was 
called  a  king. 

The  following  remarks  may  shew  the  idea 
which  is  attached  to  these  names  in  the  scrip- 
tures, and  the  manner  in  which  they  are  there 
used. 

(a)  Prophet.  This  name  was  given  to  Christ 
not  merely  because  he  was  a  teacher,  but  also 


because  he  was  a  messenger  or  ambassador  of 
God,  according  to  the  original  signification  of 
the  word.  He  performed  all  his  works,  suffer- 
ing and  dying,  as  well  as  teaching,  as  pro- 
phet— i.  e.,  as  the  messenger  of  God.  He  is 
called  a  prophet  especially  in  comparison  with 
Moses,  according  to  the  text,  Deut.  xviii.  15, 
coll.  Acts,  iii.  22.  Vide  s.  91,  I.  But  Moses, 
besides  being  a  teacher  and  the  founder  of  the 
Jewish  religion,  performed  also  the  works  of  a 
ruler  and  priest,  and  did  not  transfer,  till  after- 
wards, one  part  of  his  duties,  the  priesthood,  to 
Aaron.  Moses,  therefore,  enacted  laws,  instruct- 
ed, ruled,  sacrificed — all  as  prophet — i.  e.,  as 
commissioned  by  God. 

(6)  King.  Here  the  case  is  the  same  as 
above.  This  name  is  given  to  Christ,  not  merely 
because  he  rules,  guides,  and  protects  his  fol- 
lowers and  church,  but  also  because  he  is  a 
teacher  of  the  truth;  as  he  himself  declares, 
John,  xviii.  37,  that  his  kingdom  consists  in 
announcing,  promoting,  and  diffusing  the  truth. 
Vide  s.  106,  I.  1.  Now  according  to  the  com- 
mon explanation,  and  the  minute  distinction 
which  is  here  introduced,  this  would  intrude 
upon  the  prophetic  office. 

(c)  Priest.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
from  the  fifth  chapter  and  onward,  Christ  is 
often  compared  with  priests,  and  especially  with 
the  Jewish  high  priest.  But  this  comparison  is 
derived  from  the  text,  Ps.  ex.  4,  which  Christ 
refers  to  himself,  and  to  which  Paul  appeals  in 
the  abovenamed  epistle.  The  reason  why  such 
frequent  use  was  made  of  this  comparison  in  this 
epistle  is,  that  it  was  written  principally  to 
converted  Jews,  who,  however,  were  inclined  to 
apostatize  from  Christianity,  and  who  looked 
upon  the  origin  of  the  Mosaic  religion  and  the 
whole  Jewish  ritual  as  far  more  elevated,  splen- 
did, and  magnificent,  than  the  Christian.  In 
comparison  with  this,  the  origin  and  rites  of 
Christianity  appeared  poor  and  insignificant. 
On  this  account,  Paul  compares  Christ,  in  the 
first  place,  with  Moses ;  and  then,  from  the  fifth 
chapter  and  onward,  with  the  Israelitish  priests. 
He  shews  his  resemblance  to  them,  and  at  the 
same  time,  his  great  superiority  over  them. 
These  figures  and  comparisons  are  not,  there- 
fore, so  intelligible  to  Christians,  who  are  unac- 
quainted with  the  Levitical  ritual  and  priesthood. 
To  such,  then,  all  this  must  be  explained  before 
they  can  properly  understand  these  comparisons. 
Is  it  not,  therefore,  more  suitable  and  judicious, 
first  to  exhibit  the  truth  itself  in  plain  and  literal 
language,  as  Christ  and  the  apostles  so  frequent- 
ly do  on  this  subject;  and  then,  to  shew  by 
what  figures  and  comparisons  this  truth  is  re- 
presented in  the  scriptures,  and  to  explain  the 
meaning  of  these  figures  and  comparisons'? 
We  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  these  figurative 
terms  are  in  themselves  objectionable,  and 


380 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


should  not  be  used  in  the  more  popular  Chris- 
tian instruction.  We  only  mean,  that  in  the 
first  place  the  truth  should  be  taught  without 
figures ;  that  then  the  figurative  terms  contained 
in  the  Bible  should  be  explained  ;  and  that  after- 
wards literal  and  figurative  language  should  be 
used  alternately.  And  for  this  we  have  the  ex- 
ample of  the  scriptures  themselves.  These  figu- 
rative terms  are  by  no  means  in  themselves  ob- 
jectionable; for,  according  to  the  principles  of 
the  human  mind,  they  exert  a  more  powerful 
influence,  illustrate  truth  more  clearly,  and  im- 
press it  more  deeply  upon  the  heart,  than  can  be 
done  by  literal  terms.  Only  they  must  be  pro- 
perly explained. 

[The  ancient  method  of  considering  the  work 
of  Christ  under  the  form  of  a  threefold  office  has 
been  revived  of  late,  and  is  adopted  in  the  sys- 
tems of  De  Wette,  Schleiermacher,  and  Tho- 
luck.— TR.] 

We  now  enter  upon  the  plan  marked  out  at 
the  close  of  s.  106. 


PART  I.  OF  CHAPTER  IV. 

ON  REDEMPTION  FROM  THE  PUNISHMENT  OF 
SIN;  OR,  ON  THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST, 
AND  THE  JUSTIFICATION  OF  MEN  BEFORE  GOD 
—THE  CONSEQUENCE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

S.  108—115. 

SECTION  CVIII. 

OF  THE  VARIOUS  OPINIONS  RESPECTING  THE  FOR- 
GIVENESS OF  SIN  BY  GOD,  AND  THE  CONDITIONS 
ON  WHICH  FORGIVENESS  MAY  BE  GRANTED;  AND 
AN  APPLICATION  OF  THIS  TO  THE  SCRIPTURAL 
DOCTRINE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

I.  The  "Forgiveness  of  Sin  ,•"  Various  Opinions  re- 
specting it,  especially  in  regard  to  the  Conditions 
of  it. 

IT  is  the  uniform  doctrine  of  all  religions,  that 
transgression  of  the  divine  law  incurs  inevitable 
punishment;  but  that  no  sins  are  altogether  ir- 
remissible;  that,  on  the  contrary,  God  is  in- 
clined to  remit  the  punishment  of  sin,  on  certain 
conditions.  For  the  object  of  religion  is  not 
only  to  point  out  to  men  their  destination,  but 
also  to  impart  to  them  peace  and  composure  of 
mind  with  regard  to  their  destiny  here  and  be- 
yond the  grave.  The  opinions  of  men  respect- 
ing the  conditions  on  which  the  pardon  of  sin 
depends,  may  be  divided  into  several  classes. 
Some  have  united/many  of  these  conditions  to- 
gether, as  requisite  to  pardon;  others  have  de- 
pended wholly  on  some  particular  one. 

(I)  Sacrifice,  and  other  religious  rites  and  ce- 
remonies. 


(a)  We  observe  that  sacrifice  is  universal 
among  all  nations  as  soon  as  they  rise  above 
the  first  brutal  condition.  The  Bible  places  it 
in  the  very  first  period  of  the  world ;  Gen.  iv  , 
viii.  20,  21.  Many  ancient  and  modern  philo- 
sophers have  greatly  wondered  how  an  idea  in 
itself,  as  it  seemed  to  them,  so  unworthy  of  God, 
could  have  occurred  to  men,  or  could  have  pre- 
vailed so  universally  among  them.  But  there 
is  a  feeling  lying  deep  in  our  nature  which  com- 
pels men  to  look  around  for  some  means  of  con- 
ciliating the  favour  of  the  Deity,  and  of  averting 
the  deserved  punishment  of  sin.  Vide  infra, 
No.  II.,  and  s.  88,  I.  2.  Why  sacrifice  was  the 
means  selected  for  this  purpose,  and  why  ac- 
cordingly it  was  sanctioned  by  divine  appoint- 
ment among  the  Israelites  and  their  ancestors, 
may  appear  from  the  following  considerations. 

Men  conceived  of  the  Deity  as  corporeal  and 
like  themselves.  Vide  s.  19.  Hence  arose  the 
idea  of  sacrifice.  They  hoped  to  conciliate  the 
favour  of  God  by  the  same  means  by  which 
they  endeavoured  to  gain  the  favour  of  men, 
supposing  that  what  was  pleasing  to  men  would 
be  so  to  God.  The  thought  that  internal  good- 
ness and  integrity  of  heart  are  alone  pleasing  to 
God,  however  plain  this  may  appear  to  us,  was 
entirely  beyond  the  comprehension  of  rude  and 
uncultivated  man.  But  even  allowing  him  to 
have  some  idea  of  this,  he  would  still  feel,  as 
we  must,  that  his  holiness  was  very  imperfect, 
and  afforded  a  very  doubtful  pretension  to  the 
approbation  of  God.  Besides,  he  would  be  dis- 
quieted by  the  fear  that  his  past  transgressions 
might  not  be  cancelled,  or  be  undone,  by  any 
succeeding  holiness,  and  that  punishment  there- 
fore was  still  to  be  apprehended.  He  accord- 
ingly brought  gifts  and  presents  to  his  gods,  to 
render  himself  acceptable  to  them.  And  so,  in 
the  ancient  languages,  the  words  which  mean 
gifts,  presents,  also  signify  sacrifice.  It  was 
supposed  in  the  earliest  times  that  the  gods 
were  personally,  though  invisibly,  present  at  the 
offering  of  these  gifts,  and  when  the  offerings 
consisted  of  food,  as  was  commonly  the  case, 
that  they  themselves  partook,  and  enjoyed  the 
sweet  savour,  (the  sweet  smell  of  the  flesh  of  the 
offerings,  xviaaa,  Horn.  II.  iv.  49  ;  xxiv.  68, 
seq.)  Hence  offerings  were  called  the  food  and 
drink  of  the  gods.  Homer  describes  Jupiter 
and  the  rest  of  the  gods  as  going  from  Olympus 
to  a  festal  sacrifice  which  the  Ethiopians  pre- 
sented to  him,  and  which  lasted  twelve  days; 
II.  i.  423,  seq.;  xxiii.  206,  207.  It  was  the 
object  of  these  gifts  to  express  gratitude  to  the 
gods  for  blessings  received,  to  obtain  future 
benefits,  and  to  avert  the  evils  which  they  wero 
supposed  to  ordain  or  to  inflict  in  anger. 

The  opinion  of  Ernesti,  Doederlien,  and 
many  others,  that  sacrifices  were  originally  only 
thank-offerings,  and  that  the  expiatory  sacrifice 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       381 


as  first  introduced  by  Moses,  is  without  proof. 
The  three  kinds  of  sacrifice  above  named  are 
found  to  exist  together  in  all  nations.  Even  the 
sacrifices  of  Abel  and  Noah,  Gen.  iv.  and  viii., 
were  designed  to  obtain  good  from  God,  and 
to  avert  evil,  (the  anger  of  God.)  Homer 
gives,  II.  ix.  495,  the  great  principle  on  which 
all  nations  who  have  sacrificed  have  uniform- 
ly proceeded,  "that  meat  and  drink  offerings 
conciliate  the  gods  with  men  when  they  err 
and  sin."  Even  men  were  sacrificed  to  the 
gods  when  it  was  thought  that  the  common 
flesh  of  beasts  was  insufficient  to  appease  their 
anger,  or  to  avert  their  displeasure.  This  was 
the  case  principally  in  the  ages  of  the  greatest 
rudeness  and  barbarity,  when  men  imagined 
their  gods  to  be  as  wild,  revengeful,  and  blood- 
thirsty as  themselves.  But  such  sacrifices  were 
resorted  to  even  by  the  cultivated  Greeks  and 
Romans,  in  case  of  plague  or  any  great  calami- 
ty; and,  notwithstanding  the  strictness  with 
which  they  were  forbidden  by  the  laws  of 
Moses,  they  were  frequently  practised  even  by 
the  Jews. 

Respecting  the  origin  of  sacrifices,  vide 
Sykes,  Vom  Ursprunge  der  Opfer,  with  Notes 
by  Semler;  Halle,  1778,  8vo;  and  Wolf,  Vom 
Ursprunge  o^er  Opfer,  in  his  Vermischten 
Schriften. 

(6)  As  some  of  these  nations  became  gradu- 
ally more  civilized,  many  among  them  perceived 
that  such  a  use  of  sacrifices  was  inconsistent 
with  just  ideas  respecting  God  and  hi%  attri- 
butes, and  that  men  could  never  obtain  from  the 
Deity  by  sacrifices  even  those  things  which  they 
hoped  to  obtain  by  them.  The  use  of  them, 
however,  could  not  be  done  away  immediately 
by  legislators  and  the  institutors  of  religion,  be- 
cause nothing  could  be  substituted  for  them; 
they  were  thus,  of  necessity,  continued  as  a  part 
of  the  external  worship  of  God.  All  that  the 
more  enlightened  could  do  was  to  prevent  them 
from  becoming  injurious,  and,  if  possible,  ren- 
der them  promotive  of  higher  objects.  To  the 
ancient  usage  they  must  affix  nobler  ends,  and 
employ  sacrifices  as  sensible  representations  for 
teaching  virtue,  and  improving  the  moral  con- 
dition of  the  people.  Such  attempts  were  made 
in  many  cultivated  nations.  The  ancient  forms 
were  preserved,  while  a  more  elevated  and  bet- 
ter sense  was  affixed  to  them.  But  the  results 
of  this  course  were  not  equally  happy  in  every 
case.  The  ordinances  which  Moses  was  re- 
quired to  make  by  divine  commandment  are 
distinguished  in  this  respect  above  all  that  we 
find  among  the  ancient  heathen  nations.  Moses 
was  fully  convinced  that  offerings  in  themselves 
could  never  secure  the  actual  forgiveness  of  sin 
from  God.  He  did  not  therefore  ordain  them 
for  this  purpose.  He  proceeded  on  the  princi- 
ple which  Paul  declares,  Heb.  x.  1.  All  the 


prophets  who  succeeded  Moses  held  the  same 
views,  Ps.  1.  8 ;  li. ;  Is.  i.  1 1 ;  Jer.  vi.  20  ;  Amos, 
v.  22,  &c.  But  it  was  necessary  that  sacrifices 
should  be  preserved  ;  otherwise,  that  gross  and 
uncultivated  people  would  soon  have  deserted 
the  worship  of  God.  Moses  therefore  ordained 
sacrifices,  as  Paul  justly  says,  Heb.  ix.  13,  for 
external  purification  simply.  For  this  reason 
no  sacrifices  were  appointed  by  God  in  the  Mo- 
saic institute  for  such  offences  as  murder,  adul- 
tery, &c. ;  not  because  such  offences  could  not 
be  forgiven  by  God,  but  because  the  civil  wel- 
fare required  that  the  punishment  of  them  should 
not  be  remitted.  For  it  was  the  object  of  God 
in  appointing  these  sacrifices, 

(a)  That  they  should  release  from  the  civil 
punishment  of  certain  crimes.  The  commission 
of  a  crime  rendered  one  unworthy  of  the  com- 
munity of  the  holy  people,  and  excluded  him 
from  it.  The  offering  of  sacrifice  was  the  means 
by  which  he  was  external'y  readmitted  to  the 
Jewish  community,  and  rendered  externally 
pure;  although  he  did  not,  on  this  account,  ob- 
tain the  pardon  of  his  sin  from  God.  It  was 
designed  that  all  who  offered  sacrifice  should, 
by  this  act,  both  make  a  public  confession  of 
their  sins,  and  at  the  same  time  see  before  them, 
in  the  sacrifice,  the  punishment  which  they  had 
deserved,  and  to  which  they  acknowledged 
themselves  exposed.  Hence  sins  were  said  to 
be  laid  upon  the  victim,  and  borne  away  by  it 
when  it  was  sacrificed.  This  transaction  mani- 
festly had  its  ground  in  the  idea  of  substitution. 
"What  thou  deservedst  to  suffer,  (death,  pu- 
nishment,) this  beast  now  suffers."  Therefore 
the  design  of  the  sacrificial  code  of  Moses  was 
not  to  provide  atonement  for  sins,  but  to  repre- 
sent sin  as  great  and  deserving  of  punishment; 
in  a  word,  "to  lead  to  the  knowledge  of  sin  ;" 
Gal.  iii.  19. 

()3)  Another  end  of  the  sacrifices  appointed 
by  Moses  was,  as  we  are  taught  in  the  New 
Testament,  to  point  the  Israelites  to  the  future, 
and  to  prefigure  by  types  the  greater  divine  pro- 
vision for  the  recovery  of  the  human  race,  and 
to  excite  in  the  Israelites  a  feeling  of  their  need 
of  such  a  provision.  Vide  Gal.  iii.  and  iv.,  also 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  On  this  subject, 
cf.  s.  90,  III.  9. 

Old  and  cultivated  nations,  like  the  present 
nations  of  Europe,  now  for  a  long  time  unaccus- 
tomed to  sacrifices,  would  not  be  so  favourably 
affected  by  seeing  death  inflicted  as  a  punish- 
ment upon  a  victim,  as  by  having  the  truth  re- 
presented by  this  rite  stated  simply  and  impres- 
sively. But  a  gross  people,  still  in  the  infancy 
of  its  improvement,  would  be  more  moved  and 
influenced  by  such  a  transaction.  They  have 
more  sympathy  with  beasts  than  we  have;  as 
is  shewn  by  the  great  influence  of  the  fables  of 
jEsop.  And  hence  many  heathen  nations  began 


3S2 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


to  neglect,  and  sometimes  even  to  despise  sa- 
crifices, as  they  gradually  advanced  in  cultiva- 
tion. The  case  was  the  same  with  the  Jews, 
and  especially  with  the  more  cultivated  Grecian 
Jews.  But  at  the  time  of  Christ  there  were  still 
some  Jews  zealously  devoted  to  the  service  of 
the  altar,  who  committed  the  frequent  and  very 
general  mistake,  that  God  would  forgive  their 
sins  on  account  of  their  sacrifices,  notwithstand- 
ing the  decided  testimony  which  their  ancient 
prophets  had  borne  against  this  opinion.  Paul, 
therefore,  argues  against  it  in  some  of  his  epis- 
tles. 

Note. — Many  suppose  that  sacrifices  were  ap- 
pointed in  the  very  earliest  times  by  an  express 
command  from  God  himself.  This  supposition 
is  rendered  probable  by  the  consideration  that 
the  Bible  always  regards  sacrifices  as  rites  well- 
pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God.  They  are  repre- 
sented as  acceptable  to  him,  and  approved  by 
him  from  the  time  of  the  flood,  and  even  before ; 
Gen.  iv.  and  viii.  If  sacrifices  were  actually 
commanded  by  God,  we  must  suppose  that  God 
instructed  the  first  race  of  men  on  this  subject, 
after  the  manner  above  described;  but  that  his 
instructions  were  gradually  forgotten  and  passed 
out  of  mind.  The  fact,  however,  of  the  original 
divine  appointment  of  sacrifices  is  not  clear  from 
the  Mosaic  records.  And  as  the  results  of  the 
investigation  are  the  same,  whether  the  suppo- 
sition be  true  or  false,  we  have  had  no  reference 
to  it  in  the  previous  remarks  upon  sacrifices. 

(2)  Self-inflicted  penances,  and  arbitrary  suf- 
ferings which  the  sinner  lays  upon  himself, 
in  order  to  obtain  from  God  the  remission  of 
punishment. 

This  is  a  foolish  error.  We  should  think  a 
human  legislator  very  irrational  who  should 
permit  the  criminal  to  select  a  punishment  at 
pleasure,  in  place  of  the  one  threatened  in  the 
law.  This  error,  however,  is  very  widely 
spread,  especially  among  the  Indians,  and  na- 
tions who  inhabit  southern  climates,  whose  re- 
ligious require  of  them  self-inflictions  which 
are  incredibly  severe.  They  frequently  go  so 
far  as  to  believe  that  an  innocent  man  may  un- 
dertake such  sufferings  for  others;  and  thus  ob- 
tain for  them  forgiveness  from  God.  This  error 
is  founded  upon  the  mistaken  opinion  that  God,  j 
like  man,  will  be  touched  with  compassion  at  I 
the  sight  of  these  self-inflicted  sufferings,  and  j 
thus  be  inclined  to  remit  those  which  are  due.  ' 
Fasting  was  also  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  self- 
infliction,  by  which  the  forgiveness  of  sin  might 
be  procured.  The  great  mass  even  of  the  Jews 
practised  all  these  penances,  with  the  grossest 
conceptions  of  their  nature  and  efficacy.  Vide 
1  Kings,  xviii.  28.  The  prophets,  therefore, 
frequently  reprove  them  for  this  erroneous  opi- 
nion, and  teach  them  the  truth ;  Is.  Iviii.  seq. 
Cultivated  nations  frequently  entertain  the  same 


false  religious  views,  which  are  extremely  inju- 
rious to  morality.  Even  Christians  are  not  en- 
tirely freed  from  them,  after  all  that  the  New 
Testament  contains  to  the  contrary. 

(3)  Good  works,  so  called,  on  condition  and 
account  of  which  God  is  supposed  to  remit  sin. 

It  was  supposed  (a)  that  one  who  had  re- 
formed might  atone  and  make  satisfaction  for 
his  past  sins  by  some  works  of  distinguished 
virtue;  or  (&)  that  even  one  who  had  not  re- 
formed entirely,  but  was  still  addicted  to  certain 
sins,  might  be  pardoned  by  God  for  these  sins, 
on  account  of  some  great,  difficult,  and  useful 
labours  which  he  might  perform — suppositions, 
to  be  sure,  both  false  and  unphilosophical  ! 
They  have  their  ground,  however,  in  the  fact 
that  good  works  are  sometimes  the  means  and 
motives  with  men,  in  bestowing  pardon.  An 
injured  man  sometimes  forgives  the  offender  on 
account  of  some  favour  which  he  may  have  re- 
ceived from  him.  A  government  sometimes 
forgives  one  offence  in  a  person,  who  in  other 
respects  has  deserved  well  of  the  rulers  as  in- 
dividuals, or  of  the  state;  on  account,  there- 
fore, of  their  own  interest,  which  he  has  pro- 
moted. This  circumstance,  that  in  these  cases 
men  forgive  offences  on  account  of  their  own  ad- 
vantage, which  has  been  promoted  by  important 
services,  is  overlooked  when  they  are  compared 
with  the  conduct  of  God.  We  are  not  able  to 
confer  any  good  or  benefit  upon  God  by  our 
best  works.  By  these  works  we  serve  and  be- 
nefit only  ourselves,  and  we  cannot  demand  or 
deserve  a  reward  from  God  for  actions  for  the 
very  performance  of  which  we  are  indebted  to 
him,  Luke,  xvii.  10.  It  would  be  as  foolish  for 
us  to  require  recompence  from  God  for  these 
services  as  for  one  who  has  been  rescued  from 
danger  to  demand  reward  from  his  deliverer  in- 
stead of  giving  him  his  thanks,  or  for  a  patient 
to  demand  reward  from  his  physician  instead 
of  paying  him  his  fee,  on  the  ground  that  by  fol- 
lowing his  directions  he  had  escaped  from  dan- 
ger or  sickness. 

This  opinion  has  taken  such  deep  root  in  the 
minds  of  men  of  all  classes,  and  has  spread  so 
widely,  that  it  cannot  be  entirely  eradicated 
even  from  the  minds  of  Christians.  It  prevail- 
ed among  the  ancient  heathen,  and  especially 
among  the  Jews.  The  latter  held  the  foolish 
opinion  (which  has  been  revived  in  another  form 
among  Christians)  that  the  worth  and  merits 
of  their  pious  ancestors,  particularly  of  Abra- 
ham, would  be  imputed  to  them,  and  that  thus, 
through  their  substituted  righteousness,  they 
themselves  might  be  freed  from  the  strict  observ- 
ance of  the  law.  Against  this  mistake,  John  the 
Baptist,  Christ,  and  the  apostles,  zealously  la- 
boured. Vide  Matt.  iii.  9  ;  Rom.  iii.  5.  The  Jews 
believed  that  God  was  bound  injustice  to  for- 
give and  save  thorn,  on  account  of  the  promise 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  TS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       383 


/which  he  had  made  to  Abraham.  Vide  Rom. 
/ix.— xi.,  coll.  s.  125. 

(4)  Repentance  and  reformation. 

This  condition  of  forgiveness  has  always 
appeared  the  best  and  most  rational  to  the  more 
improved  and  reflecting  part  of  mankind,  to 
whom  the  former  conditions  must  have  appeared 
unsatisfactory.  Even  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments are  full  of  passages  which  assure  us  that 
God  forgives  sins  after  deep  repentance,  and 
the  moral  reformation  consequent  upon  it;  Ps. 
xxxii.  3 — 5;  li.  8,  12,  17;  Luke,  xviii.  13,  seq. 
The  writings  of  the  Grecian  and  Roman  philo- 
sophers also  are  full  of  passages  which  mention 
this  as  the  only  acceptable  condition.  Seneca 
says,  "  Quern  p&nitet  peccasse,  est  innocens." 
But  even  after  recognising  this  condition,  very 
disquieting  doubts  must  remain,  respecting 
which,  vide  No.  II.  A  satisfactory  assurance 
respecting  the  forgiveness  of  past  sins  would 
still  be  wanting.  This  leads  us  to  the  second 
part. 

II.  Application  of  these  Remarks  to  the  Scriptural 
Doctrine  concerning  the  Atonement  of  Christ, 

(1)  The  condition  mentioned  No.  I.  4,  how- 
ever reasonable  and  obvious  it  may  be  in  itself, 
appears  from  experience  and  the  history  of  all 
times,  to  be  unsatisfactory  to  the  great  body  of 
men.  They  never  have  received  nor  can  receive 
from  it  a  quieting  assurance  of  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  especially  of  those  committed  before 
their  reformation.  All  nations  hope,  indeed,  that 
God  is  disposed  to  forgive  sins  when  they  are  for- 
saken ;  but  men  need  something  more  than  this. 
They  must  have  something  external  and  sensible, 
to  give  them  assurance  and  conviction  that  their 
sins  have  actually  been  forgiven.  This  assurance 
they  endeavoured  to  obtain  by  sacrifices.  Vide 
No.  I.  They  believed  universally  that  besides 
the  moral  improvement  of  the  heart,  some  addi- 
tional means  were  necessary  to  conciliate  the 
favour  of  God,  and  to  avert  the  punishment  of 
sin.  Cf.  Horn.  II.  ix.  493—508.  This  opinion 
is  so  deeply  wrought  into  the  human  soul,  and 
arises  from  such  an  universal  sense  of  necessity, 
that  any  attempt  to  obliterate  it  or  to  reason  it 
away  would  be  in  vain.  To  deprive  men  of  this 
opinion,  that  the  favour  of  God  may  be  concili- 
ated and  the  positive  assurance  of  pardon  ob- 
tained, would  be  to  tear  away  the  props  upon 
which  their  composure  and  confidence  rest,  with- 
out being  able  to  substitute  for  them  anything  so 
clear  and  satisfactory ;  and  thus  would  be  an  act 
of  injury  and  cruelty. 

(2)  But  what  is  the  origin  or  ground  of  the 
feeling  that  reformation  alone  is  insufficient,  and 
that  something  else  is  necessary  to  avert  the 
judgments  of  God  from  the  sinner,  and  to  in- 
spire him  with  confidence  that  they  are  or  will 
be  averted  ?  This  feeling  is  founded  in  the  mo- 


ral nature  of  man,  or  in  the  voice  of  conscience. 
Vide  s.  88,  I.  2.  For, 

(a)  However  far  a  man  may  advance  in  holi- 
ness, his  conscience  still  declares  to  him  that  his 
holiness  is  very  defective,  and  that  he  frequently 
commits  sin,  and  that  his  sin  deserves  punish- 
ment. And  the  more  upright  and  virtuous  the 
man  is,  the  more  tender  and  strong  will  this 
feeling  be.  How,  then,  can  he  hope  by  a  holi- 
ness so  imperfect,  polluted,  and  stained  with 
sin,  to  secure  the  favour  and  approbation  of 
God,  and  to  escape  unpunished  1  To  one  who 
feels  thus,  how  desirable  and  welcome  must  be 
the  assurance  that,  notwithstanding  his  imper- 
fect holiness,  God  will  still  be  gracious  to  him 
on  certain  conditions ! — the  more  desirable  and 
welcome,  the  more  he  sees  that  he  can  never  at- 
tain this  assurance  on  any  of  the  conditions 
above  mentioned,  No.  I.,  1,  2,  3.  This  assur- 
ance it  is  the  object  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  atonement  to  impart. 

(6)  Although  a  man  were  thoroughly  reformed, 
and  should  commit  no  more  intentional  sins,  he 
would  still  remain  in  an  anxious  uncertainty  with 
respect  to  his  past  sins ;  for  there  is  no  ground  to 
believe  that  on  account  of  one's  improvement  God 
will  remit  the  punishment  of  sins  committed 
before  this  improvement  commenced.  Indeed, 
without  an  express  assurance  from  God  to  the 
contrary,  there  are  many  reasons  to  fear  that  he 
will  punish  the  former  sins  even  of  the  penitent. 
This  assurance  to  the  contrary  can  be  found 
alone  in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  atonement 
of  Christ. 

This  feeling  of  necessity,  therefore,  this  appre- 
hension and  belief  that  besides  improvement  we 
need  and  must  find  some  other  means  of  obtain- 
ing assurance  from  God  that  the  punishment  of 
sin  will  be  averted  from  us;  this  feeling  lies 
deep  in  the  soul  of  man,  and  is  founded  in  his 
moral  nature,  in  the  voice  of  conscience.  Let 
no  one  say  that  all  men  do  not  have  this  feeling, 
and  that  he  himself  neither  has  it  now  nor  ever 
has  had  it.  This  feeling  may  be  suppressed  for 
a  time  by  levity,  or  the  tumult  of  passion,  or  by 
cold  and  heartless  speculation,  or  by  both  of 
these  causes  united  ;  but  it  commonly  revives 
in  due  time,  especially  in  the  hour  of  affliction, 
on  the  approach  of  death,  or  on  other  occasions 
which  compel  men  to  serious  reflection.  It  then 
demands  from  them,  as  it  were,  its  rights,  and 
frequently  to  their  great  confusion ;  it  excites 
anxious  doubt  and  solicitude,  and  spreads  out  a 
dark  futurity  to  view.  This  is  a  situation  of 
frequent  occurrence,  but  one  in  which  no  person 
would  wish  to  be.  Kant  therefore,  refers  to  this 
feeling  in  his  philosophical  theory  of  religion. 
On  occasions  like  these  such  disquieting  doubts 
and  fearful  apprehensions  will  often  rise  irre- 
sistibly, even  in  the  minds  of  those  who  are 
above  superstitious  weakness,  and,  indeed,  of 


3S4 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


speculative  philosophers  themselves,  whose 
feelings  had  been  the  most  suppressed  and 
deadened.  From  these  feelings  no  one  is  se- 
cure, however  firmly  established  in  his  theory  ; 
for  the  philosophy  of  the  death-bed  is  a  different 
thing  from  the  philosophy  of  the  study  and  of 
the  school. 

A  religion,  therefore,  coming  with  credentials 
from  Heaven,  which,  on  divine  authority,  gives 
to  man  satisfaction  upon  this  subject ,-  which 
shews  him  a  means,  elsewhere  sought  in  vain, 
by  which  he  can  obtain  composure  and  assur- 
ance against  anxious  doubts,  and  which  teaches 
him  to  look  forward  with  joy  into  the  future 
world ;  such  a  religion  rnay  well  claim  to  be 
considered  a  religion  of  high  and  universal  utili- 
ty. Those  who  rob  the  Christian  religion  of 
this  doctrine  rob  it  of  that  which  more  than  any- 
thing else  makes  it  a  blessing  to  man. 

(3)  There  is  still  another  view  of  this  subject. 
The  great  mass  of  mankind  in  all  ages  have  no 
correct  ideas  respecting  virtue  and  vice,  or  re- 
specting God  and  divine  things.  It  is  not  strange 
therefore  that  they  should  have  always  and  al- 
most universally  believed  that  God  might  be 
conciliated  by  the  most  insignificant  actions 
which  they  might  perform  without  sincere  re- 
formation, and  which,  indeed,  they  sometimes 
supposed  might  take  the  place  of  reformation. 
This  was  their  idea  of  sacrifices,  ceremonies, 
penances,  fasts,  &c.  They  made  but  little  ac- 
count of  moral  purity  and  holiness  of  life.  To 
relieve  themselves  of  the  trouble  of  caring  for 
their  own  virtue  they  supposed  that  the  virtue 
of  others  might  be  imputed  to  them.  Vide  No. 
I.  and  Meiners,  Geschichte  der  Relicdonem,  s. 
125,  f. 

At  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  these 
common  mistakes  prevailed,  though  in  different 
forms^  throughout  the  Jewish  and  heathen  world. 
Now  in  the  establishment  of  a  universal  religion, 
such  as  the  Christian  was  intended  to  be,  this 
fact  demanded  special  attention ;  (and  not  merely 
on  account  of  that  particular  age,  but  on  account 
of  all  following  ages  ;  because  these  same  mis- 
takes prevail  among  men  in  different  forms  at 
all  times ;)  for  the  moral  improvement  of  men, 
and  the  sincere  and  pure  worship  of  God  must 
be  the  great  objects  of  this  religion.  But  while 
it  has  these  high  and  spiritual  objects  in  view, 
and  should  make  it  possible  for  men  to  attain 
them,  it  must  also  be  universal,  designed  for 
every  individual.  It  must  regard  the  necessities 
of  all  men,  and  not  merely  of  the  few  who  ac- 
count themselves  wise,  and  esteem  themselves 
philosophers.  Sacrifices,  on  account  of  their 
imperfections  and  perversion,  were  to  be  for 
ever  abolished.  The  other  conditions  of  for- 
giveness were  no  longer  to  be  tolerated,  being 
false  and  injurious  to  morality.  Sincere  reforma- 
tion was  the  only  condition  left,  and  this  was 


accompanied  with  the  anxious  solicitude  before 
mentioned.  This  internal  reformation  and  holi- 
ness was  made  by  Jesus  the  indispensable  con- 
dition of  forgiveness,  though  not  the  procuring- 
cause  of  it;  since,  owing  to  the  imperfection  of 
our  holiness,  we  could  then  never  have  obtained 
forgiveness.  Now,  in  order  to  relieve  the  mind 
from  the  solicitude  still  accompanying  this  con- 
dition, and  to  satisfy  this  feeling  of  need,  some- 
thing external  must  be  added,  which  should 
powerfully  affect  the  senses,  not  only  of  the 
Jews  of  that  age,  but  of  the  heathen  and  of  men 
in  general.  This  must  be  something  which 
would  be  obvious  to  every  one,  and  not  merely 
to  a  few;  something,  too,  which  would  not 
hinder  or  weaken  the  personal  exercise  of  vir- 
tue and  holiness  of  life,  but  rather  promote  and 
strengthen  them. 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  of  Christ. 
This  can  never  lead  to  security  in  sin  or  indif- 
ference with  regard  to  it,  (as  it  has  often  been 
supposed  to  do,)  because  personal  reformation 
and  holiness  (pftdvoia,  aytactytos)  are  connected 
with  it  as  an  indispensable  duty,  as  conditiosine 
qua  non.  Christ  died  for  men  once  for  all,  and 
suffered  the  punishment  which  they  would  have 
endured  for  their  sins,  and  which  their  con- 
sciences tell  them  they  could  not  have  escaped, 
even  after  their  reformation.  And  thus  the  ne- 
cessity of  continuing  to  sacrifice  was  removed, 
and  the  injurious  consequences  which  attended 
sacrifices  were  obviated.  "By  Christ,  and  his 
sacrifice,  men  obtain  from  God  (as  Paul  declares, 
Acts,  xiii.  38)  the  forgiveness  of  all  their  sins  ; 
and  consequently,  even  of  those  ivhich,  according 
to  the  law  of  Moses,  were  unpardonable — i.  e., 
would  be  irremediably  punished,"  (for  which 
reason  sacrifices  were  now  no  longer  necessary. 
No.  I.) 

On  one  side,  the  infliction  upon  Christ  of  the 
penalty  which  we  deserved  places  the  authority 
and  sanctity  of  the  divine  law  in  the  clearest 
light,  and  shews  the  certainty  of  the  execution 
of  the  divine  punishment  upon  sin  in  a  manner 
at  once  striking  and  in  the  highest  degree  alarm- 
ing. Cf.  Romans,  iii.  26,  Etrat,  avtov  (0£oj>) 
SixaLov.  This  doctrine  thus  guards  against  in- 
difference to  sin,  and,  as  experience  teaches,  ex- 
erts a  powerful  influence  in  reforming  and  en- 
nobling the  moral  character  of  every  one  who 
believes  it  from  the  heart. 

On  the  other  side,  this  doctrine  awakens  in 
those  who  heartily  receive  it,  love  to  God,  who 
has  made  use  of  so  great  and  extraordinary 
means  for  their  forgiveness.  It  also  excites  gra- 
titude to  God  and  to  Christ.  Vide  the  passages 
of  the  New  Testament  cited  by  Moms,  p.  153, 
s.  6.  One  who  really  believes  this  doctrine,  and 
does  not  feel  the  most  lively  love  and  gratitude 
to  God  and  to  Christ,  and  does  not  sympathize 
with  all  which  the  New  Testament  says  upon 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      385 


this  subject,  (I  John,  iv.  10,  11  ;  John,  iii.  16; 
Rom.  v.  8;  viii.  32,)  must  be  destitute  of  every 
^tender  sensibility  and  of  every  human  feeling. 
The  proof  that  this  doctrine  does  actually  excite 
this  feeling  and  is  adapted  to  the  necessity  of 
man,  may  be  seen  not  only  in  the  joyful  recep- 
tion with  which  it  met  from  the  better  part  of 
the  Jews  at  the  time  of  the  apostles,  but  also  in 
the  approbation  of  it  in  succeeding  ages,  which 
has  been,  and  is  still,  expressed  by  so  many  men 
of  all  nations ;  and  also  in  the  astonishing  effects 
which  it  has  produced. 

God,  therefore,  as  the  scriptures  represent, 
(Rom.  iii.  25,)  has  set  forth  Jesus  as  a  Propi- 
tiator, to  assure  men  of  his  gracious  disposition 
towards  them;  in  order,  by  this  means,  both  to 
lead  them  from  a  merely  external  service  of  him 
to  a  spiritual  worship,  and  also  to  convince  them 
in  an  affecting  manner,  as  well  of  his  holiness 
and  justice  as  of  his  compassionate  goodness 
and  grace;  and  so,  by  the  alarming  apprehen- 
sions and  thankful  feelings  which  flow  from  such 
considerations,  to  influence  them  to  exercise  pure 
virtue,  sincere  piety,  arid  devotion  to  God,  to 
cherish  and  exhibit  love  to  him  who  first  loved 
them.  This  representation,  which  is  founded 
on  the  holy  scriptures,  contains  nothing  irra- 
tional, and  is  entirely  suited  to  the  moral  nature 
of  mar. 

SECTION  CIX. 

SCRIPTURAL  DOCTRINE  RESPECTING  THE  NECES- 
SITY OF  THE  FORGIVENESS  OF  SIN;  WHAT  IS 
MEANT  BY  FORGIVENESS,  PARDON,  JUSTIFICA- 
TION ;  AND  THE  SCRIPTURAL  TERMS  BY  WHICH 
THEY  ARE  DESIGNATED. 

The  Necessity  and  Indispensableness  of  Forgiveness. 

As  sin  is  justly  represented  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures as  a  very  great  evil,  from  which  no  one  is 
free,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  is  described  as  one  of  the  greatest  benefits, 
which  no  one  can  do  without.  It  is  very  im- 
portant for  the  religious  teacher  to  lead  those 
committed  to  his  charge  to  consider  this  subject 
as  it  is  exhibited  in  the  scriptures ;  for  almost 
innumerable  mistakes  are  made  respecting  it  by 
men  in  every  rank  and  of  every  character,  the 
high  and  the  low,  the  enlightened  and  the  igno- 
rant. Many  make  but  little  account  of  sin, 
and,  through  levity  or  erroneous  speculation, 
overlook  its  consequences,  and  of  course  make 
light  of  forgiveness.  Others  believe  that  they 
can  easily  obtain  forgiveness,  and  rely  on  the 
mercy  of  God,  or  on  the  merits  of  Christ,  with- 
out on  their  part  performing  the  conditions  upon 
which  their  trust  in  these  merits  and  their  ex- 
perience of  them  must  depend. 

These  injurious    mistakes    are    opposed   in 
many  passages  of  the  Bible. 
49 


(1)  In  such  as  describe  the  ruinous  conse- 
quences of  sin,  and  which  present  the  judg- 
ments of  God  in  a  fearful  and  terrific  light,  as 
severe  and  intolerable — e.  g.,  Heb.  x.  31 ;  Ps. 
xc.  11;  cxxx.  3.  To  the  same  purpose  are 
many  of  the  examples  given  in  the  scriptures, 
especially  in  the  history  of  the  Israelites. 

^2)  In  such  as  describe  the  judgments  of  hea- 
ven upon  those  who  do  not  fulfil  the  conditions 
prescribed,  and  are  destitute  of  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  as  certain  and  inevitable — e.  g.,  Heb.  iii. 
12,  13;  Rom.  ii.  1—3,  coll.  i.  32. 

(3)  In  such  as  shew  that  no  one  can  enjoy 
tranquillity  and  happiness  who  has  no  assur- 
ance that  his  sins  are  forgiven — e.  g.,  Heb.  x. 
26, 27.  The  example  of  David  and  other  saints, 
who  have  been  deeply  troubled  on  account  of 
their  sins,  and  anxious  for  the  consequences  of 
them,  contain  much  instruction  upon  this  sub- 
ject, Psalm  li.,  cxxx.,  &c. 

II.  Scriptural  Terms  and  Phrases  denoting  For- 
giveness. 

The  pardon  or  forgiveness  of  sin  which  men 
obtain  from  God  is  expressly  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament  as  the  effect  and  consequence 
of  the  atonement  or  redemption 
of  Christ.  In  Eph.  i.  7,  the  a 
•t<*v  is  represented  as  belonging  to  the 
r'pcoots  5td  afytaT'os  XptcWor,  and  as  a  consequence 
of  it.  Cf.  Col.  i.  14;  Heb.  ix.  15;  "Christ 
died  £  1$  drtcavT'pcocjM/  rW  trti  tvj  rtpwr-j?  Sto^xif 
TtapajSacrswv."  Romans,  iii.  24,  "  We  are  par- 
doned, SixcuovfifJ'ot  8ta  OTtoXDT'pwfffws  T'TJJ  6v 
XptcW9,"  &c.  The  principal  terms  are  the  fol- 
lowing— viz., 

(1)  KatfaXXa-yiy,  reconciliation,  (Germ.  Ver- 
sohnung,}  and  xafaMjoisoo^ai.  Cf.  Morus,  pages 
113 — leg,  s.  9 — 11.  This  phraseology  was 
primarily  used  with  respect  to  enemies  who 
were  reconciled,  or  who  became  friends  again ; 
1  Cor.  vii.  11 ;  Matt.  v.  24.  Then  it  was  trans- 
ferred to  God.  The  first  origin  of  this  phraseo- 
logy with  respect  to  him  is  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  men  had  gross  conceptions  of  the  sub- 
ject, and  supposed  the  manner  of  the  divine 
conduct  to  be  like  that  of  men.  Whoever  trans- 
gressed the  law  of  God  provoked  him  to  anger — 
i.  e.,  to  displeasure  and  to  a  strong  expression 
of  it.  (Hence  the  judgments  of  God  are  called 
6py»j,  txSLxyOis  ®£ov.)  God  must  now  be  ap- 
peased, and  the  transgressor  must  endeavour  to 
make  God  again  his  friend.  Such  was  the 
common  and  popular  language  on  this  subject — 
language  which  was  universally  intelligible, 
and  which  is  always  used  in  the  holy  scriptures 
in  a  sense  worthy  of  God.  Vide  s.  86.  Thus 
when  it  is  said  in  the  New  Testament,  ©eoj 
v^jilv  xaioMMTtttiaL,  the  meaning  is,  that  through 
Christ  he  withholds  the  expression  of  his  dis- 
pleasure, the  punishment  of  sin.  Thus  Paul 
2K 


386 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


uses  this  phraseology,  2  Cor.  v.  19,  and  ex- 
plains it  by  the  addition  py  xoyt^o'^avo?  jtaparct w- 
jtcvra*  like  the  Hebrew  py  atfn,  Psalm  xxxii.  1, 
2.  In  Rom.  v.  11,  he  uses  the  phrase  xatco,- 
XoyTp  iTM^op-fv,  in  the  same  sense — i.  e.,  we  ob- 
tain from  God  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  The  lat- 
ter passage  shews  clearly  that  xaraM.ay7j  does 
not  denote  the  moral  improvement  of  men,  as 
Eberhard,  Gruner,  and  others  explain  it.  On 
the  contrary,  the  term  always  implies  the  idea 
of  the  mutual  reconciliation  of  two  parties,  by 
which  two  or  more  who  were  not  previously  on 
good  terms  become  friends  again.  KataMui/pj, 
then,  as  Morus  remarks,  (p.  165,  ad  finem,) 
means,  the  restoration  of  friendship,  and  the 
means  of  effecting  this,  through  Christ  ,•  and  xa- 
•faTtXacfijftv  is,  to  bring  about,  or  restore  harmony 
and  friendship.  This  harmony  does  not  sub- 
sist between  God  and  men  as  long  as  men  are 
considered  as  transgressors,  and  God  is  com- 
pelled to  punish  them  as  such.  They  do  not 
love  God  as  their  father,  and  he  cannot  love 
them  as  his  children.  That  they  learn  how  to 
love  him,  and  that  he  is  able  to  love  them,  they 
owe  to  Christ.  He  therefore  is  the  peace-maker, 
the  restorer  of  friendship,  o  xataMaaw. 

(2)  *A$f<5is  a/jLop-tiwv,  atyuvat,  and  the  similar 
phrases  xa&api&Wi  ^apt^sij^at  a^apr'tcij,  rtapftfij, 
x.  t.  ?u 

(a)  Explanation  of  these  terms  and  of  the  sen- 
timent contained  in  them.  "Afytsis  and  d^t'svca 
are  used  literally  to  denote  release,  as  from  cap- 
tivity, Luke,  iv.  18  ;  also  remission  of  debt  (de- 
biti),  Matt.  vi.  12.  Now  sin  was  very  fre- 
quently compared  both  with  captivity  and  with 
debt;  and  hence,  probably,  this  term  was  first 
used  by  the  LXX.  as  correspondent  with  py_  xir:. 
This  phrase  was  always  opposed  to  the  inflicting 
of  punishment,  or  the  wrath  of  God,  and  denotes 
remission,  forbearing  to  inflict  pnnishment  ,•  Ex. 
xxxiv.  7.  In  Mark,  iii.  29,  t%scv  afytatv  is  con- 
trasted with  ivo^oj  eatw  jept'fltecdj.  To  take  away 
sin,  and  take  away  punishment,  were  thus  one 
and  the  same  thing  with  the  Hebrews,  Is.  liii. 
And  so  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  words  which 
stand  for  sin  also  stand  for  punishment.  Thus 
to  forgive  sin,  and  to  heal  sickness  (jpcena  peccati), 
were  frequently  the  same,  Matt.  ix.  2,  5,  6, 
coll.  Ps.  ciii.  3. 

Similar  to  these  are  the  other  popular  terms : 
as,  Ttapscrtj,  which  is,  the  act  of  overlooking,  Rom. 
iii.  25.  God  does  not  look  upon  sins,  he  forgets 
them,  does  not  think  of  them  ;  in  opposition  to 
thinking  of  them,  placing  them  before  his  counte- 
nance (Psalm  xc.  8) — i.  e., punishing  them,  &c. 
Also,  #opt£fff^cu  TtapaTtT'to/tar'a,  Col.  ii.  13, 
spoken  of  the  remission  of  guilt;  l|a,?i?i<j>ftv 
a/iap-r'taj,  Acts,  iii.  19,  answering  to  the  Hebrew 
irra,  Is.  xliii.  25 ;  used  also  by  Lysias.  The 
figure  in  this  cage  is  taken  from  an  account  book, 
in  which  the  name  of  the  debtor  is  obliterated 


when  he  has  paid  his  debt,  or  when  it  is  remit- 
ted to  him. 

The  phrases,  xa£api£sG$<u,  d<j>'  a^uoprtuiv,  pcw- 
fl&OcHJu,,  x.  1.  ?u,  to  be  purified,  washed,  to  purify 
oneself,  occur  very  frequently.  They  were  de- 
rived from  the  very  common  comparison  of  sin 
with  stains  and  impurities.  Hence  Moses  or- 
dained purifications  and  washings  as  significant 
or  symbolical  rites.  These  phrases  were  used, 
first,  in  respect  to  men,  and  denoted  self-purifi- 
cation (xa^t  tavtov,) — i.  e.,  moral  reformation, 
|  I  John,  iii.  3 ;  2  Cor.  vii.  I ;  Heb.  x.  22 ;  which 
>  however  could  not  be  done  independently  of 
God,  but  by  his  assistance;  secondly,  in  respect 
to  God.  He  is  said  to  purify  men  from  sin — i. 
e.,  to  consider  them  as  pure,  innocent — not  to 
punish  them.  So  Ps.  li.  4,  "Wash  me  from 
mine  iniquities  ,•"  I  John,  i.  9 ;  2  Pet.  i.  9, 

v  rtaXat  ajuapttwv. 

Some  are  not  content  with  making  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  to  consist  in  the  removal  of 
the  punishment  of  sin,  but  would  have  it  extend 
to  the  removal  both  of  the  guilt  (culpa}  and  pu- 
nishment of  sin,  since  both  belong  to  the  impu- 
tation of  sin.  This  statement,  understood  in  a 
popular  sense,  is  not  objectionable  ;  but  strictly 
understood,  it  is.  The  established  theory  re- 
specting the  remission  of  sin  has  been  transmit- 
ted from  the  time  of  Anselrnus  (s.  I0l,  ad  fin.), 
who  brought  the  whole  doctrine  of  justification 
into  a  judicial  form,  and  arranged  it  like  a  legal 
process.  Thus,  when  a  thief  has  stolen,  he 
must  both  restore  the  property  stolen  and  suffer 
punishment.  The  guilt,  in  this  case,  is  not  re- 
moved by  the  punishment.  The  advocates  of 
this  opinion,  therefore,  comprehended  under 
justification  a  special  acquittal  of  guilt,  different 
from  the  acquittal  of  punishment.  This  acquit- 
tal of  guilt  they  considered  as  the  imputation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  men  by 
God,  in  the  same  way  as  if  it  had  been  wrought 
by  them.  In  this  way,  as  they  thought,  was 
the  guilt  of  sin  removed.  Vide  s.  1 15.  But, 

First.  This  distinction  between  the  guilt  and 
punishment  of  sin  is  never  distinctly  made  in 
the  Bible  when  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  spoken 
of.  Some  have  considered  this  distinction  as 
implied  in  the  passages  which  speak  of  the  pu- 
rification or  washing  away  of  sins,  or  in  which 
sins  are  compared  with  debts ;  but  without  suf- 
ficient reason.  The  Bible  makes  justification 
the  mere  forgiveness  of  sins — i.  e.,  removal  of 
the  punishment  oflhem ;  without  any  special 
acquittal  of  guilt  connected  with  it;  as  Rom.  vi. 
7,  seq.  Vide  s.  110,  "De  obedientia  Christi 
activa,"  from  which  the  doctrine  "  De  obedien- 
tia Christi  passiva"  must  not  be  separated. 
The  obedience  of  Christ  shewn  in  acting  and 
suffering  is  one  and  the  same.  The  fruits  of 
this  obedience  we  enjoy,  as  will  be  seen  from 
the  texts  cited  below.  The  Bible  does  not  se- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       387 


parate  one  kind  of  obedience  from  the  other; 
neither  should  we.  Vide  s.  115. 

Secondly.  The  remission  of  the  guilt  of  sin  is 
not  essential,  and  does  not  contribute  to  the  real 
tranquillity  of  the  sinner.  The  guilt  of  a  sin 
once  committed  cannot  be  effaced.  The  con- 
science of  the  transgressor  can  never  be  made  to 
pronounce  him  innocent,  hut  will  always  regard 
him  as  having  sinned.  It  is  enongh  to  compose 
his  mind,  to  know  and  be  convinced  that  the 
punishment  of  sin  has  been  remitted.  But  how 
can  he  be  made  to  believe,  and  be  happy  in  be- 
lieving, that  he  is  innocent,  when,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  his  own  conscience,  he  is 
guilty. 

Thirdly.  The  theory  which  teaches  that  the 
guilt  of  sin  is  removed  is  founded  upon  a  com- 
parison of  the  conduct  of  God  towards  men  with 
the  conduct  of  men  among  themselves,  which  is 
here  entirely  inapplicable.  A  criminal  (e.  g.,  a 
thief)  who  sins  against  his  fellow  men  does 
them  an  injury.  He  must  therefore  make  good 
their  loss,  besides  suffering  punishment.  But 
men,  by  sinning,  do  not  injure  or  rob  God. 
They  wrong  only  themselves.  Now  if  men  fulfil 
the  prescribed  conditions  of  obtaining  pardon, 
God  remits  the  punishment  of  sin;  but  God 
himself  cannot  remove  the  guilt  of  sin,  in  its 
proper  sense.  For  God  cannot  err,  and  consi- 
der an  action  which  is  actually  wrong,  and  con- 
sequently involves  guilt,  as  right  in  itself.  He, 
however,  can  forgive  us,  or  remit  the  punish- 
ment which  we  deserve.  He  can  regard  and 
treat  us,  on  certain  conditions,  as  if  we  were  in- 
nocent. 

(3)  Atxauotftj,  Sixaioavvr]  and  Stxato-ucj^at,  ko- 
yt^fo^ai  ftj  Sixawavvrjv,  x.  t.  X. 

These  terms  of  the  Grecian  Jews  can  be  ex- 
plained only  from  the  Hebrew  usage,  pnx,  in 
Hebrew  and  Arabic,  in  its  primary  arid  physical 
sense,  means,  rectus,firmus,  rigidusfuit;  then, 
in  a  moral  sense,  rectusfuit,  in  various  modifi- 
cations, degrees,  and  relations— e.  g.,  verus  et 
verax  fuit,  bonus,  sc.  benignus  fuit ;  severus, 
tequiia,  JUSTUS,  iNNOCENS/wzV,  right,  such  as  one 
should  be;  Ps.  cxliii.  2,  "No  man  is  right  in 
the  sight  of  God."  Hence  we  can  explain  the 
significations  of  p^xn,  SLXCUOVV,  facere  justum  ,- 
and  of  SixaiovG'&a.L,  fieri  justum.  A  man  may  be 
justified  in  two  ways — viz., 

(a)  By  perfect  holiness,  virtue,  or  uprightness 
of  conduct;  by  being  actually  just,  or  such  as 
one  should  be.  Hence  the  phrase  to  justify,  or 
to  consider,  pronounce,  treat,  reward  one,  as  right, 
•according  to  the  above-mentioned  sense.  In 
this  sense  it  is  used  by  the  LXX.,  Ps.  cxliii.  2, 
o-O  oixaiu&riactai  iv&rtiov  aov  rtaj  £wv,  and  Ezek. 
xvi.  51,  52.  This  is  called  justificatio  interna. 
In  this  sense  it  is  understood,  in  the  important 
passage  respecting  justification,  Rom.  v.,  both 
by  Socinians,  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  satis- 


faction, and  by  those  of  the  Romish  church  who 
advocate  good  works  as  the  procuring  cause  of 
salvation.  But  this  interpretation  does  the 
greatest  violence  to  the  words  in  this  passage. 

In  connexion  with  this  meaning,  Sixaiovv 
sometimes  signifies  emendare,  probum  redder  e, 
Psalm  Ixxiii.  13  (in  the  Septuagint),  and  Rev. 
xxii.  11,  seq.  Some  of  the  schoolmen  call  this 
justificatio  physica. 

(6)  One  who  is  guilty  is  said  to  be  justified 
when  he  is  declared  and  treated  as  exempt  from 
punishment,  or  innocent,  or  when  the  punishment 
of  his  sins  is  remitted  to  him.  This  is  called 
justificatio  externa.  The  terms  justification, 
pardon,  accounting  righteous,  occur  in  the  Bible 
much  more  frequently  in  this  sense  than  in  any 
other,  and  so  are  synonymous  \vh\\forgivenes8 
of  sin.  This  sense  is  founded  on  the  judicial 
meaning  of  the  word  pn?n,  to  pardon,  acquit,  pro- 
nounce innocent,  spoken  of  the  Judge  (pnx  inno- 
cens)  ;  and  of  the  opposite,  jrEhn,  damnere,  pro 
reo  declarere  (yvy,  reus) — e.  g.,  Ex.  xxiii.  7; 
Prov.  xvii.  15,  seq.  This  is  transferred  to  God, 
who  is  conceived  as  the  judge  of  the  actions  of 
men.  Here,  however,  we  must  be  careful  not 
to  carry  the  comparison  too  far,  and  must  ab- 
stract from  our  conceptions  all  the  imperfections 
which  belong  to  human  conduct.  He  condemns, 
or  judges, — i.  e.,  he  punishes,- — anlecedens  (the 
part  of  human  judges) — -pro  consequente.  The 
opposite  of  this,  to  acquit,  pardon  (6txcw.ovi>),  is 
then  to  remove  punishment.  This  is  done,  how- 
ever, as  the  Bible  everywhere  teaches,  not prop- 
ter  justitiam  internam  hominis,  as  at  human  tri- 
bunals; for  no  one  is  innocent  and  pure  from 
sin;  Rom.  iii.  19,  seq.  According  to  the  gos- 
pel, God  bestows  favour  upon  men  gratuitously, 
on  account  of  faith  in  Christ,  on  condition  of 
holiness  and  of  persevering  in  Christian  confi- 
dence. 

The  principal  texts  which  support  this  doc- 
trine, and  in  which  Sixauoutj  and  Sixaioavvtj 
stand  in  this  sense,  are  Rom.  iii.,  iv.,  v.,  in  op- 
position to  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  desert  of 
works.  These  passages  will  be  examined  in 
the  following  sections.  In  Romans,  iv.,  the 
term  Sixatovv  is  used  ver.  5;  toy^to^ai  bixaw- 
(to  pardon,  the  opposite  of  koyt'^o^ot 
iav ,  to  punish,^  ver.  6  ;  and  d$i£i/ot  o/tap- 
tiav,  ver.  7.  In  Rom.  v.  9,  11,  Sixcuovrs&u  and 
aT'tsaSat,  are  interchanged  in  the  same 
way ;  and  ^ixtuoavvvj  is  explained  by  i 
artb — a/tc^pi'taj  xai,  ^avdtov.  The 
bixatoavvq,  are  also  opposed  to  opy^  ®iov,  Rom. 
i.  17,  18;  to  xoraxpujif,  Rom.  v.  16,  18;  to 
syxateiv,  Rom.  viii.  33.  Cf.  Storr,  «  De  signi- 
ficatione  vocis  81x0.16$  in  Nov.  Test."  Opusc. 
Academica,  t.  i. 

Note. — The  writings  of  theologians  present 
great  diversity  and  difficulty  in  determining  the 
idea  of  Sixcuwstj  and  Sixaiovv.  Most  of  the  an- 


388 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


cient  Lutheran  theologians,  with  whom  Doder- 
lein  and  Seiler  agree,  consider  justification  as 
being  merely  the  removal  of  punishment ;  while 
Koppe,  Zacharia,  Less,  Danov,  and  others,  com- 
prise in  this  idea  the  whole  purpose  of  God  to 
bless  and  save  men,  of  which  the  removal  of 
punishment  is  only  the  commencement.  These 
theologians  maintain  that  justification  is  the 
same  as  predestination,  only  that  justification  is 
the  less  definite  word  of  the  two.  Vide  Zacha- 
ria, Bibl.  Theol.  iv.  s.  548,  seq.,  and  especially 
Danov,  Drey  Abhandlungen  von  der  Rechtfer- 
tigung;  Jena,  1777;  in  answer  to  which  Seiler 
wrote,  "  Ueber  den  Unterschied  der  Rechtfer- 
tigung  und  Pradestination ;"  Erlangen,  1777, 
8vo. 

Those  who  hold  the  former  opinion  consider 
the  conferring  of  good  as  a  consequence  of  jus- 
tification, and  appeal  to  the  obvious  texts,  Rom. 
v.  1,  18,  21 ;  Gal.  iii.  11.  They  remark,  that 
exemption  from  punishment  and  bestowment  of 
blessing  are  not  one  and  the  same  thing,  since 
one  who  is  acquitted  in  court  is  not,  of  course, 
promoted  and  rewarded.  Those  who  hold  the 
latter  opinion  mention  the  fact  that  p-ix  fre- 
quently means,  benefit,  blessing,  recompence,  and 
construe  the  phrase  n,-nsS  IJETI,  Xoy/^c&at  «j 
Sixat-oavvyv,  which  is  first  spoken  of  the  faith 
of  Abraham,  Gen.  xv.  6,  to  mean,  to  reckon  as  a 
merit,  to  reward,-  in  the  same  way,  Psalm  cvi. 
31,  and  Romans,  iv.  4,  where  Paul  himself  ex- 
plains |rjx  by  fjua$6$.  The  declaring  Abraham 
righteous  did  not  consist  in  the  simple  forgive- 
ness of  his  sins,  but  in  the  bestowment  of  bless- 
ing and  reward.  Cf.  James,  ii.  21. 

The  following  considerations  may  help  to  set- 
tle the  controversy : — 

(1)  The  purposes  of  God  to  forgive  the  trans- 
gressor his  sins,  and  to  make  him  happy,  are 
one  and  the  same ;  but  they  may  be  distinguish- 
ed in  our  conceptions  of  them,  and  then  his  be- 
stowing reward  is  the  immediate  consequence 
of  his  granting  forgiveness.     For  when  God 
forgives  one  his  sins,  the  bestowment  of  the 
promised    good    immediately    succeeds.     And 
when  God  sees  one  incapable  of  this  good,  he 
does  not  forgive  his  sins. 

(2)  The  sacred  writers  do  not,  in  their  terms, 
so  carefully  distinguish  and  so  logically  divide 
these  two  ideas,  which  are  so  nearly  related,  as 
we  do  in  scientific  discussion.    This  is  the  less 
strange,  as  the  words  SLXOUOVV  and  Sixalums  have 
very  many  and  various  senses,  one  of  which  fre- 
quently runs  into  the  other.    The  words  are 
sometimes  used  in  the  Bible  exclusive,  beyond  a 
doubt,  of  the  idea  of  blessing,  and  sometimes 
also  inclusive  of  it. 

(3)  But  this  should  not  hinder  us  from  dis- 
tinguishing these  ideas,  and  considering  them 
separately,  for  the  sake  of  clearness  in  scientific 
discussion.    Here,  however,  as  in  respect  to  all 


!  the  divine  purposes,  we  must  guard  against  the 
idea  of  succession ;  and  also  against  mistake  from 
a  comparison  with  human  tribunals,  where  one 
I  may  be  entirely  acquitted,  without,  however, 
j  receiving  reward;  or  any  further  provision  for 
his  welfare.     The  accused  is  absolved,  and  then 
left  to  seek  his  fortune  where  he  pleases.     But 
this  is  not  the  manner  of  God.    Upon  every  one 
whom  he  forgives,  or  whom  he  counts  right- 
|  eous,  God  immediately  bestows,  on  the  ground 
I  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  all  the  good  and  bless- 
ing which  the  subject  of  his  grace  is  capable  of 
!  enjoying.     This  is  the  reason  why  the  sacred 
1  writers  frequently  connect  these  two  ideas  in 
the  same  word.  Cf.  Noesselt,  Pfingstprogramm, 
De  eo  quid  sit,  Deum  condonnare  hominibus  joeo 
cata,  poenasque  remittere?  Halae,  1792,  (in  his 
Exercitt.) 

Morus  (p.  151,  s.  5)  has  therefore  well  de- 
fined and  explained  the  scriptural  idea  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  in  the  wide  sense  in  which  it 
frequently  occurs  in  the  Bible,  as  including 
(1)  exemption  by  God  from  the  fatal  conse- 
quences of  sin — i.  e.,  from  fear  of  the  suffering 
or  punishment  consequent  upon  sin,  and  from 
this  suffering  and  punishment  itself,  (^  drtdteo- 
£cu,  John,  iii. ;)  (2)  the  bestowment  of  bless- 
ings, (£coj}v  £xstvi)  instead  of  this  deserved  pu- 
nishment. For  both  we  are  indebted  to  Christ. 
The  ground  and  motive,  however,  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin  on  the  part  of  God  is  his  unmerited 
goodness  and  benevolence.  This  is  the  uniform 
representation  of  the  holy  scriptures,  John,  iii. 
16,  seq.  Morus,  p.  152,  s.  6. 

SECTION  CX. 

ILLUSTRATION  OF  THE  SCRIPTURAL  STATEMENT 
THAT  MEN  OWE  IT  TO  CHRIST  ALONE  THAT  GOD 
JUSTIFIES  THEM,  OR  FORGIVES  THEIR  SINS. 

SINCE  sin  consists  in  transgression  of  the 
divine  law,  it  is  the  prerogative  of  God  alone  to 
forgive  sin.  So  the  Bible  everywhere  teaches ; 
Ps.  li.;  James,  iv.  12,  coll.  Luke,  v.  21.  The 
gospel  teaches  that  we  are  indebted  for  this  for- 
giveness to  Christ  alone, — that  God  forgives  on 
account  of  Christ.  It  everywhere  magnifies  this 
as  one  of  the  greatest  divine  favours,  and  as  the 
foundation  of  all  our  blessedness;  John,  iii.  16; 
vi. ;  Heb.  ix.  15;  Rom.  v.  1.  Accordingly,  the 
doctrine  of  forgiveness  through  Christ  is  always 
enumerated  by  the  apostles  among  the  principal 
doctrines  and  elementary  principles  of  Chris- 
tianity, which  were  never  to  be  withheld  in  reli- 
gious instruction.  Vide  1  Thess.  i.  10,  'I^crovj 
6  (juOjitfvoj  ^uctf  drto  frfi  opy^j  Ip^OjWaj^j,  et  alibi. 
The  Acts  of  the  apostles  and  their  epistles  shew 
that  they  always  commenced  with  this  doctrine, 
and  referred  everything  to  it,  both  with  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  enlightened  and  ignorant;  because 
it  is  equally  essential  to  all. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       389 


The  following  classes  comprise  the  principal 
proof-texts  relating  to  this  point: — 

(1)  The  texts  which  declare  that  Christ  has 
atoned  for  us  ;  and  that  to  procure  the  remission 
of  sins  was  the  great  object  of  his  advent  to  the 
world;  and  that  he  accomplished  this  object; 
1  John,  ii.  1,2;  Heb.  i.  3,  At'  tavtov  xa^apiafiov 
rtot,r]Gd/ji,svo$  H^v  cytopT'iwt'  T^MV.     Heb.   ix.    26, 
"  He  has  appeared  before  God  (rtf^ctvt'pwT'at,  ver. 
24)  with  his  offering,  (5ta  ^i;ota$  av-rov,)  to  take 
away  sin,  (tl$  o&ttqaiv   a^opttaj,)" — i.  e.,  he 
sacrificed  himself  for  us,  he  died  for  us,  to  free 
us  from  the  punishment  of  sin,  (vide  ver.  14.) 

(2)  The  texts  which  require  from  us  an  un- 
limited confidence  (rttWtj)  in  Christ,  for  the  rea- 
son that  we  are  indebted  to  him  and  to  his  per- 
son for  our  spiritual  welfare  and  our  acceptance 
with  God.     Acts,  xxvi.  18,  JiajSttV  atytaiv  a^uap- 
ttMv — it  b'at't*  •?  y  £ij  £^e.     ii.  38  ;  Rom.  v.  1, 
&ixa,ut$ivff$  EX  TaWfiof,    ttp^v^v    f%ojjLev  rtpoj 
®f6v  (the  favour  of  God,and  peace  of  mind)  6ta 

V,  (which  we  owe  to  Christ.)     Eph.  i.  7, 


avtov — 1.  e.,  "tr^v  atyeau 

(3)  The  texts  which  teach  that  there  is  no 
other  way  besides  this  in  which  the  forgiveness 
of  sin  can  be  obtained.     Heb.  x.  26,  "  For  those 
who  apostatize,  contrary  to  their  better  convic- 
tions respecting  Christ  (Ixoixj/wj  ap-aptotvovruv, 
ver.  23;  iii.  12,  13),  there  remains  no  atoning 
sacrifice  (^vot'a  rfspt  a/tapfcwy)" — i.  e.,  there  is 
no  way  for  them  to  obtain  the  forgiveness  of 
their  sins,  since  this  is  the  only  way,  and  this 
way  they  despise.     Cf.  Heb.  vi.  4,  seq.     The 
discourse  of  Peter,  Acts,  iv.  12,  Ovx  Itrtw  tv 
a'h.'h.fp  aurtqpia,,  x.  t.  X.     Sco-r^pta,  in  this  pas- 
sage, is  good,  happiness,   here   and   hereafter. 
This  happiness  can  be  obtained  through  no  other 
person.     The  name  (person)  of  no  other  man 
under  heaven  is  given  to  us  for  this   object. 
^Qvopo,  here  is  connected  tv  dt&pc^Ttotj,  no  name 
among  men.    The  meaning  is,  "  We  are  direct- 
ed by  God  to  no   other  man,   however  holy, 
through  whom  to  obtain  safety  and  happiness, 
besides  Jesus  Christ." 

(4)  The  texts  which  teach  clearly  and  ex- 
pressly that  God  forgives  men  their  sins,  or  jus- 
tifies them,  and  frees  them  from  the  punishment 
of  sin,  solely  on  account  of  Christ.     Acts,  x. 
43,  "To  him  gave  all  the  prophets  witness, 
that  whoever  believes  in  him  should  through 
him  (6ia  6v6pato$  av-tov)  receive  remission  of 
sins."    (Cf.  Ps.  xxii.,  xl.,  ex. ;  Is.  liii.)    Acts, 
xiii.  38,  "  At>a>  Tovfov  v/jnv  a^ifftj  a.jUttpT'twv 
5carayy£M.trcu,,  even  of  those  from  which  you 
could  not  be  justified  according  to  the  law  of 
Moses."     1    John,   ii.    12,  'Atyswtat,   v^-lv   at 
a/jiap'tZai  8ta  -to  ovop.0,  avtov,  propter  Christum. 
Rom.  v.  10,  Kon'^TAay^iU.fi'  tq>  ©£9  Sta  T?OV  $avd- 
fov  tov  Tiov  av'tov,  coll.  ver.  18,  and  1  Thess. 
i.  10;  2  Cor.  v.  21,  "  God  treated  him,  who  had 


never  sinned,  as  a  sinner,  in  our  stead,  that  we 
might  be  forgiven  by  God  ;  yevupt^a  Sixaioovvrj 

&SOV    (i.  e.,  OlXtUOi    tVUTllOV    ©fOv)     IV    CM>T9,"    071 

his  account,  ver.  19. 

But  the  passage  which  exhibits  the  mind  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles  most  fully  and  clearly 
is  Romans,  iii.  21—28.  Cf.  Noesselt,  Abhand- 
lung,  Opusc.  t.  ii.  Paul  here  opposes  the  pre- 
vailing mistake  respecting  the  merit  of  good 
works,  and  of  the  observance  of  the  law,  and 
the  opinion  that  God  loved  the  Jews  alone,  and 
comparatively  disregarded  every  other  people. 
Paul  shews  that,  on  the  contrary,  God  feels  a 
paternal  interest  in  all  men,  and  is  willing  to 
forgive  all,  since  all,  as  sinners,  need  forgive- 
ness ;  but  that  men  can  never  obtain  a  title  to 
|  this  forgiveness  by  their  own  imperfect  obedi- 
i  ence  to  the  law,  but  only  by  faith  in  Christ,  to 
whom  they  are  indebted  for  this  favour,  and  in 
a  way  exclusive  of  all  personal  desert.  "Now 
(in  the  times  of  the  New  Testament)  we  are 
made  acquainted,  by  the  Christian  doctrine, 
with  the  purpose  of  God  to  forgive  us  (fiixcuo- 
avvrj  ®eov,  ver.  22,  24,)  without  respect  to  the 
observance  of  the  law  as  anything  meritorious, 
(zupiS  voftov ;)  of  which  purpose  frequent  indi- 
cations appear  even  in  the  Old  Testament. 
This  is  God's  purpose  to  forgive  men,  on  ac- 
count of  their  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  without 
their  own  desert.  This  forgiveness  is  extended 
to  all  (Jews  and  Gentiles)  who  believe  in 
Christ.  All  are  sinners,  unworthy  of  the  di- 
vine favour,  and  deserving  of  punishment.  But 
God,  in  the  exercise  of  his  impartial,  paternal 
love,  desires  to  make  all  men  happy,  and  ac- 
cordingly intends  this  to  be  the  means  of  the 
happiness  of  all.  But  this  forgiveness  is  be- 
stowed upon  them  without  their  deserving  it, 
(Scopsav,)  from  the  mere  mercy  (^aptj)  of  God, 
through  the  atonement  of  Christ.  God  hath 
appointed  Christ  to  be  an  atoning  sacrifice, 
(tXaor^ptov,)  or  a  propitiator  through  faith  in 
his  blood,  (i.  e.,  God  forgives  us  on  his  account, 
if  we  place  our  whole  reliance  upon  his  death, 
endured  for  our  good.)  He  now  indulgently 
forgives  us  our  past  sins,  (committed  before  our 
conversion  to  Christ;  cf.  Heb.  ix.  15.)  He  now 
shews  (in  these  times  of  the  New  Testament) 
how  merciful  he  is  to  all  men,  by  forgiving 
(gtxatovvr'a)  every  one  (Jew  or  Gentile)  who 
believes  in  Jesus  Christ,  (tov  ix  TttWfwj.)" 

The  question  arises,  how  and  by  what  means 
has  Christ  procured  for  us  pardon  from  God,  or 
the  forgiveness  of  sins? 

We  find  many  clear  declarations  upon  this 
point  in  the  discourses  of  Jesus  himself,  espe- 
cially in  the  Gospel  of  John,  where  he  frequent- 
ly speaks  of  his  death,  and  of  the  worth  and  ad- 
vantages of  it;  John,  iii.  14;  Matt.  xxvi.  We 
find  passages  of  the  same  kind  even  in  the  dis- 
courses of  John  the  Baptist,  John,  i.  29 ;  and  in 
2x2 


390 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


the  prophecies  to  which  Christ  appeals  as  re- 
ferring to  himself;  Ps.  xxii.,  xl. ;  Is.  liii.  But 
this  doctrine  is  more  clearly  explained,  deve- 
loped, and  applied  in  the  instructions  of  the 
apostles.  While  Christ  was  visibly  upon  the 
earth,  he  laid  the  foundation  for  this  doctrine, 
but  left  it  for  his  disciples  to  make  a  more  full 
development  and  application  of  this,  as  well  as 
of  many  other  doctrines,  after  his  sufferings  and 
death  should  have  become  facts  which  had  al- 
ready taken  place.  That  the  views  which  they 
give  upon  this  subject  did  not  originate  merely 
in  the  conceptions  then  prevalent  among  the 
Jews  and  heathen,  but  are  exactly  suited  to  the 
universal  necessities  of  man,  is  clear  from  s. 
108. 

But  there  have  always  been  some  in  the 
Christian  church,  and  many  in  modern  times,  to 
whom  this  doctrine,  so  clearly  taught  in  the 
New  Testament,  has  been  offensive,  as  it  was 
formerly  to  many  Jews  and  heathen;  1  Cor.  i. 
2.  And  so  they  endeavour  to  give  a  different 
view  from  that  given  in  the  New  Testament  of 
the  nature  of  the  benefits  which  Christ  has  con- 
ferred upon  the  human  race,  confining  them  to 
his  doctrine,  and  the  results  of  it.  So  Socinus, 
and  many  of  the  same  opinion  in  other  parties. 
Sometimes  they  endeavour  to  deduce  their  opi- 
nions by  a  forced  interpretation  from  the  Bible. 
Sometimes  they  hold  that  the  subject  should 
not  be  definitely  stated,  at  least  in  popular  dis- 
course,— that  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  in  general, 
we  obtain  forgiveness  of  sin  through  Christ,  or 
through  faith  in  Christ,  leaving  every  one  to  un- 
derstand this  statement  in  his  own  way.  But 
the  meaning  of  this  indefinite  phraseology  must 
certainly  be  explained  in  theological  instruction. 
Should  it,  then,  be  withheld  from  the  people  1  and 
is  it  honest  to  refer  the  common  people  and  the 
young  to  the  holy  scriptures  by  the  language 
employed,  and  at  the  same  time  to  teach  them 
something  widely  different  from  what  is  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  1  If  the  conscience  of  any 
one  does  not  pronounce  such  conduct  inexcusa- 
ble, he  should  renounce  the  idea  of  being  a 
Christian  teacher.  The  question  here  is  not, 
how  the  doctrine  may  be  understood  by  learned 
men,  judging  independently  of  the  authority  of 
Revelation,  but  how  the  doctrine  is  taught  in 
the  New  Testament  1  Since  this  book  lies  at 
the  foundation  of  religious  knowledge,  the  doc- 
trines and  ideas  which  it  contains  should  be  ex- 
plained, and  in  a  way  which  will  be  intelligi- 
ble to  those  who  hear.  And  considering  how 
adapted  to  the  wants  of  man  the  scriptural  doc- 
trine of  forgiveness  is,  what  a  powerful  influ- 
ence it  exerts,  how  much  it  does  to  tranquillize 
the  mind,  to  purify  and  elevate  the  character,  it 
would  be  an  act  of  rashness  and  cruelty  to  de- 
stroy the  faith  of  men  in  it,  and  to  rob  them  of 
a  belief  in  place  of  which  nothing  can  be  sub- 


stituted at  once  so  plain  to  the  reason,  so  bene- 
ficial to  the  character,  and  so  consoling  to  the 
heart.  , 

The  Bible  ascribes  the  forgiveness  which  is 
procured  for  us  by  Christ  principally  to  the  fol- 
lowing points — viz.,  (1)  his  sufferings  and  vio- 
lent death;  which  is  often  called,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  idiom,  al^ta  Xpio-T'ov  and  cftcwpos.  This 
is  the  principal  thing.  In  connexion  with  this  it 
places  (2)  his  resurrection,  and  (3)  his  interces- 
sion. On  these  grounds  God  justifies  or  for- 
gives men.  These  three  parts  will  therefore  be 
separately  considered.  S.  Ill,  112. 

Note. — We  should  not  stop  with  one  of  these 
particulars,  and  overlook  the  rest.  The  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  according  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, assures  us  of  the  validity  of  his  atone- 
ment; and  his  intercession  imparts  a  deep  con- 
viction that,  although  he  has  ascended  into  the 
heavens,  he  is  still  mindful  of  us,  and  cares  for 
our  welfare.  These  three  points  together  com- 
pose the  entire  meritum  Christi.  Persons  are  said 
•mereri,  or,  bene  mereri  de  aliquo,  when  they  as- 
sist another  to  obtain  possession  of  any  advan- 
tage. Sometimes  these  advantages  themselves, 
which  are  obtained  by  the  assistance  of  a  bene- 
factor, are  called  merita.  But  the  custom  of  the 
schools,  ever  since  the  time  of  the  schoolmen, 
has  been,  to  call  the  death  of  Christ,  so  far  as 
we  are  indebted  to  it  for  pardon  and  eternal  hap- 
piness, the  meritum  Christi,  by  way  of  emi- 
nence ;  meaning  that  we  owe  these  spiritual 
blessings  to  the  death  of  Christ,  without  deny- 
ing that  he  has  deserved  well  of  the  human  race 
in  other  ways.  Considering  that  this  phraseo- 
logy has  now  become  established  in  systema- 
tic theology,  Morus  (p.  171,  172,  s.  5)  justly 
thinks  that  it  should  be  preserved,  as  a  devia- 
tion from  it  might  produce  confusion. 

SECTION  CXI. 

OF  THE  SUFFERINGS  AND  DEATH  OF  CHRIST?  HOW 
FAR  WE  ARE  INDEBTED  TO  THEM  FOR  OUR  JUS- 
TIFICATION OR  PARDON ;  TOGETHER  WITH  OB- 
SERVATIONS ON  SOME  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  AT- 
TRIBUTES (AFFECTIONES)  OF  THE  DEATH  OF 

CHRIST. 

WE  shall  adhere,  in  this  place,  simply  to  the 
doctrine  and  representations  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  hereafter  (s.  114)  treat  of  the  various 
explanations  which  have  been  given  in  later 
times  of  this  doctrine,  and  of  the  various  eccle- 
siastical opinions  DE  SATISFACTIONS. 

I.  The  Sufferings  and  Death  of  Christ ;  and  how 
far  men  are  indebted  to  them  for  their  Justifica- 
tion or  Forgiveness. 

By  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  accord- 
ing to  the  scriptures,  many  objects  and  ends 
which  God  had  in  view  were  attained,  and  they 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       391 


may  therefore  be  considered  in  various  lights, 
all  of  which  are  important  and  full  of  instruc- 
tion. Thus  the  death  of  Christ  furnishes  a  proof 
of  the  great  love  of  God  and  of  Christ  to  us.  It 
is  an  example  of  the  greatest  steadfastness,  con- 
fidence in  God,  and  patience,  &c.  And  these 
views  of  it  are  often  presented  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, but  by  no  means  the  most  frequently. 
The  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  are  mainly 
considered  as  the  ground  or  procuring-cause  of 
our  forgiveness  and  of  our  spiritual  welfare. 
"  All  men  are  sinners,  and  consequently  deserv- 
ing of  punishment.  The  ground  on  which  God 
pardons  them,  or  forgives  their  sin,  is  the  suf- 
ferings and  death  of  Christ,  or  his  blood  shed 
for  them.  He  endured  the  misery  which  we 
should  have  endured  as  the  penalty  of  sin,  in 
order  that  we  might  be  saved  from  deserved 
punishment."  Such  is  the  uniform  doctrine  of 
the  Bible,  the  reason  and  object  of  it  are  plain 
from  what  was  remarked  in  s.  108.  Without 
this  doctrine  the  Bible  is  not  consistent.  Our 
forgiveness,  then,  does  not  depend  upon  our  re- 
formation and  holiness,  by  which  we  deserve  no- 
thing from  God,  (Gal.  ii.  21 ;)  but  upon  the 
death  of  Christ,  of  which  our  holiness  is  the  re- 
sult. The  death  of  Chris],  is  the  antecedent,  our 
holiness  the  consequent. 

This  doctrine  is  briefly  and  summarily  taught 
in  the  following  passages,  part  of  which  have 
been  already  explained,  and  the  remainder  of 
which  will  be  hereafter ;  viz.,  Matt.  xxvi.  28 ; 
Rom.  iii.  25;  v.  8,  9;  Eph.  i.  7;  Heb.  ix.  12, 
15,  2$;  1  John,  i.  7. 

The  death  of  Christ,  however,  is  not  here 
mentioned,  exclusively  of  his  other  sufferings. 
Vide  s.  95.  All  together  constitute  that  which 
Paul  calls  the  vrtaxori  of  Christ,  Rom.  v.  19, 
because  he  endured  them  from  obedience  to  God, 
Phil.  ii.  8.  Theologians  call  them  all  obedientia 
passiva.  But  death,  especially  a  violent  death, 
most  deeply  moves  our  sensibilities,  and  com- 
prises, as  we  regard  it,  the  sum  and  substance 
of  all  other  sufferings  and  punishments.  For 
this  reason  the  New  Testament  makes  more  fre- 
quent mention  of  the  death,  blood,  and  cross  of 
Christ. 

The  following  passages  clearly  and  distinctly 
teach  that  Christ  has  effected  the  deliverance 
of  man  from  the  deserved  punishment  of  sin,  by 
means  of  his  sufferings  and  violent  death — viz., 

(1)  The  texts  which  teach  that  Christ  suf- 
fered or  died  for  all  sinners,  or  for  all  the  sins 
of  men ;  8 i  d  (popart I'wjuai'a),  rt  s  p  i  (rtoM,wv), 
but  more  commonly  v  it  s  p  (d;aapT'w>.u>v  or  rtav- 
tfwv  or  d^uapT'ttov  ^wv),  Hebrew,  Sy.  E.  g., 
Matt.  xxvi.  28,  "The  blood  shed  for  many,  for 
the  remission  of  sins."  Rom.  iv.  25  ;  v.  6;  1 
Cor.  xv.  3 ;  2  Cor.  v.  14, 15 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  18 ;  Is. 
liii.  5,  seq. 

It  has  been  objected  against  this  proof,  that 


to  do  a  thing  vrcsp  rt'voj,  sometimes  means  sim- 
ply to  do  it  fur  the  good  of  any  one,  to  instruct 
him,  improve  him,  or  to  give  him  an  example. 
So  Col.  i.  24,  where  Paul  speaks  of  his  sufferings 
for  the  good  of  (rrttp)  the  Colossians  and  of  the 
whole  Christian  church,  because  he  was  perse- 
cuted by  his  enemies,  and  then  imprisoned  at 
Rome.  But  the  sense  even  here  is,  "he  con- 
gratulates himself  that  he  can  undergo  in  his 
own  person  what  would  otherwise  have  befallen 
the  whole  church ;  while  the  general  hatred 
lights  upon  him,  others  escaped."  When  now 
this  phraseology  is  used  in  the  New  Testament 
with  reference  to  Christ,  it  never  means  that  he 
died  to  teach  men,  &c. ;  but  always,  instead,  in 
the  place  of  men,  to  deliver  them.  He  suffered 
what  we  should  have  suffered ;  endured  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  which  we  should  have  en- 
dured. This  is  confirmed  by  the  passage  Is. 
liii.,  from  which  these  terms  are  so  frequently 
borrowed  in  the  New  Testament.  And  this  is 
decisively  proved  by  the  passage  Rom.  v.  6, 
where  it  is  said  that  Christ  died  for  (vrtlp)  sin- 
ners. This  cannot  mean  that  by  his  death  he 
gave  men  an  example  of  firmness,  or  sought  to 
reform  them.  For  in  ver.  7,  we  read,  "There 
are  but  few  instances  among  men  (like  that  of 
Damon  and  Pythias)  of  one  dying  for  an  inno- 
cent  friend;  and  indeed  the  examples  are  rare 
of  one  dying  (as  Peter  was  willing  to  do  vrttp 
v,  John,  xiii.  37)  even  for  a  benefactor, 
But  there  is  no  example  of  one  dying 
for  rebels  and  criminals,  to  rescue  them  from 
the  death  which  they  deserved,  and  yet  so  did 
Christ  die  for  us."  Paul  could  not  have  ex- 
pressed his  meaning  more  clearly.  According- 
ly, he  says,  2  Cor.  v.  14,  "  Did  one  (Christ) 
die  for  all,  then  were  all  dead." 

Further ;  if  this  phraseology  meant  nothing 
more  than  is  contended  for  by  the  objector,  it 
might  be  used  with  reference  to  the  death  of  the 
apostles  and  other  martyrs.  But  this  is  never 
the  case  in  the  New  Testament.  No  one  of 
them  is  ever  said  to  have  died  for  the  world, 
for  sinners,  or  sin.  It  is  said  respecting  Christ 
exclusively,  ofi — tlj  vrtep  rtdvtuv  drtl^avs,  2 
Cor.  v.  14,  15,  coll.  1  Cor.  i.  13,  "Was  Paul 
crucified  for  (vrtsp)  you?" 

The  meaning,  then,  of  the  phraseology, 
"  Christ  suffered  for  us,  or  in  our  place,"  is  this : 
"  Since  Christ  suffered  for  our  sins,  we  ourselves 
are  freed  from  the  necessity  of  enduring  the  pu- 
nishment which  they  deserved.  It  is  the  same  as 
if  we  had  ourselves  endured  this  punishment; 
and  therefore  it  need  no  longer  be  feared."  The 
epistles  to  the  Romans,  Corinthians,  Galatians, 
and  Hebrews,  are  full  of  texts  of  this  import. 
Cf.  Morus,  p.  151,  and  Storr,  Doctrina  Christ, 
p.  254. 

(2)  The  texts  which  teach  that  Christ  was 
treated  as  a  sinner ;  and  this  in  our  stead,  that 


392 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


we  might  be  considered  as  forgiven  by  God. 
2  Cor.  v.  21,  where  apaptia  or  cyiopT'wT.ov  rtotEtv, 
is,  to  treat  one  as  a  sinner,  to  punish  him ;  as  the 
opposite  8ixaiov  rtowtv  or  Sixatovv  is  to  treat  as 
innocent,  to  forgive.  Jesus  was  treated  in  this 
way  vrtsp  iy/twv,  which  is  explained  by  what 
follows,  "that  we,  on  Christ's  account,  might 
be  treated  by  God  as  just  or  innocent" — i.  e., 
might  be  saved  from  deserved  punishment; 
yti/(dju.c&a  Stxaioavvr]  ®tov — 1.  e.,  Sixaiot,  evurtcov 
®(ov.  So  also  Gal.  iii.  13,  "Christ  hath  re- 
deemed us  (who  as  sinners  must  fear  the  threat- 
enings  of  the  law)  from  the  threatened  punish- 
ment of  the  law  (xa-r'apa  vofjLov),  yevofisvos 
vjtep  YI\I,Z>V  xatfap  a,"  forlTttxar'apaT'oj,  (asin 
ver.  10;) — i.  e.,  by  enduring  for  us  a  cruel  capi- 
tal punishment,  (to  which,  according  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  only  the  grossest  offenders  were 
liable.)  Cf.  Isaiah,  liii.  4 — 6,  from  which  the 
apostles  frequently  borrow  these  and  similar 
expressions. 

(3)  With  the  passages  already  cited  belong 
those  which  teach  that  Christ  took  upon  himself 
and  bore  the  sins  of  men — i.  e.,  endured  the  pu- 
nishment which  men  would  have  endured  for 
their  sins.  In  Hebrew  the  phrase  is  \\y  Nfeu,  or 
Sap ;  in  the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Testament, 
tyspeiv  or  (upeiv  apupfids.  It  occurs  in  the  text, 
Is.  liii.  4,  which  is  always  referred  by  the  New 
Testament  to  Christ.  Also  John,  i.  29 ;  1  Pet.ii. 
24 ;  Heb.  ix.  28,  &c.  Some  would  render  fepew 
or  oi'petv  apaptCav  by  auferre  peccatum,  to  make 
men  virtuous,  to  reform  them  in  a  moral  respect. 
The  only  passage  in  the  New  Testament  in 
in  which  the  phrase  will  bear  this  interpretation 
is  1  John,  iii.  5,  where  it  is  equally  capable  of 
the  other  rendering.  The  phrase  commonly 
has  the  meaning  first  given,  and  a  different  in- 
terpretation does  the  greatest  violence  to  the 
passages  in  which  it  occurs;  the  comparison 
being  so  clearly  derived  from  sacrifices. 

But  what  is  the  origin  of  this  signification  of 
the  term?  In  the  Old  Testament,  sin  is  fre- 
quently compared  with  a  burden  which  oppresses 
any  one,  and  which  he  is  compelled  to  carry, 
when  he  feels  the  unpleasant  consequences  of 
sin,  or  is  punished.  So  in  Arabic,  to  bear  one's 
own  or  another's  burden.  Hence  the  phrase  was 
used  in  reference  (a)  to  the  victim,  which  was 
sacrificed  for  the  atonement  of  sin.  The  victim 
was  supposed  to  have  the  sin  or  punishment 
laid  upon  it;  Lev.  xvi.  21,  22.  (6)  In  reference 
to  men,-  and  first,  to  such  as  were  punished  for 
their  own  sins,  Lev.  xx.  19;  xxiv.  15;  and,  se- 
condly, to  such  as  were  punished  on  account  of 
the  sens  of  others,  Lam.  v.  7,  "  We  must  bear 
the  sins  of  our  fathers."  Ezek.  xviii.  20  ;  also, 
Is.  liii.,  "  The  punishment  lies  on  him ;  he  bears 
our  sins."  This  sense  holds  in  the  passages 
cited  from  the  New  Testament.  John,  i.  29, 
*' Behold  the  (sacrificial)  lamb  acceptable  to 


God,  which  bears  the  sins  of  the  world !" — a 
comparison  drawn  from  sacrifices.  This  com- 
parison is  inapplicable,  according  to  the  other 
interpretation — the  Lamb  which  makes  us  pious 
and  virtuous.  In  Heb.  ix.,  the  figure  implied 
in  Ttpoatvfx&ls  is  taken  from  sacrifices.  In  1 
Pet.  ii.  24,  the  two  ideas  are  distinguished ; 
first,  "he  bore  our  sins  on  the  cross,"  (i.  e., 
suffered  on  the  cross  the  punishment  of  our 
sins;)  then,  "that  we  might  die  to  sin  (spiritu- 
ally), and  live  wholly  to  holiness,  (Sixatotfvw?.)" 

(4)  The  passages  which  teach  that  the  death 
of  Christ  was  a  ransom  for  us,  (xvrpov,  avtC- 
a/urpoj/,)  1  Tim.  ii.  6,  and  even  in  the  discourse 
of  Christ,  Matt.  xx.  28.     The  term  hvtpov  de- 
notes anything  by  which  one  is  freed,  delivered, 
Vide  s.  IOG,  II.   The  meaning  of  the  proposition, 
then,  is  this  :   The  death  of  Christ  was  the  means 
of  delivering  and  rescuing  us  from  the  greatest 
misery,  from  the  punishment  of  sin;  or,  accord- 
ing to  Heb.  ix.  12,  "  Christ,  atcoi/t'av  hvtpuatv 
evpdptvos,  effected   our  eternal  liberation  from 
misery  and  punishment;"  Is.  xliii.  3,  4. 

(5)  All  the  texts  which  compare  the  death  of 
Christ  with   the  sacrifices  and   Levitical  ordi- 
nances of  the  Old  Testament;   also  the  texts 
which  teach  that  the  death  of  Christ  obtained, 
once  for  all,  and  in  a  far  more  perfect  manner, 
the  advantages  which  men  had  hoped  to  obtain 
from  their  sacrifices  and  expiatory  rites.    This 
doctrine  was  indeed  founded  in  the  ideas  preva- 
lent at  that  period,  and  was  particularly  evident 
and  convincing  to  the  Jews  then  living,  and  to 
such  of  the  heathen  nations  as  were  accustomed 
to  the  rites  of  sacrifice.   But  it  was  by  no  means 
intended  for  such  exclusively;  since  it  is  also 
founded  in  a  feeling  which  is  universal  among 
men,  that  some  means  of  atonement  are  neces- 
sary ;  s.  108.    The  apostles,  therefore,  in  their 
instructions  to  Jews,  heathen,  and  Christians,  de- 
rive their  expressions  and  comparisons  from  sa- 
crifices, and  only  in  their  instructions  to  Jews, 
from  the  particular  services  of  the  Mosaic  ritual. 

The  idea  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  this 
comparison  is  this  :  "  Christ  by  his  death  liberated 
us  from  death"  (punishment  of  sin),  which  we 
should  have  suffered ;  and  we  should  see  in  him 
(a)  what  dreadful  consequences  our  sins  incur, 
and  (Z>)  how  gracious  God  is,  in  forgiving  us  for 
the  sake  of  Christ."  Ephes.  v.  2, 
tawtbv  vrtep  qpuv  0?ci  rtpotifyopav, 
6afjiriv  «vu>6t'aj.  Romans,  iii.  25, 
Heb.  ix.  7, 11— 28;  x.  1—14;  Acts,  xiii.  38,  &c, 
Hence  the  term  a!/*a  (csedes  cruenta),  which  so 
frequently  stands  for  the  death  of  Christ,  is  to  be 
understood  in  its  full  sense.  It  frequently  stands 
in  such  a  connexion  as  shews  that  the  figure  is 
derived  from  the  blood  of  the  sacrificial  victim, 
and  from  the  qualities  ascribed  to  it — e.  g.,  Heb. 
ix.  13, 14,  al/.ia  -favpcov  xai  tpdy&v,  in  opposition 
to  alfia  XpwJf  ov — xa&apisi.  1  John,  i.  7,  "  The 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       393 


blood  of  Christ  cleanses,"  &c.  1  Pet.  i.  19, 
"The  blood  of  Christ,  a  lamb  without  spot  or 
blemish:'' 

Taking  all  these  texts  together,  there  is  no 
room  to  doubt  that  the  apostles  entertained  the 
opinions  respecting  the  death  of  Christ,  and  its 
effect,  which  were  ascribed  to  them  at  the  com- 
mencement of  this  section.  These  opinions  have 
been  shewn  (s.  108),  not  only  to  correspond  with 
the  particular  circle  of  ideas  with  which  they 
were  familiar  at  that  period,  but  to  meet  a  uni- 
versal necessity  of  man.  This  is  a  necessity, 
indeed,  which  is  but  little  felt  by  the  learned, 
and  least  of  all  by  the  merely  speculative  scho- 
lar. Vide  1  Cor.  i. — iii. 

II.  Universality,  and  Perfect  and  Perpetual  Validity 
of  the  Atonement. 

(1)  Its  universality.  Two  points  must  here 
be  noticed. 

First.  According  to  the  clear  testimony  of 
the  Bible,  Christ  endured  death  for  the  whole 
human  race ;  2  Cor.  v.  14,  15,  vrtsp  ttdvfuv  arts- 
Sdvy.  Ver.  19,  "God  reconciled  the  world  to 
himself  through  Christ."  1  Tim.  ii.  6,  Sovs 
savtbv  a>vT?favtpov  vrtfp  rcavtuv.  1  John,  ii.  2, 
"  He  is  the  propitiator,  not  only  for  our  sins,  (i. 
e.,  those  of  Christians,)  but  also  for  the  sins 
6xov  tov  XOG/JLOV,"  &c.  But  the  passages  which 
are  most  explicit  upon  this  subject  are  found  in 
the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  where  Paul  contro- 
verts the  mistaken  opinion  of  the  Jews  that  the 
blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  belong  ex- 
clusively to  the  posterity  of  Abraham.  He 
shews,  Romans,  v.  12 — 19,  that  as  one  man  was 
the  author  of  sin  in  the  world,  and  of  the  conse- 
quent punishment  which  all  now  endure,  so  one 
man  is  the  author  of  salvation  and  forgiveness 
for  all.  In  Romans,  iii.  9, 22,  he  shews  that  as 
the  moral  disease  is  universal  among  men,  the 
remedy  must  needs  be  universal;  and,  in  ver. 
29,  that  the  benevolence  of  God  is  not  confined 
to  a  small  portion,  but  embraces  the  whole  fa- 
mily of  man. 

In  such  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
term  rfotoob  or  oi  jtoXtoi  frequently  stands  for 
rtavT'fj.  E.  g.,  Rom.  v.  19,  ol  TtokW  stands  for 
all  men  who  are  obnoxious  to  punishment  and 
need  forgiveness;  as  it  reads  ver.  12,  18.  The 
same  in  ver.  15.  Cf.  Matt.  xx.  28;  xxvi.  28 ; 
1  Cor.  x.  33,  &c.  The  Hebrews  used  the  word 
oo?  in  the  same  way,  Is.  liii.  12.  Ml  involves 
the  idea  of  many,  and  hence  in  the  ancient  lan- 
guages the  words  which  signify  many  are  often 
used  to  denote  universality — so  many!  such  a 
multitude!  This  was  the  case  especially  where 
only  one  was  pointed  out  in  contrast  to  the  many ; 
one  for  so  many  ! 

Note. — The  question  has  been  asked,  whether 
Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.  The  strict  particu- 
larists  and  predestinarians  answered  this  ques- 
50 


tion  in  the  negative,  on  the  ground  that  the 
death  of  Christ  does  not  actually  secure  the  sal- 
vation of  the  wicked,  and  is  of  no  advantage  to 
them.  But  because  some,  by  their  own  fault, 
derive  no  advantage  from  the  death  of  Christ, 
we  cannot  say  that  the  death  of  Christ  does  not 
concern  them,  and  that  Christ  did  not  die  for 
them,  any  more  than  we  can  say  that  divine  in- 
struction has  no  power  in  itself  to  reform  man- 
kind, because  many  will  not  allow  themselves 
to  be  reformed  by  it.  Moreover,  this  opinion  is 
inconsistent  with  the  New  Testament.  In  2  Pet. 
ii.  1,  the  false  teachers  and  deceivers,  whom  a 
dreadful  destruction  awaited,  are  said  expressly 
to  deny  the  Lord  who  bought  (redeemed)  them. 
Misunderstanding  and  logomachy  may  be  obvi- 
ated by  attending  to  the  just  remark  of  the 
schoolmen,  that  the  design  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  the  adua/results  of  it,  should  be  distinguish- 
ed. Aciu  primo,  Christ  died  for  all  men;  but 
actu  secundo,  not  for  all  men,  but  only  for  be- 
lievers— i.  e.,  according  to  the  purpose  of  God, 
all  might  be  exempted  from  punishment  and 
rendered  happy  by  the  death  of  Christ;  but  all 
do  not  suffer  this  purpose  actually  to  take  effect 
with  regard  to  themselves ;  and  only  believers 
actually  attain  to  this  blessedness. 

Secondly.  Christ  removed  the  whole  punish- 
ment of  sin ;  his  death  atoned  for  all  sins.  So 
the  apostles  declare.  1  John,  i.  7,  "The  blood 
of  Christ  cleanses  from  all  sin."  Romans,  v. 
16  ;  viii.  1,  ovSev  xafdxfup.a,  T'otj  iv  XpttfT'cp,  Acts, 
xiii.  38,  &c.  But  an  apparent  difficulty  is  here 
suggested,  which  must  be  answered  from  the 
discussion  respecting  punishments,  (s.  86,  87,) 
and  can  therefore  only  be  touched  here. 

Now  there  are  two  kinds  of  punishments — 
viz.,  natural,  such  as  flow  from  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  moral  action  itself,  (e.  g.,  debi- 
lity and  disease  from  luxurious  excess;)  and 
positive,  such  as  do  not  result  directly  from  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  moral  action,  but  are 
connected  with  it  by  the  free  will  of  the  law- 
giver. God  actually  threatens  to  inflict  such 
positive  punishments  upon  the  wicked,  espe- 
cially in  the  future  world ;  just  as  he  promises, 
on  the  other  hand,  to  bestow  positive  rewards  in 
the  future  world  upon  the  righteous,  s.  87. 
Again ;  the  natural  punishments  of  sin  are  of 
two  kinds — viz.,  (a)  physical,  as  sickness  in 
consequence  of  immoderation;  and  (fc)  moral 
(by  far  the  worst !),  such  as  disquiet  of  mind, 
remorse  of  conscience,  and  dread  of  God  ;  s.  86, 
II.  2. 

Now,  has  Christ  redeemed  us  from  all  these 
punishments  ?  Those  who  mean  to  speak  strictly 
and  logically  reply,  no!  Christ  has  redeemed 
us,  properly  speaking,  only  from  positive  divine 
punishments  in  the  future  world,  and  from  that 
kind  of  natural  punishments  which  may  be  called 
moral,  or  the  evil  results  of  sin  in  a  moral  respect. 


394 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Even  the  man  who  is  reformed  still  retains  the 
consciousness  of  the  sins  which  he  has  commit- 
ted, and  reflects  upon  them  with  sorrow,  shame, 
and  regret.  But  the  pardoned  sinner  knows 
that  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  has  forgiven  his 
sins;  and  so  is  no  longer  subject  to  that  disquiet 
of  mind,  pain  of  conscience,  dread  of  God  and 
despair — the  pcena  moralis  of  sin,  which  render 
the  wicked  miserable. 

The  physical  part  of  natural  punishment  in- 
deed remains,  even  after  the  transgressor  is  re-  J 
formed.     If  any  one,  by  his  extravagance,  has  ! 
made  himself  sick  and  poor,  he  will  not,  in  con-  j 
sequence  of  being  pardoned  and  renewed,  become  : 
well    and    prosperous.     The    physical    conse-  ; 
quences  of  sin  continue,  not  only  through  the 
present   life,  but  probably  through  the   life  to 
come.     They  can  be  obviated  only  by  a  miracu- 
lous interference  of  God,  which  is  nowhere  pro- 
mised.    But  these  very  physical  consequences  \ 
of  sin,  whose  evil  is  so  lasting,  are  like  a  bitter  ! 
medicine ;  they  have  a  good  effect,  and  secure 
us  from  turning  again  from  the  right  path.     Al- 
though one  who  is  pardoned  has  therefore  no 
right  to  expect  that  the  physical  evils  resulting  ! 
from  his  transgression  will  be  counteracted  by  i 
his  being  subsequently  forgiven,  yet  he  may 
hope,  both  from  what  has  now  been  said  and  ! 
from  common  experience,  that  these  evils  will 
be  very  much  diminished,  will  lose  the  terror 
of  punishment,  and  contribute  to  his  good.   Such 
is  the  case  exactly  with  bodily  death. 

The  same  truth  is  taught  in  the  Bible,  not 
indeed  in  a  scientific  manner,  which  would  be 
unintelligible  to  men  at  large,  but  in  the  popular 
manner,  in  which  it  should  always  be  taught. 
(1)  The  Bible  never  says  that  Christ  has  entirely 
removed  the  physical  evils  which  naturally  re- 
sult from  sin.  (2)  When  the  sacred  writers  say 
that  Christ  suffered  punishment  for  us,  they  mean 
principally  the  positive  punishment,  from  which 
he  has  liberated  us  by  his  sufferings  and  death. 
Vide  s.  87,  No.  2.  They  also  teach,  (3)  That 
one  who  trusts  in  Christ  can  take  courage,  can 
love  God  and  confide  in  him  without  dreading 
his  anger,  and  without  distressing  himself  in 
view  of  his  past  guilt,  which  is  now  forgiven 
him  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  The  remission  of 
the  moral  punishments  which  naturally  flow 
from  sin  is  thus  set  forth  in  a  manner  which 
ought  to  be  followed  by  the  public  teacher. 
Vide  s.  109,  ad  finem.  (4)  But  the  terms  par- 
don and  forgiveness  of  sin  are  frequently  used  in 
the  New  Testament  in  a  wider  sense,  compre- 
hending all  the  divine  favours  which  the  par- 
doned receive  from  God ;  they  denote  the  whole 
amount  of  the  blessedness — the  salvation — which 
the  pardoned  enjoy.  Vide  s.  109,  Note.  If, 
therefore,  (5)  the  natural  physical  consequences 
of  past  sins  are  not  removed,  they  still  lose  their 
beverity;  they  are  rendered  mild  and  in  many 


respects  beneficial ;  they  are  vastly  overbalanced 
by  the  various  blessings  bestowed,  and  thus 
cease,  in  their  actual  effects,  to  be  punishments. 
The  holy  scriptures,  therefore,  declare  with 
truth,  that  the  blood  of  Christ  atones  for  all  sins. 
Cf.  the  programm  of  Noesselt,  above  cited. 

Note. — Theologians  have  been  divided  on  the 
question,  whether  the  apostles  held  that  the  sins 
committed  before  Christ,  or  during  the  Old-Tes- 
tament dispensation,  were  forgiven  by  God  on 
account  of  the  atonement  to  be  afterwards  made. 
Doederlein  and  others  take  the  negative  side. 
They  say  that  the  atysais  jtpoyfyovor'wv  auapT'^/ua- 
t'coj/,  Rom.  iii.  25,  may  denote  the  remission  of 
the  sins  which- the  Jews  and  Gentiles  of  that 
age  had  committed  before  their  conversion  to 
Christianity.  The  7tapa,3a(j6tj  sjti  tr[  rtpwr1^ 
Sta^-yjx^,  Heb.  ix.  15,  may  be  understood  in  the 
same  way,  or  may  denote  the  sins  which  were 
irremissible  during  the  Old-Testament  dispensa- 
tion. Vide  ver.  9.  But  the  context  of  this  pas- 
sage is  more  favourable  to  the  common  interpre- 
tation. 

Besides,  the  affirmative  of  this  question  is 
supported,  (1)  By  the  whole  analogy  of  scrip- 
ture.  The  Jews  of  that  age  agree  with  Christ 
and  the  apostles  in  teaching  that  men  of  the 
earliest  times  hoped  for  the  Messiah — that  the 
divine  ordinances  of  the  former  dispensation  re- 
ferred to  him,  and  pointed  him  out — and  that  all 
the  pious  of  antiquity  confided  in  him.  Vide 
John,  viii.  56;  Luke,  x.  24;  1  Pet.  i.  10,  11. 
Cf.  s.  90.  (2)  By  the  passage,  Heb.  ix.  26, 
where  this  doctrine  is  plainly  implied.  "  God 
appointed  that  Christ  should  suffer  and  die  for 
all  sins,  and  once  for  all.  Otherwise,  it  would 
i  have  been  necessary  that  he  should  suffer  more 
than  once  (rtoM-axtj)  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  ;  since  there  were  always  sinners  in  the 
world."  This  plainly  involves  the  sentiment 
that  Christ  died  for  the  men  who  lived  before 
him.  The  opinion  of  Lreffler  and  other  modern 
writers,  that  pardon  through  the  death  of  Christ 
related  only  to  the  new  converts  from  Judaism 
and  heathenism  is  entirely  false  and  contradic- 
tory to  the  New  Testament.  Vide  Gal.  iii.  21, 
seq.;  Romans,  i.  18,  seq.,  coll.  1  Thess.  i.  10; 
John,  iii.  13 — 16;  Romans,  v.  18,  19;  and 
especially  1  John,  ii.  1,  2. 

(2)  The  other  attribute  of  the  atoning  death 
of  Christ  is,  its  permanent  and  perfect  validity, 
( perennitas,  perennis  valor  meriti  Christi.) 

This  doctrine  is  held  in  opposition  to  those 
who  believe  that  the  expiatory  sacrifice  of 
Christ  is  not  valid  and  sufficient  for  the  atone- 
ment of  some  particular  sins,  and  who  therefore 
seek  for  other  means  of  obtaining  pardon,  such 
as  penances  and  satisfactions.  This  opinion 
has  not  only  prevailed  in  modern  times,  espe- 
cially since  the  middle  ages,  throughout  the 
whole  body  of  the  Romish  church,  but  former- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       395 


ly,  though  in  different  forms,  even  in  the  times 
of  the  apostles,  among  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Vide 
s.  108,  No.  I.  Paul  therefore  shews,  especially 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  Christ  had 
sacrificed  himself  once  for  a//(a7to|)  for  all  sins, 
and  that  now  no  more  sacrifices,  penances,  and 
expiations  are  necessary  for  men.  Heb.  vii. 
27,  Tovto  iitoirfitv  s^artaf,  tavtbv  avsvtyxas. 
Heb.  ix.  25,  26  —  28,  "  He  appeared  at  the  close 
of  this  age,  artot  tl$  a^st^atv  apaptias'  and  then 
aTtot  ftfX)<JfV(%&sl$  £i$  to  7toM.&>v  avevfyxtiiV  d/itap- 
tft'aj.  So  also,  x.  14,  fiia  rtpoff^opa  tsttteitaxsv 
tov$  ayia£ofj,£vov$.  Accord- 


ingly, Christ  is  said,  ix.  11,  by  his  once  enter- 
ing into  the  heavens,  to  have  procured  eternal 
redemption 


SECTION  CXII 

OF  THE  INFLUENCE  WHICH  THE  RESURRECTION  OF 
CHRIST,  AND  HIS  SUBSEQUENT  EXALTATION  AND 
INTERCESSION,  HAVE  UPON  OUR  FORGIVENESS  OR 
JUSTIFICATION. 

IT  was  observed  (s.  110,  ad  finem)  that  the 
New  Testament  points  to  three  particulars  in 
the  justification  procured  for  us  by  Christ.  The 
first  of  these,  the  death  of  Christ,  was  consider- 
ed, s.  111.  We  come  now  to  treat  of  the  two 
remaining  particulars. 

I.  T/ie  Influence  of  the  Resurrection  and  Exaltation 
of  Christ  upon  our  Justification. 

We  have  before  examined  (s.  37)  what  is 
uniformly  taught  in  the  Bible  respecting  the  re- 
surrection of  Christ,  and  the  great  importance 
of  this  event,  and  all  this  is  here  presupposed. 
The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  mentioned,  in  con- 
nexion with  our  justification,  with  the  most  dis- 
tinctness in  the  two  following  texts  —  viz.,  2  Cor. 
v.  15,  "  Christians  should  not  live  for  their  own 
pleasure  (lavro  £*?v),  but  for  the  honour  of 
Christ,  and  according  to  his  will,  rci  vrtsp  avtuv 
arto&avovti  xai  fysp^avi't"  (sc.  vrtsp  avt<l>v)  ;  and 
Rom.  iv.  25,  "He  died  (according  to  the  divine 
purpose)  6ia  ta  xapartttopata  i^uwj/,  ^ycp^jf 
6  ta  t  q  v  8  i  x  a  Loavvrj  v  ^^GJV." 

What  is  meant  by  his  being  raised  for  our 
justification  must  be  gathered  from  other  pas- 
sages. 1  Pet.  i.  3,  "God  has  made  us,  by 
means  of  Christianity,  reformed  men  (born 
again"),  that  we  might  cherish  a  firm  hope  (n'$ 
ihrti8a  ^wtfav,  sc.  of  future  happiness,  ver.  4), 
through  the'  resurrection  of  Christ.  1  Pet.  i.  21, 
*'  God  has  raised  Christ  and  rewarded  him  with 
glory  (the  state  of  exaltation  in  the  heavens), 
that  he  —  the  risen  and  glorified  Christ  —  might 
be  your  confidence  and  hope  in  God"  —  i.  e.,  that 
you  should  consider  him  as  the  person  to  whom 
alone  you  are  indebted  for  the  confidence  which 
you  now  are  enabled  to  repose  in  God.  1  Cor. 
xv.  17,  "If  Christ  were  not  risen,  then  the  con- 


fidence (rtt'tfT'ij)  which  you  feel  in  him  would 
be  vain ;  tVt  sate  iv  aftaptiais  -fytwv" — i.  e.,  you 
could  not  be  certain  of  that  forgiveness  which 
you  now  hope  to  obtain  from  God  through 
Christ.  Cf.  Rom.  viii.  34. 

From  these  passages  taken  together  we  can 
easily  gather  the  relation  and  connexion  in 
which  the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Christ 
stand  to  our  justification  and  forgiveness.  The 
resurrection  of  Christ,  then,  cannot  be  consider- 
ed to  have  any  desert  in  itself  alone,  nor  can  it 
be  supposed,  separately  considered,  to  have  freed 
us  from  the  punishment  of  sin.  But,  according 
to  the  Bible,  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and  his 
subsequent  reward  in  heaven  give  attestation 
and  confirmation  to  all  that  he  taught  and  suf- 
fered. For  since  God  raised  and  rewarded 
Christ,  we  must  conclude  that  lie  fully  ap- 
proved of  everything  which  Jesus  taught  and 
performed — and  that  Christ  must  have  accom- 
plished His  designs.  Did  Christ  suffer  and 
die  with  the  intention  of  liberating  us  from  the 
punishment  of  sin,  we  may  be  sure,  since  his 
resurrection  and  exaltation,  that  he  fully  attain- 
ed this  object,  and  that  we  can  now  through  him 
lay  claim  to  reward  and  eternal  happiness.  This 
is  what  Peter  means  by  *.lon.$  xai  &jti$  r^v. 
In  the  passage  cited  from  1  Cor.,  Paul  means  to 
say,  that  if  Christ  were  not  risen,  we  might  be 
led  to  suspect  that  he  had  not  performed  what 
he  promised  and  undertook  to  perform. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  understand  the  mean- 
ing of  the  declaration  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, jjysp^  e tj  &Lxaioavvi»v  ^uwv — viz.,  in  order 
to  afford  us  certainty  of  our  forgiveness,  of  which 
we  could  have  no  certainty  if  Christ  had  re- 
!  mained  in  the  grave.     Vide  Acts,  xiii.  37,  38. 
I  Accordingly,    the   resurrection    and   exaltation 
i  (8o£a,  as  Peter  has  it),  of  Christ  are  the  con- 
|  Jirmation  and    assurance  of    our    justification, 
while  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  are  pro- 
perly the  procuring  cause  of  it. 

II.  The  Influence  of  the  Intercession  of  Christ  upon 
our  Justification. 

(1)  Sketch  of  the  history  of  this  doctrine. 
Many  theologians,  and  some  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical fathers,  represent  intercession  as  a  conti- 

|  nued  external  action  of  Christ,  different  from 
his  atonement,  by  which  blessings  are  not  only 
imparted  to  us,  but  likewise  procured  for  us. 
Among  the  fathers  who  held  this  opinion  were 
Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  Gregory  the  Great, 

|  Paulus  of  Aquilia,  and  others;  among  modern 
theologians,  Calvin,  and  of  the  Lutheran  church, 
Chemnitz,  Baumgarten,  and  others.  These 
writers  regard  the  intercession  of  Christ  as  a 
distinct'work  performed  by  him  in  his  state  of 
exaltation  in  heaven.  They  have  very  different 
conceptions,  however,  respecting  the  manner  of 
this  work,  some  of  which  are  very  gross.  Many 


39G 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


of  them  contended  for  an  intercessio  verbalis — 
e.  g.,  Cyprian  and  Augustine;  and  their  opi- 
nion was  adopted  in  the  Romish  church.  Ac- 
cordingly, Luther  renders  ivtvyzdvsi,  Heb.  vii. 
25,  "  Er  bittetfur  sie,"  (he  prays  for  them.}  So 
Petavius,  Hollaz,  Quenstedt,  and  many  others, 
among  the  Lutherans.  They  also  differ  widely 
from  one  another  respecting  the  nature,  object, 
and  continuance  of  this  intercession.  Some 
consider  it  as  belonging  to  the  sacerdotal  office, 
in  which  case  the  comparison  is  drawn  from 
the  Jewish  high  priest  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews. Nothing  definite  upon  the  subject  ap- 
pears in  the  symbols,  except  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession;  and  even  there  no  distinct  expla- 
nation is  given. 

Another  theory,  which  entirely  divests  the 
subject  of  its  material  dress,  and  which  has 
therefore  been  more  generally  approved  in  mo- 
dern times,  was  first  distinctly  stated  by  Philip 
Limborch,  the  Arminian  theologian,  and  by 
Musaeus  in  the  seventeenth  century.  They 
consider  the  intercession  of  Christ  to  be  merely 
the  relation  in  which  he,  in  his  state  of  exalta- 
tion, stands  to  sinners,  as  their  Redeemer,  and 
not  as  a  continued  action,  by  which  he  still  pro- 
motes the  welfare  of  men,  and  by  which  salva- 
tion is  still  procured  for  them.  The  same  opi- 
nion is  found  in  Ballhorn's  dissertation,  De  in- 
tercessione  Christi  sacerdotali,  (among  Walch's 
Vorsitze;)  Gottingen,  1774.  This  opinion, 
however,  does  not  exactly  correspond  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bible. 

(2)  Explanation  of  the  texts  relating  to  this 
subject,  and  an  elucidation  of  the  ideas  contained 
in  them.  These  texts  are — 

(a)  1  John,  ii.  1.  "When  a  Christian  has 
committed  sin,  (let  him  not  despair  of  pardon, 
but  encourage  himself  with  the  thought,  that) 
we  have  rtapdxhrjtov  rtpoj  tbv  jta-ttpa,  in 
Jesus,  the  righteous."  Here  Ttapcix^roj  is,  pa- 
tronus,  advocate,  defender,  (Fiirsprecher,  Luther.) 
This  name  is  given  by  Philo  to  the  ministers 
and  favourites  at  court,  who  promise  to  any  one 
the  favour  of  the  king;  and  also  to  the  high 
priest,  the  expiator  of  the  people.  Vide  Pro- 
gram m,  De  Christo  et  Spiritu  Sancto  paracletis, 
in  "  Scripta  varii  argument!,"  Num.  iv.  In 
this  respect  it  is  that  Christ  is  called 
7*05.  He  is  our  expiator,  l%.a,G/j.b$  Ttspt) 
ver.  2.  Accordingly,  the  meaning  of  this  pas- 
sage is,  that  since  Christ  is  exalted  to  heaven, 
and  while  he  continues  there,  we  may  be  firmly 
convinced  that  God  will  be  gracious  to  us,  and 
for  Christ's  sake  will  remit  the  punishment  of 
our  sins;  and  that  Christ,  in  his  state  of  exalta- 
tion, continues  without  intermission  his  cares 
fur  the  welfare  of  men. 

(&)  Rom,  viii.  34,  Here  Paul  says,  "No  one 
can  condemn  (xytaxpivsiv)  the  friends  of  God, 
(Christians.)  They  are  exempt  from  punish- 


ment. Christ  died  for  them ;  and  indeed,  (what 
might  add  to  their  comfort,)  had  risen  again, 
was  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  oj  xai  ev- 
vrtsp  npuv,  (vertritt  uns,  Luther.)  'Ef- 
,  joined  with  the  dative,  means  occur- 
rere  alicui ;  then,  adire,  convenire  aliquem,  Acts, 
xxv.  24;  joined  with  xata  (tivo$),  accusare, 
Rom.  xi.  2 ;  with  vrtfp  (ftVoj),  medium  se  alte- 
rius  causa  interponere,  to  interpose  in  behalf  of 
one,  to  intercede  for  him ;  as  here,  intercedere 
pro  aliquo,  deprecari,  causam  alicujus  agere. 
From  this  text  it  does  not  appear  that  this  in- 
tercession was  performed  by  words.  The  prin- 
cipal idea  is,  "  Christ  is  now,  as  it  were,  our 
patron  with  God ;  his  being  with  God  in  hea- 
ven gives  us  the  consoling  assurance  that 
through  him  we  are  for  ever  reconciled  with 
God  and  freed  from  the  punishment  of  sin;  and 
that,  as  the  advocate  and  patron  of  the  pious, 
Christ  still  prosecutes  in  heaven  his  labours  for 
their  welfare." 

(c)  Heb.  vii.  25,  seq.  Here  the  case  is  the 
same.  "Christ  (being  an  eternal  high  priest) 
can  for  ever  bless  (ow^tv  £t$  -to  rtavtttei)  all 
those  who  seek  the  favour  of  God  through  his 
mediation,  since  he  ever  lives  d$  to  htvyzd- 
vstv" — i.  e.,  since  Christ  ever  lives  with  God 
in  heaven  we  can  always  be  sure  of  forgiveness 
and  of  every  divine  blessing;  for  he  is  not  in 
heaven  in  vain,  but  even  there  continues  to  be 
engaged  for  our  welfare.  The  phrase  intercessio 
sacerdotalis  is  taken  from  this  passage ;  for  the 
figure  here,  as  in  the  whole  chapter,  is  borrowed 
from  the  Jewish  high  priest,  who  on  the  great 
day  of  atonement  entered  into  the  most  holy 
place  and  made  expiation  for  the  sins  of  the 
people,  (pro  populo  intercedebat  apud  Deum.) 
He  did  not  do  this,  however,  by  words  (he  spake 
no  word,  vide  Ex.  xxviii.  and  Lev.  xvii.),  but 
by  action — namely,  by  offering  the  blood  of  the 
victim.  The  object  of  this  comparison,  then, 
is  to  shew  that  Christ  performs  with  God  in 
the  heavenly  world  what  the  Jewish  high  priest 
did  yearly  for  the  people  upon  the  earth.  It  re- 
fers, then,  both  to  the  permanent  validity  of  the 
atonement  of  Christ,  and  to  his  continued  la- 
bours in  heaven  for  the  salvation  of  men.  Re- 
specting this  figure,  cf.  Morus,  p.  155,  seq. 

Heb.  ix.  24 — a  parallel  passage,  which 
confirms  the  above  explanation.  "  Christ  did 
not  enter  into  an  earthly  temple,  like  the  Jewish 
high  priest,  but  into  heaven  itself,  vvv  e /t  $  a  f  t  cr- 
po'jiJTt^  ©fov  vrtzp  ^uwv" — the  very 
phrase  applied  to  the  high  priest  when  he  pre- 
sented to  God,  in  the  temple,  the  blood  of  atone- 
ment for  the  people.  It  means,  therefore,  "in 
order  to  procure  for  us  a  firm  assurance  of  being 
expiated,  or  of  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  and  of 
the  enjoyment  of  all  the  spiritual  blessings  con- 
nected with  forgiveness." 

The  intercession  of  Christ  before  God  in  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       397 


/heavenly  world  denotes,  then,  both  the  lasting 
^and  perfect  validity  and  efficacy  of  his  atone- 
ment, of  which  we  obtain  consoling  assurance  by 
his  abiding  with  God  in  his  state  of  exaltation, 
and  also  the  continued  wakeful  care  which  Jesus 
Christ  exercises  in  heaven  over  his  followers  on 
the  earth.  In  short,  the  intercession  of  Christ 
is  one  of  the  chief  employments  which  Christ 
prosecutes  in  heaven  in  his  state  of  exaltation, 
as  the  King  and  Patron  of  men,  and  especially 
of  the  Christian  church,  and  its  individual  mem- 
bers ;  s.  98.  He  is  our  Paracletus  and  Patron, 
therefore,  not  merely  in  respect  to  what  he  for- 
merly did  for  men  while  upon  the  earth,  but  also 
in  respect  to  the  efforts  which  he  still  continues 
to  make  for  our  welfare. 

The  Bible  nowhere  teaches  that  this  interces- 
sion consists  in  words.  But  considering  that 
Christ  must  still  be  regarded  as  a  man,  though 
in  heaven,  there  is  no  objection  to  representing 
the  thing  under  the  figure  of  actual  intercession. 
In  brief,  Christ  does  for  us  all  and  more  than 
could  be  done  among  men  through  verbal  inter- 
cession, or  other  kinds  of  interposition,  by  a 
powerful  human  advocate.  The  passage,  Heb. 
xii.  24,  may  here  be  compared :  "  The  blood  of 
Christ  speaks  better  (for  us)  than  the  blood  of 
Abel."  The  blood  of  Abel  cried  to  God  for 
vengeance  upon  Cain.  The  death  of  Christ 
moves  God,  not  to  punish,  but  to  bless  and  for- 
give. 

SECTION  CXIII. 

THE  SCRIPTURE  DOCTRINE  OF  PARDON  OR  JUSTIFI- 
CATION THROUGH  CHRIST,  AS  AN  UNIVERSAL  AND 
UNMERITED  FAVOUR  OF  GOD. 

I.  The  Universality  of  this  Benefit. 

IT  is  universal  as  the  atonement  itself.  Vide 
•s.  Ill,  II.  If  the  atonement  extends  to  the 
whole  human  race,  justification  must  also  be 
universal — i.  e.,  all  must  be  able  to  obtain  the 
actual  forgiveness  of  their  sins  and  blessedness 
on  account  of  the  atonement  of  Christ.  But  in 
order  to  obviate  mistakes,  some  points  may  re- 
quire explanation.  Justification,  then,  is  uni- 
versal^ 

(I)  In  respect  to  the  persons  to  be  pardoned. 

Jill  men,  according  to  the  Bible,  may  partake 
of  this  benefit.  It  was  designed  for  all.  Vide 
especially  Rom.  iii.  23;  v.  15;  s.  Ill,  in  oppo- 
sition to  Jewish  exclusiveness.  It  is  bestowed, 
however,  conditionally ,-  certain  conditions  are 
prescribed  which  are  indispensable.  Those  who 
<lo  not  comply  with  these  conditions  are  excluded 
from  the  enjoyment  of  the  benefit.  Justification 
and  forgiveness  are  not,  therefore,  universal  in 
effect  (actu),  and  this  solely  through  the  fault  of 
men.* 


{This  is  very  conveniently   expressed  by   the 


Another  conclusion  from  the  universality  of 
justification  is,  that  every  one  may  be  sure  of 
his  forgiveness.  This  certainty,  however,  must 
not  be  founded  upon  inward  feelings,  which  are 
frequently  deceptive,  but  upon  an  actual  com- 
pliance with  the  conditions  on  which  God  will 
forgive  sins.  If  any  one  finds  in  himself  the 
signs  of  true  faith,  of  sincere  love  to  God  ana 
Christ,  of  a  renewed  heart,  and  of  a  virtuous, 
Christian  disposition,  he  is  justified.  Romans, 
viii.  16,  "The  holy,  Christian  temper  (rtvtvpa.) 
wrought  in  us  by  God  gives  us  the  clearest  and 
surest  proof  that  we  are  the  children  of  God." 
1  John,  iii.  7 ;  2  Peter,  i.  9,  10.  This  certainty 
is  in  the  highest  degree  necessary  to  our  tran- 
quillity and  happiness;  1  Tim.  i.  16;  1  Cor.  vi. 
11;  1  John,  v.  18—20. 

(2)  In  respect  to  sins  and  the  punishment  of 
sin. 

(a)  As  to  sins  ,•  the  position  that  all  sins  with- 
out exception  are  forgiven  for  Christ's  sake  is 
proved  partly  from  the  power  and  efficacy  of 
the  atonement  of  Christ,  which  is  extended  to 
all  sins,  (vide  s.  Ill,  and  the  texts  there  cited  ;) 
and  partly  from  the  texts  which  promise  forgive- 
ness of  all  sins,  even  the  greatest  and  blackest, 
to  those  who  comply  with  the  prescribed  condi- 
tions of  pardon;  Ezekiel,  xviii.  21,  22;  Psalm, 
ciii.  3;  1  Cor.  vi.  11 ;  Ephes.  ii.  5 ;  1  Tim.  i. 
15.  The  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  cannot  be 
regarded  as  an  exception.  Vide  s.  84. 

(6)  As  to  the  punishment  of  sin,  the  answer 
to  the  question,  whether  the  pardoned  are 
exempt  from  all  the  punishments  of  sin,  whe- 
ther, therefore,  justification  is  plena  et  perfecta, 
may  be  learned  from  s.  1 1 1,  II.  The  natural  and 
physical  evils  which  result  from  past  sins,  in- 
deed, remain,  but  they  are  mitigated  and  render- 
ed more  tolerable,  and  are  divested  of  the  terror 
of  punishment  by  the  cessation  of  the  moral 
evils  which  result  from  sin,  which  takes  place 
in  consequence  of  the  entirely  different  relation 
in  which  men  stand  to  God  after  they  are  once 
pardoned.  The  positive  punishments  of  sin  are 
entirely  removed,  and  man  receives  even  here 
the  expectation  of  positive  divine  rewards,  and 
of  the  full  enjoyment  of  them  in  the  life  to  come. 

(c)  In  respect  to  time  and  lasting  continuance. 

First. — The  scriptures  uniformly  teach  that 
forgiveness  extends  through  the  whole  life  of 
man.  He  may  receive  pardon  at  any  time, 
while  life  continues,  so  soon  as  he  fulfils  the  re- 
quisite conditions  of  forgiveness.  This  last 
clause  should  be  carefully  and  expressly  annex- 
ed, in  order  to  preserve  men  from  security  and 


terms  objective  and  subjective  justification.  Objec- 
tive justification  is  the  act  of  God,  by  which  he  prof- 
fers pardon  to  all  through  Christ ;  subjective  is  the 
act  of  man,  by  which  he  accepts  the  pardon  freely 
offered  in  the  gospel.  The  former  is  universal,  the 
latter  not. — Tn.l 

2L 


398 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


carelessness  in  sin.  Formerly  many  teachers, 
especially  in  the  Lutheran  church,  were  incau- 
tious in  the  use  of  language  on  this  subject. 
They  used  the  general  phrases,  the  door  of  mercy 
stands  ever  open;  man  can  obtain  avour  (for- 
giveness] in  the  last  moment  of  life,  without  suit- 
able explanation  and  cautious  limitation.  But 
while  it  is  important,  on  the  one  hand,  to  shew 
that  God  is  indeed  ever  ready  to  forgive,  it 
ought,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be  observed,  that 
man  is  not  always  capable  of  forgiveness ;  that 
forgiveness  is  necessarily  connected  with  repent- 
ance, as  an  indispensable  condition,  (not  imply- 
ing, by  any  means,  that  repentance  is  the  pro- 
curing-cause  of  forgiveness ;)  that  repentance 
and  holiness  are  important  things,  which  cannot 
be  accomplished  in  a  few  moments,  and  that 
therefore  it  is  extremely  dangerous  to  delay 
them  to  the  end  of  life,  especially  considering 
that  we  do  not  know  that  we  shall  then  have 
our  reason,  or  that  we  shall  not  die  suddenly. 
The  sincere  Christian  teacher  will  render  such 
considerations  as  impressive  as  possible,  in 
order  to  disturb  security  in  sin.  He  should 
guard,  however,  with  equal  caution,  against  the 
mistake  of  those  who  represent  repentance  and 
holiness  as  the  meritorious  ground  of  forgiveness. 

The  frequent  perversion  of  the  doctrine  of 
justification  gave  rise,  at  the  end  of  the  seven- 
teenth and  commencement  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  to  the  terministic  controversy.  Joh. 
Ge.  Bose,  a  deacon  at  Sorau,  in  endeavouring 
to  avoid  one  extreme  fell  into  another.  He  held 
that  God  did  not  continue  to  forgive,  even  to 
the  last,  such  persons  as  he  foresaw  would 
harden  themselves  in  impenitence,  but  that  he 
established  a  limit  of  grace,  (terminum  gratise 
sive  salutis  peremptorium,}  to  which,  and  no  fur- 
ther, he  would  afford  them  grace  for  repentance. 
He  appealed  to  the  texts  which  speak  of  God 
as  hardening  or  rejecting  men,  some  of  which 
have  no  reference  to  conversion  and  forgiveness, 
and  some  of  which  are  erroneously  explained  by 
him.  Vide  s.  85.  Ad  Rechenberg,  at  Leipsic, 
and  others,  assented  to  this  opinion,  though 
with  the  best  intentions.  But  Ittig,  Fecht, 
Neumann,  and  many  others,  opposed  this  opi- 
nion, and  wrote  against  the  work  of  Bose, 
*'  Terminus  peremptorius  salutis  humanae,"  and 
against  Rechenberg.  They  were  in  the  right. 
This  opinion  is  not  taught  in  the  holy  scriptures, 
and  is  calculated  to  lead  the  doubting  and  anx- 
ious to  despair,  and  to  place  them,  as  many  sor- 
rowful examples  teach,  in  the  most  perilous 
condition,  both  as  to  soul  and  body,  especially 
on  the  bed  of  death. 

The  doctrine  that  repentance  and  holiness  are 
the  meritorious  ground  of  salvation  would  have 
equally  terrible  consequences.  According  to 
this  doctrine,  we  should  be  compelled  to  deny 
all  hope  of  salvation  to  one  who  had  lived  an 


impenitent  sinner  till  the  last  part  of  his  life; 
which  the  Bible  never  does,  and  which  is  in 
itself  cruel.  The  conscience  even  of  the  good 
man  must  say  to  him  on  his  death-bed,  that  his 
imperfect  virtues  are  insufficient  to  merit  heaven. 
In  neither  of  these  instances,  then,  would  there 
be  any  consolation ;  but  despair  would  be  the  re- 
sult of  this  doctrine  in  both. 

Secondly.  If  one  who  has  obtained  the  forgive- 
ness of  his  sins  is  guilty  of  new  transgressions, 
he  forfeits  the  blessing  of  forgiveness,  and  all 
its  salutary  consequences;  and  by  new  offences 
incurs  new  punishments,  which,  after  his  fall, 
are  justly  more  severe  and  intolerable  than  be- 
fore. Still  it  cannot  be  said,  as  it  has  been  said 
by  some,  that  in  case  of  apostasy  God  considers 
the  sins  once  forgiven  at  the  time  of  repent- 
ance as  not  forgiven,  and  that  he  still  imputes 
them  to  the  transgressor.  There  is  no  reason  for 
this  supposition ;  and  such  is  not  the  case  in  hu- 
man courts.  The  Bible  uses  the  terms,  sins  are 
blotted  out,  no  more  remembered,  Ezekiel,  xviii. 
22;  xxxiii.  16;  Psalm  ciii.  11,  12.  So  Paul 
says,  (Rom.  xi.  29,)  that  God  will  never  recal 
or  take  back  the  gifts  which  he  has  promised 
and  bestowed,  (apctafithrfta,  ^apt's^uar'a.)  Vide 
Wernsdorf 's  Dissertation  on  this  subject  in  Coll. 
Dissertat.  t.  i.  p.  607,  seq. 

Thirdly.  Even  those  who  after  their  reforma- 
tion and  the  bestowment  of  forgiveness  fall  away 
and  transgress  anew,  may  again  obtain  the  for- 
giveness of  their  sins  as  soon  as  they  repent 
and  believe  in  Christ.  So  the  Bible  everywhere 
teaches,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament; 
Ezek.  xxxiii.  11;  1  Thess.  v.  9.  Christ  com- 
mands us  to  be  forgiving  to  our  neighbour  who 
has  wronged  us,  since  in  this  we  shall  resemble 
God,  who  is  easily  reconciled,  and  who  willingly 
forgives  sin.  Therefore  the  precept,  Matthew, 
xviii.  21,  22,  is  applicable  to  God.  This  posi- 
tion is  confirmed  by  the  examples  of  many 
apostates  in  the  Bible,  who,  after  the  commis- 
sion of  great  offences,  were  again  received  into 
favour — e.  g.,  David,  2  Samuel,  xii. ;  Peter, 
Matt,  xxvi.,  &c.  .The  condition  of  repentance 
and  faith,  however,  is  indispensable.  Vide  Ps. 
li. ;  Morus,  p.  211,  seq. 

But  from  the  earliest  ages  Christians  have  en- 
tertained various  erroneous  opinions  upon  this 
subject.  The  opinion  prevailed,  even  during  the 
earliest  ages,  that  great  sins  committed  after  bap- 
tism (by  which  ordinance  the  Christian  was  sup- 
posed to  receive  the  remission  of  sin)  could  not 
be  pardoned  without  great  difficulty,  if  indeed  at 
all,  on  which  account  many  delayed  baptism  till 
the  end  of  life. 

The  excommunication  of  great  offenders  had 
been  common  among  Christians  from  the  time  of 
the  apostles,  (as  it  was  among  the  Jews,  which 
indeed  at  that  time  was  necessary.)  But  now, 
in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  Montanus, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      399 


Novatian,  and  many  others,  began  to  exercise 
^.his  prerogative  very  severely,  and  in  order  to 
invest  it  with  more  terror,  insisted  that  the  ex- 
communicated should  never  be  restored,  in  op- 
position to  those  who  were  too  lenient  in  re-ad- 
mitting them.  Montanus,  however,  declared 
expressly  that  they  might  still  obtain  forgiveness 
from  God,  (Tertullian,)  and  even  Novatian  was 
willing  to  leave  it  undetermined  how  God  would 
deal  with  them. 

But  afterwards,  some  particular  teachers  and 
some  whole  sects  maintained  that  one  who  is 
excluded  from  the  Christian  church  is  excluded 
from  the  favour  of  God  and  placed  beyond  the 
reach  of  pardon.  This  opinion  prevailed  exten- 
sively in  the  Romish  church.  It  was  based  on 
the  principle,  Extra  ecclesiam  nulla  salus.  In  op- 
position to  this  error,  the  ancient  creeds  pre- 
scribed the  declaration  Credo  remissionem  pecca- 
torum.  This  same  error  is  controverted  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  13.  The  ancient 
apostolic  church  was  far  removed  from  such  an 
opinion.  In  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, Paul  advises  that  the  incestuous  person 
whom  he  had  required  to  be  excommunicated 
in  his  first  epistle  should  now  be  restored,  since 
he  had  repented  of  his  crime,  and  had  put  away 
his  offence.  And  even  there,  where  he  advises 
his  excommunication,  and  even  undertakes  to 
punish  him,  1  Cor.  v.  5,  he  will  by  no  means 
have  him  excluded  on  this  account  from  the  fa- 
vour of  God,  but  declares,  on  the  contrary,  that 
he  inflicts  punishment  with  the  very  intention 
of  saving  his  soul,  L'va  rtvsv/Aa  tfco^  ev  ^£pa 

JCUptOU. 

II.  Justification  or  Forgiveness  is  an  unmerited 
Divine  Favour. 

That  man  can  merit  the  divine  favour  and 
forgiveness  by  good  works  or  virtues  is  an  old 
mistake,  which  continues  to  be  widely  preva- 
lent, and  is  ever  appearing  again  in  some  new 
form.  Against  this  mistake,  which  prevailed 
among  the  Jews  and  the  Christian  converts 
from  Judaism,  the  apostles  laboured  incessantly, 
in  entire  accordance  with  that  reasonable  decla- 
ration of  Jesus,  Luke,  xvii.  10,  "  When  we  have 
done  everything  which  we  are  bound  to  do,  (al- 
though no  one  can  ever  pretend  that  he  has,)  we 
are  still  servants  who  have  deserved  nothing, 
(d^pEtot,,)  for  we  have  done  only  our  duty."  All 
our  good  works  do  not  confer  favour  upon  God, 
or  lay  him  under  obligation.  The  observance 
of  his  laws  is  our  duty,  and  tends  to  our  own 
good  merely. 

In  Rom.  iii.  Paul  particularly  illustrates  this 
doctrine.  Ver.  24,  he  says,  "through  Christ 
we  are  justified,  Scoptav,  *y  %dprti  ©fov" — i.  e., 
from  mere  free  grace,  which  we  have  not  de- 
served, and  which  we  cannot  repay.  Vide 
Matt.  x.  8.  Paul  therefore  calls  justification, 


5<I>pov  0fov,  Ephes.  ii.  8.  But  the  Jews  and  the 
Christian  converts  from  Judaism  in  that  age 
were  particularly  inclined  to  the  opinion  that 
the  external  observance  of  the  divine  law,  espe- 
cially of  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  law,  the  most 
perfect  of  any,  was  meritorious,  and  more  than 
anything  else  procured  forgiveness  from  God. 
This  mistake  is  controverted  by  Paul  in  his 
Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians.  He 
shews  that  man  is  justified  by  God,  oiix  i|  J'pyuv 
vo^ov,  or  #<opij  t'pywi/  vojitou,  (not  because  he  ob- 
serves the  law,  Tit.  iii.  5;  2  Tim.  i.  9;)  Rom. 
iii.  20,  21,  28,  ch.  vi.;  Gal.  ii.  16—21,  seq. 
NOJUOJ  has  frequently  indeed  in  these  chapters  a 
special  reference  to  the  divine  law  given  by 
Moses,  because  this  was  regarded  by  the  Jews 
as  the  most  perfect.  But  it  is  by  no  means  to 
be  limited  to  this  sense.  Paul  affirms  the  same 
in  respect  to  obedience  to  all  the  divine  precepts, 
since  this  obedience  is  always  imperfect,  Rom. 
iii.  28,  vi.  14;  Gal.  iii.  17,  29,  23;  and  oi  fab 
vopov  are  not  merely  the  Jews,  but  all  who  sub- 
ject themselves  to  the  divine  laws,  thinking  to 
merit  the  favour  of  God  by  obedience.  The 
Jews  considered  their  observance  of  the  law  as 
meritorious,  and  many  Christians  hoped  to  bo 
justified  on  the  same  ground.  Paul  opposes 
this  opinion,  and  proves  that  Christians  cannot 
consider  obedience  as  the  meritorious  ground 
of  justification,  for  which  they  are  indebted  to 
Christ  alone.  But  what  Paul  says  respecting 
works,  applies  equally,  in  his  opinion,  to  obe- 
dience to  all  laws,  to  works  in  general,  even  to 
Christian  works.  He  does  not  speak  exclusive- 
ly of  the  law  given  by  Moses;  his  positions  are 
general,  applying  equally  to  all  the  laws  of 
God,  whether  given  by  Moses,  by  Christ,  or  in 
any  other  manner.  Vide  Progr.  ad  Rom.  viL 
21,  in  Scripta  Varii  argument!,  No.  xii.  Our 
obedience  to  the  divine  law  is  not,  and  cannot 
be,  in  itself  meritorious.  That  this  is  a  general 
doctrine  is  perfectly  clear  from  Rom.  iv. — e.  g., 
ver.  4,  "  He  that  works  for  hire  (lpya£fo$(u,  1 
Thess.  ii.  9,  seq.)  receives  his  wages,  not 
through  the  grace  of  him  for  whom  he  labours, 
(as  we  all  receive  pardon  from  God,)  but  from 
the  obligation  of  his  employer  to  recompense 
him."  Now  if  we  receive  the  reward  through 
grace,  our  works  contribute  nothing  to  this  end, 
— they  are  not  the  meritorious  ground  of  our 
pardon. 

Paul  also  employs  the  argument,  that  if  we- 
by  our  obedience  to  the  law  could  merit  pardon,, 
the  atonement  of  Christ  would  be  entirely  in 
vain.  The  fact  that  we  do  not  obtain  forgive- 
ness in  this  way  renders  the  atonement  neces- 
sary, Gal.  ii.  21. 

But  why  is  this  doctrine  taught  in  the  holy 
scriptures?  If  God  made  our  works  of  legal 
obedience  the  measure  by  which  he  bestowed 
pardon  and  reward,  we  should  have  but  a  poor 


400 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


prospect.  For  how  imperfect  is  our  obedience, 
especially  during  the  early  stages  of  the  Chris- 
tian life !  How  defective  is  it,  even  in  the  best 
and  most  advanced  Christians!  The  greater 
advances  a  man  makes  in  holiness  and  in  Chris- 
tianity, the  more  he  sees  and  feels  his  imperfec- 
tion. What  feeble  hope  would  the  good  man 
then  have,  if  his  own  works  (which  his  con- 
science pronounces  very  imperfect)  should  be 
the  procuring  cause  of  his  pardon  !  The  Chris- 
tian teacher  who  inculcates  such  an  opinion 
knows  not  what  he  does.  Melancthon  ex- 
pressed this  very  well  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, Art.  4. 

For  a  further  consideration  of  this  subject, 
and  an  account  of  the  controversies  respecting 
it  with  the  Romish  church,  vide  infra,  s.  124, 
125. 

SECTION  CXIV. 

GF  THE  VARIOUS  THEORIES  RESPECTING  THE  NA- 
TURE AND  MANNER  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  OF 
CHRIST  ;  AND  A  NOTICE  OF  SOME  OF  THE  MOST 
IMPORTANT  WORKS  ON  ATONEMENT  AND  JUSTI- 
FICATION. 

THE  common  word  authorized  by  ecclesiasti- 
cal usage  for  denoting  the  atonement  is  satisfac- 
tio  (Germ.  Genugthuung.)  This  word  is  not 
indeed  found  in  the  Bible,  but  is  in  itself  unob- 
jectionable, taken  in  the  large  sense  in  which 
it  was  formerly  understood  in  the  church,  and 
freed  from  the  false  opinions  sometimes  con- 
nected with  it  in  later  times.  This  word  was 
originally  a  judicial  term,  and  was  applied  for 
the  first  time  (with  many  more  of  a  similar  na- 
ture) by  Tertullian,  who  was  himself  a  jurist, 
to  the  atonement  of  Christ.  "  Christus  peccata 
hominum,  onuii  SATISFACTIONS  habitu  expiavit" 
De  patientia,  c.  10.  It  has  since  been  retained 
in  the  Latin  church,  though  it  occurs  but  seldom 
in  the  Latin  fathers,  and  did  not  become  gene- 
ral until  the  time  of  the  schoolmen,  and  espe- 
cially of  Anselmus. 

The  words  satisfacere  and  satisfactio  relate 
originally  to  matters  of  debt, — the  payment  of 
debt,  debiti  solutio.  They  are  then  applied  figu- 
ratively to  other  things,  which  have,  or  are  sup- 
posed to  have,  some  resemblance  to  debt.  Hence 
we  find  them  used  in  the  following  senses — 
viz.,  to  discharge  a  debt  for  any  one  (satisfacere 
pro  aliquo  debitore],  to  make  him  content,  to  com- 
ply with  his  wishes,  to  fulfil  his  desire,  to  do  what 
he  was  bound  to  perform,  to  beg  him  off  and  ob- 
tain his  pardon.  Hence  the  phrases  satisfacere 
ojficio,  muneri,  expectationi,  promissis ;  satisfacere 
populo  (to  comply  with  its  wishes),  ixavbv 
ftoitiv,  Mark,  xv.  15;  accipere  satisfactionem, 
(to  accept  the  payment  or  apology  offered,  or 
the  request  for  pardon.)  Satisfacere  often  de- 
notes not  merely  payment  with  money,  (though 


this  is  the  ground  of  this  usage,)  but  every  other 
mode  of  discharging  debt  or  obligation. 

Now  when  Tertullian  and  other  ancient 
writers  found  the  words  Xvrpov  and  avtihvtpov 
applied  in  the  Bible  to  the  atonement  of  Christ, 
(s.  106,)  they  were  very  naturally  led  to  adopt 
the  word  satisfactio.  The  two  former  words 
properly  denote  a  ransom,  pretium  redemptionis. 
These  writers  retained  the  figure,  and  compared 
the  unhappy,  sinful  condition  of  man,  sometimes 
with  captivity,  sometimes  with  debt,  both  of 
which  comparisons  are  scriptural.  Sins  are  fre- 
quently called  in  the  Bible  o^T^ara.  From 
these  Christ  freed  men  by  his  death.  This  death 
of  Christ  was  therefore  compared  with  the  sum 
which  is  paid  as  ransom  for  captives  or  debtors, 
to  liberate  them  from  captivity  or  release  them 
from  debt.  At  first  this  was  considered  only 
as  a  figurative  mode  of  speech,  denoting  that 
God  was  by  this  means  satisfied  or  appeased. 
But  afterwards  this  phraseology  came  to  be  un- 
derstood literally,  and  many  hypotheses  disho- 
nourable to  God  were  suggested  in  explanation 
of  this  idea. 

But,  as  Morus  has  justly  observed,  there  is 
no  injury  to  be  apprehended  from  retaining  this 
word,  which  is  now  authorized  by  ecclesiastical 
usage,  if  it  is  only  so  explained  as  to  convey  the 
same  meaning  as  hvtpov,  drtokv-r'pcocrts,  and  simi- 
lar scriptural  terms.  The  phrase,  Christ  has 
made  satisfaction  for  us,  should  therefore  be  ex- 
plained to  mean,  that  Christ  by  his  death  has 
procured  for  us  from  God  perfect  forgiveness 
and  the  remission  of  sins ;  so  that  now  we  have 
no  punishment  to  fear,  but  rather  blessings  to 
expect. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  principal  me- 
thods of  explaining  this  subject,  and  the  eccle- 
siastical theories  respecting  it. 

(1)  During  the  first  two  centuries  most  of  the 
ecclesiastical  fathers  adhered,  in  a  great  mea- 
sure, to  the  simplicity  of  the  scriptural  repre- 
sentation of  this  subject,  and  attempted  no  defi- 
nite explanation  of  the  manner  of  the  atonement 
beyond  what  is  given  in  the  scriptures,  and  in 
doing  this,  made  use  for  the  most  part  of  scrip- 
tural phraseology.  They  represented  the  death 
of  Jesus  as  a  sacrifice. 

But  a  theory,  some  traces  of  which  had  ap- 
peared even  during  the  second  century,  became 
prominent  during  the  third  and  fourth  centuries, 
and  continued  a  long  time  the  prevailing  theory 
among  the  learned  in  the  Greek  and  Latin 
churches.  The  advocates  of  this  theory  took 
the  word  Tuirpow  in  its  primary  and  literal  sense, 
denoting  release  from  captivity  or  slavery  by 
the  payment  of  a  ransom,  (hvtpov,  s.  106.) 
With  this  they  associated  the  idea  of  the  power 
and  dominion  of  Satan  over  the  whole  human 
race,  in  a  sense  not  warranted  by  the  Bible. 
They  referred  to  the  texts  affirming  that  Christ 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       401 


freed  us  from  the  power  of  the  d^vil.  Thus 
originated  the  following  theory  : — Ever  after  the 
fall  (he  devil  had  the  whole  human  race  in  his 
power ;  he  ruled  over  men  like  a  tyrant  over  his 
vassals,  and  employed  them  for  his  own  purposes. 
Thus  far  they  had  the  support  of  the  Bible.  But 
here  they  began  to  philosophize  beyond  what 
is  written.  From  this  captivity  God  might  in- 
deed have  rescued  men  by  the  exercise  of  his  om- 
nipotence ,•  but  he  was  restrained  by  his  justice 
from  doing  this  with  violence.  He  therefore 
offered  Satan  a  ransom,  in  consideration  of  which 
he  should  release  mankind.  This  ransom  was 
the  death  of  CHRIST,  (as  a  divine  being.)  In 
accordance  with  this  theory,  Origen  interpreted 
the  text,  Matt.  xx.  28, "  He  gave  his  life  a  ransom 
for  men,"  as  denoting  the  ransom  paid  to  the 
devil,  not  to  God.  Satan  had  consented  to  the 
compact  ,•  but  he  wished  fraudulently  to  retain 
Jesus,  whom  he  considered  only  as  the  best  and 
most  pious  man  under  his  own  power,  and  so  slew 
this  innocent  being.  He  was  now,  therefore, 
justly  COMPELLED  to  liberate  the  human  race. 

This  theory  was  first  adopted  by  the  Grecian 
church,  and  especially  by  Origen,  (Comm.  in 
Matt.  xx.  et  alibi,)  through  whose  influence  it 
became  prevalent,  and  was  adopted  at  length 
by  Basilius,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Gregory  of 
Nazianzen,  Nestorius,  and  others.  From  the 
Greeks  it  was  communicated  to  the  Latins, 
among  whom  it  was  first  distinctly  held  by  Am- 
brosius,  and  afterwards  by  Augustine,  through 
whose  influence  it  was  rendered  almost  univer- 
sal in  the  Latin  church.  In  this  church  they 
endeavoured  to  perfect  the  theory.  Satan,  they 
added,  was  deceived  in  the  transaction;  for 
taking  Jesus  to  be  a  mere  man,  and  not  know- 
ing that  he  was  also  the  Son  of  God,  he  was  not 
able  to  retain  even  him,  after  he  had  slain  him. 
And  it  was  necessary  for  Christ  to  assume  a 
human  body  in  order  to  deceive  the  devil,  as 
fishes  are  caught  by  baits.  This  view  occurs 
frequently  in  the  writings  of  Leo  the  Great,  in 
the  fifth  century.  Cf.  Semler,  Geschichte  der 
Glaubenslehre,  prefixed  to  Baumgarten's  "Po- 
lemik ;"  Doederlein,  Diss.  de  redemptione  a  po- 
testate  diaboli,  in  his  "Opuscula;"  and  Cotta, 
Hist,  doctrinae  de  redemptione  sanguine  Christi 
facta,  in  his  edition  of  Gerhard's  "Loci  Theo- 
logici,"  prefixed  to  th.  4. 

So  prevalent  was  this  theory  in  the  Latin 
church  before  the  twelfth  century,  that  Abelard 
declares,  "  Omnes  doctores  nostri  post  apostolos, 
in  hoc  conveniunt;"  and  Bernhard  of  Clairvaux 
was  so  firmly  persuaded  of  its  truth  as  to  de- 
clare that  Abelard,  who  held  that  the  devil  never 
possessed,  in  a  literal  sense,  such  power  as  was 
ascribed  to  him,  ought  rather  to  be  chastised 
with  rods  than  reasoned  with. 

But  after  the  twelfth  century  this  theory  gra- 
dually lost  ground,  through  the  influence,  prin- 
51 


cipally,  of  the  schoolmen  who  lived  after  the  age 
of  Anselmus  and  Abelard ;  and  another  theory 
was  substituted  in  its  place.  Vide  No.  2. 
Peter  of  Lombardy,  however,  still  continued 
more  inclined  to  the  ancient  theory.  In  the 
Greek  church,  too,  this  hypothesis  was  gradu- 
ally abandoned,  and  was  opposed  even  earlier 
than  in  the  Latin  church.  John  of  Damascus 
attacked  it  as  early  as  the  eighth  century,  and 
maintained  (De  fid.  Orthod.  1.  3)  that  Christ 
brought  his  blood,  which  was  shed  as  a  ransom, 
not  to  the  devil,  but  to  God,  in  order  to  deliver 
men  from  the  divine  punishments.  So  the  scrip- 
tures, «*  He  offered  himself  to  God  for  us,  a  spot- 
less victim."  This  is  implied  in  the  whole 
scriptural  idea  of  sacrifices,  which  were  offered 
only  to  God. 

(2)  The  other  theory,  of  which  also  some 
traces  appear  in  the  early  ages,  is  the  following. 
Proceeding  on  the  idea  of  debt,  the  authors  of 
this  theory  maintained  that  the  relation  of  all 
sinful  men  to  God  is  the  same  as  that  of  a  debtor 
to  his  creditors.  We  find  it  distinctly  said,  as 
early  as  the  fourth  century,  that  Christ  paid 
what  we  should  have  paid,  or  what  we  owed. 
The  idea  of  sacrifice  and  of  his  offering  up  him- 
self was  still  associated  with  this.  The  learned 
now  began  to  carry  out  the  former  idea,  at  first, 
indeed,  in  a  manner  not  inconsistent  with  the 
scriptures.  The  debt  was  sin,  and  could  not  be 
cancelled,  or  the  punishment  remitted,  unless 
satisfaction  or  payment  were  made.  Since  men 
were  unable  to  do  this  of  themselves,  Christ 
did  it  for  them ;  and  God  accepted  the  ransom, 
(the  death  of  Christ,)  and  forgave  men,  as  if 
they  themselves  had  made  satisfaction. 

We  find  very  clear  traces  of  this  theory  as 
early  as  the  fourth  century  in  the  writings  of 
Athanasius,  of  the  Grecian  church;  and  still 
more  clear,  in  the  writings  of  John  of  Damas- 
cus, who  expressly  rejected  the  theory  stated  in 
No.  1.  At  the  same  period,  in  the  Latin  church, 
we  find  indications  of  the  same  theory  in  the 
writings  of  Hilarius  of  Poictiers,  (Com.  in  Ps. 
liii.)  But  the  schoolmen  of  the  eleventh  and 
twelfth  centuries  gave  this  theory  a  greater  cur- 
rency than  it  had  had  before,  and  spun  it  out  to 
a  finer  subtilty.  They  attempted  to  determine 
the  idea  of  atonement  with  philosophical  and 
dialectical  accuracy.  But  they  could  not  do 
this  if  they  confined  themselves  to  the  plain  and 
popular  phraseology  of  the  Bible;  they  there- 
fore selected  the  judicial  word  satisfactio,  which 
had  been  already  used  by  the  older  writers. 
The  idea  on  which  they  began,  in  this  case  as 
in  others,  was  itself  scriptural ;  but  by  philoso- 
phizing upon  it  they  gradually  declined  from 
the  simple  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  This  was  the 
case  particularly  with  Anselmus,  whose  system 
has  been  generally  adopted,  even  by  Lutheran 
theologians.  He  defined  satisfactio  to  be  debiti 
2L2 


402 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


solutio.  His  system  is  exhibited  most  fully  in 
his  work,  Cur  Deus  Homo?  He  maintained  the 
absolute  necessity  of  satisfaction,  in  the  meta- 
physical sense.  His  whole  theory  is  derived 
from  the  civil  process  respecting  debt  among  men, 
transferred  to  the  tribunal  of  God.  But  such  is 
not  the  representation  of  the  Bible,  where  the 
compassion  and  undeserved  love  of  God  is  made 
the  ground  of  this  transaction,  and  not  any  ju- 
dicial notions  of  this  nature.  God  is  compared 
with  a  ruler  who  forgives  from  his  forbearance 
and  his  compassionate  love,  and  does  not  pro- 
ceed according  to  stern  justice ;  Matt,  xviii. 
26,  27. 

The  following  is  the  system  of  Anselmus : — 
Man  owes  reverence  to  the  character  of  God, 
and  obedience  to  his  laws.  Whoever  withholds 
this  reverence  and  obedience  due  to  God,  robs 
God  of  what  belongs  to  him,  and  must  not  only 
restore  that  which  he  withheld,  but  pay  an  ad- 
ditional amount,  as  amends  for  the  dishonour 
brought  upon  God.  Thus  it  stands  with  sin- 
ners. The  payment  of  this  debt  is  the  satisfac- 
tion which  every  sinner  must  make  to  God,  ac- 
cording to  the  nature  of  his  offence.  For  God 
cannot  in  justice  remit  the  debt  (or  punishment) 
unless  satisfaction  is  made.  This  man  could 
never  do,  nor  indeed  any  other  than  God  him- 
self. And  yet  to  him,  as  judge,  must  this  sa- 
tisfaction be  made.  The  expedient  was  then 
devised  for  the  Son  of  God,  as  God-man,  by  his 
death  to  make  this  satisfaction.  He  was  able 
to  make  this  satisfaction  only  as  God ;  but  as 
man,  he  was  also  able  to  be  surety  for  men,  and 
then  himself  actually  to  pay  the  debt,  or  make 
satisfaction  for  them.  Cf.  s.  101,  ad  finem. 

This  fine-spun  juridico-philosophical  theory 
was  exactly  in  the  spirit  of  that  age,  and  was 
almost  universally  adopted  by  the  schoolmen, 
though  with  various  modifications — e.  g.,  by 
Alexander  of  Hales,  Thomas  Aquinas,  Duns 
Scotus,  Gabr.  Biel,  and  others.  Among  these, 
however,  a  controversy  arose  respecting  the 
value,  of  the  blood  of  Christ  in  cancelling  the 
debt  of  the  human  race.  Thomas  Aquinas 
maintained  that  the  value  and  worth  (valor}  of 
the  blood  of  Christ  were  in  themselves  infinite, 
on  account  of  the  infinite  dignity  of  the  person 
of  Christ;  and  that  this  ransom  not  only  ba- 
lanced but  outweighed  all  the  sins  of  all  men. 
He  was  followed  by  the  Dominicans.  This 
appears,  too,  to  have  been  the  opinion  of  Ansel- 
mus. Duns  Scotus,  on  the  other  hand,  main- 
tained that  God  was  satisfied  with  this  ransom, 
although  it  had  not  in  itself  any  infinite  value 
or  worth.  God,  however,  accepted  it  as  suffi- 
cient and  equivalent.  He  thus  endeavoured  to 
approximate  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  which 
always  represents  justification  as  a  free  gift,  and 
a  proof  of  the  entirely  unmerited  love  of  God. 
He  was  followed  by  the  Franciscans.  But  even 


this  statement  was  founded  upon  the  judicial 
doctrine  of  acceptilatio,  when  anything  insuffi- 
cient is  accepted  as  valid  and  equivalent.  Cf. 
Ziegler's  Essay,  Historia  dogmatis  de  redemp- 
tione  inde  ab  ecclesise  primordiis  usque  ad  Lu- 
theri  tempora;  Gottingen,  1791,  4to. 

(3)  On  the  theories  and  explanations  of  this 
doctrine  which  have  prevailed  since  the  six- 
teenth century. 

(a)  The  system  of  Anselmus  had  been  ex- 
tending through  the  Romish  church  ever  since 
the  twelfth  century,  through  the  influence  of  the 
schoolmen,  who  added  to  it  various  new  subtle- 
ties, distinctions,  and  terminologies.  This  same 
system  was  adopted,  in  main,  though  with  the 
slight  alteration  of  some  terms  and  representa- 
tions, by  a  considerable  number  of  protestant 
theologians.  Luther,  Melancthon,  and  the  other 
early  reformers,  adhered  to  the  simplicity  of  the 
Bible,  and  avoided  these  subtleties.  But  after 
the  death  of  Luther,  the  theologians  of  the  Lu- 
theran church  took  sides  in  great  numbers  with 
Anselmus  and  Thomas  Aquinas.  They  now 
introduced  many  of  the  unscriptural  hypotheses 
and  distinctions  established  by  the  schoolmen, 
and  thus  deformed  the  doctrine  and  rendered  its 
truth  doubtful  in  the  minds  of  many.  Their 
great  error  consisted  in  representing  this  subject 
too  much  after  the  manner  of  men,  and,  of 
course,  unworthily  of  God.  The  symbolical 
books  of  the  protestants  have,  in  the  meantime, 
adhered  to  the  simple  Biblical  representation; 
and  these  exaggerated  opinions  have  been  held 
rather  by  particular  teachers  and  schools  than 
by  the  protestant  church  generally. 

The  following  are  examples  of  these  faulty 
representations  and  expressions : — God,  it  is 
said,  was  actually  INJURED  by  the  sins  of  men  ; 
he  was  ANGERED  and  ENRAGED!  in  the  strict 
sense  ;  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  be  PROPITI- 
ATED, and  that  his  ROBBED  honour  should  be  re- 
stored ;  that  he  could  not  be  moved  to  compassion 
till  he  saw  blood  Jlow.  These  figurative  expres- 
sions ought  either  to  be  wholly  avoided  in  the 
scientific  statement  of  the  theory,  or  to  be  justly 
and  scripturally  explained.  God  cannot  be  in- 
jured in  the  literal  sense;  his  honour  cannot  be 
destroyed  or  diminished.  But  those  who  used 
these  inconvenient  expressions  did  not  mean  by 
them  what  they  really  imply.  The  proper  idea 
which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  such  phraseology 
is  this :  that  the  laws  of  God  must  be  kept  holy 
and  inviolate;  that  God  does  and  must  strongly 
express  his  displeasure  at  the  transgression  of 
his  wholesome  laws ;  and  that  therefore  punish- 
ments are  necessary  for  their  maintenance. 

Again ;  many  held  that  the  guilt  of  sin  is  in- 
finite, (infinitum  debitum,  s.  81,  ad  finem,)  and 
that,  consequently,  Christ  endured  infinite  pu- 
nishments, the  pains  of  hell  itself,  (Morus,  p.  1 69, 
No.  4,)  to  the  same  amount  as  all  sinners  taken 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       403 


together  would  have  been  compelled  to  suffer; 
that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  absolutely 
necessary,  and  the  only  possible  way  for  the 
restoration  of  the  human  race;  that  some  parti- 
cular sins  were  atoned  for  by  each  part  of  the 
sufferings  of  Christ;  that  the  blood  of  Christ 
had  a  physical  efficacy,  &c.  &c. 

(6)  These  false  representations,  and  others 
like  them,  which  are  so  dishonourable  to  God, 
gave  rise  to  various  controversies.  Reflecting 
persons  rejected  much  of  this  phraseology  and 
this  mode  of  representation  as  contrary  to  rea- 
son and  scripture.  Many  also  disapproved  of 
the  harmless  term  satisfaction  and  of  all  the  figu- 
rative expressions  relative  to  debt  and  the  judi- 
cial processes  respecting  it  which  had  been  intro- 
duced by  Anselrnus,  because  they  were  so  often 
perverted.  At  the  same  time,  they  did  not  deny 
any  essential  part  of  the  doctrine  itself,  but  only 
wished  to  simplify  the  subject,  and  to  adhere 
closely  both  to  the  principles  and  words  of  the 
Bible.  This  scholastic  system  and  this  tech- 
nical phraseology  were,  on  the  contrary,  de- 
fended with  great  zeal. 

(c)  But  since  the  sixteenth  century  there  have 
not  been  wanting  persons  who  not  only  disliked 
and  rejected  the  ecclesiastical  form  and  phrase- 
ology of  this  doctrine,  but  who  opposed  the 
doctrine  itself  on  philosophical  and  theological 
grounds.  Among  these  were  Lalius  Socinus 
and  Faustus  Socinus  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
and  their  numerous  avowed  or  secret  adherents 
in  the  same  and  the  following  centuries.  They 
made  the  desert  of  Christ  to  consist  merely  in 
his  doctrine  and  instruction.  By  his  death  he 
only  confirmed  his  doctrine,  and  gave  an  exam- 
ple of  patience,  firmness  in  suffering,  and  obe- 
dience to  God.  The  followers  of  Socinus  en- 
deavoured to  shew  that  there  are  no  positive  di- 
vine punishments;  since  if  this  were  true,  the 
atonement,  which  principally  relates  to  the  re- 
moval of  these,  would  fall  away  of  itself,  (s. 
Ill,  II.)  These  views  were  embraced  by  many 
of  the  Arminian  and  English  theologians  and 
philosophers,  who  were  followed,  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  by  great  numbers  of  German 
protestants.  Vide  the  Essays  on  this  subject 
in  Eberhard,  Apologie  des  Socrates;  and  Stein- 
bart,  System  der  Gliickseligkeitslehre,  &c. 

Philosophers  are  at  liberty  to  speculate  upon 
this  subject,  according  to  their  own  views  and 
their  favourite  theories,  variable  and  transient 
as  they  are.  If  they  please,  they  may  investi- 
gate the  subject  independently  of  the  Bible,  and 
propose  the  results  of  their  investigation  for  the 
examination  of  the  learned.  They  ought,  how- 
ever, to  avoid  the  error,  so  frequently  committed 
ever  since  the  time  of  Socinus,  of  thinking  that 
the  Bible  must  necessarily  contain  the  doctrines 
approved  as  true  on  the  philosophical  principles 
of  their  own  particular  schools — the  fault  of  in- 


terpreting the  Bible,  not  according  to  its  own 
spirit,  and  the  spirit  of  the  age  in  which  it  was 
written,  but  according  to  the  views  of  particular 
sects  of  philosophers  in  their  own  times — a  fault 
which  has  been  often  repeated  of  late  by  the 
adherents  of  Kant  and  his  successors.  Let  any 
one  consider  the  various  and  contradictory  the- 
ories of  the  different  philosophical  schools  in 
our  own  age.  Now  each  of  these  schools  at- 
tempts to  support  its  own  theory  by  the  author- 
ity of  the  holy  scriptures.  But  all  of  these  the- 
ories cannot  possibly  be  founded  in  the  Bible; 
and  who  can  say  which  of  them  all  is  so? 

What  is  essentialin  the  common  ecclesiastical 
system  respecting  the  atonement  is  clearly  re- 
vealed in  the  scriptures,  and  is  entirely  adapted 
to  the  spirit  of  the  sacred  writers  and  their 
whole  mode  of  thinking,  to  the  wants  of  the 
age  in  which  they  wrote,  and  to  the  wants  of 
mankind  at  large.  Vide  s.  108,  seq.  Morus 
has  briefly  exhibited  the  essentials  of  this  doc- 
trine, p.  150—155,  s.  4—6. 

(4)  Many  protestant  theologians  began  as 
early  as  the  seventeenth  century  to  depart  by 
degrees  from  the  theory  of  Anselmus,  which 
presents  so  many  difficulties,  and  is  liable  to  so 
many  weighty  objections,  and  to  bring  back 
this  doctrine  to  the  simplicity  of  the  Bible.  The 
book  of  Grotius,  "De  satisfactione  Christi," 
(Leiden,  1617;  Halae,  1730,  ed.  Joach.  Lange,) 
was  the  first  thing  done  towards  undermining 
the  system  of  Anselmus.  Grotius  indeed  made 
the  ecclesiastical  system  the  ground  of  his 
work,  but  he  deduced  the  necessity  of  satisfac- 
tion, not  so  much  from  the  injury  done  to  God 
as  from  the  holiness  and  inviolableness  of  the 
divine  laws,  which  render  punishments  neces- 
sary for  the  good  of  men.  In  this  he  exactly 
accorded  with  the  Bible.  He  shewed  that  there 
was  no  internal  and  absolute  necessity  for  this 
satisfaction,  but  that  the  necessity  was  only 
moral  or  relative.  These  and  other  views  of  this 
scholar  became  gradually  more  current  among 
theologians,  who  sought  both  to  bring  them  into 
a  still  nearer  agreement  with  the  Bible  and  also 
to  reconcile  them  with  the  established  system 
of  the  church. 

Some  protestant  theologians  have  made  use 
of  the  new  systems  of  philosophy  which  have 
become  successively  prevalent  in  modern  times, 
to  illustrate  and  defend  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible 
and  of  the  church.  Thus  Carpzoy,  Baumgarten, 
and  others,  made  use  of  the  Leibnitz-Wolfian 
philosophy.  Vide  also  Reinbeck,  Tract.  Theol. 
de  redemptione  per  lytron;  Halle,  1710,  8vo; 
Theod.  le  Blanc,  Erweis  der  Genugthuung  Jesu 
Christi,  with  the  preface  of  Rambach;  Giessen, 
1733,  8vo;— one  of  the  best  of  the  older  works. 
Staudlin  and  others  have  made  the  same  use  of 
the  philosophy  of  Kant,  as  Kant  himself  has 
done  in  his  "Religion  innerhalb  der  Grenzen 


404 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


der  blossen  Vernunft."  But  others,  with  equal 
zeal,  have  employed  these  very  same  philoso- 
phical systems  in  opposition  to  this  doctrine  of 
the  Bible.  One  of  the  most  zealous  opponents 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  in  modern  times 
is  Dr.  Loffler,  in  his  work,  "  Ueber  die  kirch- 
licheGenugthuungslehre;  Zullichau,  1796, 8vo. 

(5)  The  frequent  attacks  made  in  our  own 
age  both  upon  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  system 
and  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  itself  have 
made  it  necessary  to  state  this  doctrine  more 
accurately  than  was  formerly  done.  Many  mo- 
derate theologians  have  endeavoured  so  to  ex- 
hibit this  doctrine  that  it  should  agree  both  with 
the  decisions  of  Revelation  and  with  the  ac- 
knowledged principles  of  sound  reason,  thus 
rendering  it  intelligible,  and  obviating  the  most 
important  objections  against  it.  Since  the  mid- 
dle of  the  eighteenth  century  many  have  laboured 
to  effect  this  object,  though  not  with  equal  suc- 
cess. Among  these  are  Ernesti,  Tollner,  Danov, 
Noesselt,  (Vom  Werth  der  Moral,)  Less,  Gries- 
bach,  (Praktische  Dogmatik,)  Doderlein,  (Dog- 
matik,)  Michaelis,  (Gedanken  von  der  Siinde 
und  Genugthuung;  Gottingen,  1779,  8vo,)  and 
Seiler,  (Ueber  den  Versohnungstod  Jesu,  with 
some  essays,  &c.,  2nd  ed. ;  Erlangen,  1732,  gr. 
8vo;  in  connexion  with  which  the  doctrine  of 
justification  is  treated.)  The  lastmentioned 
writer  endeavours  to  refute  the  objections  of 
Eberhard  and  Steinbart.  Among  the  latest 
writers  on  this  subject  is  Dr.  Gottlob  Christ. 
Storr,  (Pauli  Brief  an  die  Hebraer  erlJiutert; 
Tubingen,  1789,  8vo;  2nd  Ausg.  Tubingen, 
1809.  Second  part,  Ueber  den  eigentlichenZ week 
des  Todes  Jesu,  s.  363—692.)  He  holds  that 
the  object  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  directly 
the  reformation  of  men,  and  that  their  exemption 
from  punishment  is  not  the  effect  of  their  re- 
formation; but  that  the  direct  and  immediate 
object  of  his  death  is,  to  procure  the  forgiveness 
of  sin,  and  to  make  atonement.  Another  writer 
is  Sehwarze,  (in  Gorlitz,)  "Ueber  den  Tod 
Jesu,  als  ein  wesentliches  Stuck  seines  Wohlt- 
hatigen  Plans  zur  Begliickung  der  Menschen; 
Leipzig,  1795,  8vo.  The  discourse  delivered 
by  Dr.  Reinhard,  at  the  Rtformatiomfeste,  on 
the  text,  Rom.  iii.  23,  seq.,  containing  a  brief 
and  practical  statement  of  the  scripture  doctrine 
of  the  atonement,  excited  much  attention,  espe- 
cially from  the  unusual  manner  of  its  publica- 
tion, and  led  to  many  writings  for  and  against 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Among  these  the 
following  work  is  in  many  respects  favourably 
distinguished  : — "  Der  Widerstreit  der  Vernunft 
mit  sieh  selbst  in  der  Versohnungslehre,  darge- 
stellt  und  aufgelost,  von  Krug;"  ZuUichau, 
1802,  8vo. 

The  essential  points  in  the  theory  adopted  by 
the  moderate  theologians  of  the  protestant  church 
may  b«  th«s  stated  : — God  had  a  twofold  object 


in  view — viz.,  (a)  to  preserve  inviolate  the  au- 
thority of  his  law  given  for  the  good  of  man. 
How  could  this  be  effected  otherwise  than  by 
the  punishment  of  transgression,  threatened  ami 
actually  inflicted1?  (6)  But  as  a  slavish  fear  of 
God  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  pure  religion, 
(<J>oj3oj  fxjSaXtat  tqv  osydrtyv,  1  John,  iv.  18,) 
some  means  must  be  chosen  to  free  men  from 
their  reasonable  fear  of  punishment,  and  to  give 
them  a  certain  assurance  that  God  would  forgive 
them,  be  gracious  to  them,  and  count  them 
worthy  of  his  favour,  in  such  a  way,  however, 
as  not  to  occasion  indifference  with  regard  to 
sin.  Both  of  these  objects  were  attained  by  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ;  ihe  first  by  the 
proof  given,  through  the  sufferings  of  Jesus,  that 
God  abhors  sin  and  will  not  leave  it  unpunished  ; 
the  second,  by  the  declaration  of  God  that  Christ 
had  suffered  these  punishments  for  our  good,  in 
our  stead,  and  on  our  behalf.  Death  is  the  con- 
sequence of  sin,  and  is  in  itself  a  great  evil.  We 
must  regard  it  as  the  sum  of  all  evils  and  terror?. 
(Hence  in  the  Bible  death  stands  for  every  kind 
of  misery.}  Especially  is  this  the  case  with  a 
violent  and  excruciating  death,  which  is  the  pu- 
nishment of  the  greatest  criminals.  Such  a 
death  did  God  himself  inflict  upon  Christ,  who 
was  himself  entirely  guiltless,  (aytoj  xal  ^'xato$.) 
God,  however,  could  not  be  so  unjust  and  cruel 
as  to  inflict  such  a  punishment  upon  an  innocent 
person  without  object  or  design.  Hence  we  may 
conclude  that  Christ  endured  his  sufferings  and 
death  for  men  who  should  properly  have  endured 
these  punishments,  in  order  to  inspire  them  with 
confidence  in  God,  with  gratitude  and  love  to 
him,  and  to  banish  all  fear  of  the  divine  punish- 
ments from  their  hearts.  It  all  comes  back, 
therefore,  at  last,  to  this,  that  God  chose  this 
extraordinary  means  from  the  impulse  of  his 
own  sincere  love  and  benevolence  to  men.  Thus 
the  scriptures  always  represent  it,  and  on  this 
view  we  should  always  proceed  in  our  religious 
instructions.  Vide  Morus,  p.  152,  seq.,  s.  6. 
But  if  men  would  be  certain  that  they  have  in 
this  way  obtained  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins, 
they  must  place  their  entire  dependence  on 
Christ;  they  must  repent  of  their  sins  ;  by  the 
help  of  God  lead  a  holy  life,  and  punctually  ob- 
serve all  the  divine  laws.  This  is  an  indispen- 
sable duty  and  an  essential  condition  of  salva- 
tion through  Christ;  and  to  one  who  has  sincere 
love  to  God  and  to  Christ,  this  will  not  be  diffi- 
cult. Obedience  to  God,  being  prompted  by  love 
and  gratitude,  will  be  yielded  with  cheerfulness. 
No  one,  however,  must  consider  his  repentance 
or  holiness  as  the  meritorious  ground  of  forgive- 
ness. For  forgiveness  is  not  the  effect  and  con- 
sequence of  our  holiness,  but  flows  from  the 
death  of  Christ. 

This  doctrine  thus  exhibited  cannot  be  injuri- 
ous to  morality ;  on  the  contrary,  it  produces  the 


i 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       405 


ost  beneficial  effects  upon  those  who  helieve 
it  from  the  heart,  (s.  108,  II.)  So  experience 
teaches.  We  see  the  most  convincing1  proofs  of 
the  beneficial  tendencies  of  this  doctrine  in  those 
Christian  communities,  both  of  ancient  and  mo- 
dern times,  where  it  has  been  faithfully  taught 
and  cordially  believed.  [Cf.  Tholuck,  Lehre 
von  der  Siinde  und  vom  Versohner,  s.  104,  ff. 
Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  475—500.  Bretschneider, 
Dogmatik,  b.  ii.  s.  245 — 355.  Neander,  b.  i. 
Abth.  ii.  s.  70 — 78.  Flatt's  Magazine,  b.  i.  s. 
1_67,  Ueber  die  Moglichkeit  der  Sunden-Ver- 
gebung. — TR.] 

SECTION  CXV. 


OF  THE  ACTIVE  OBEDIENCE  OF  CHRIST. 


I. 


What  is  meant  by  Active  Obedience  /  and  a  His- 
tory of  this  Doctrine. 

CHRIST'S  cheerful  discharge  of  the  commis- 
sion given  him  by  God  is  called  his  obedience 
(vjt&xori)  ;    according  to   the   example   of  the 
Bible — e.  g.,  Phil.  hi.  9  ;  Rom.  v.  19 ;  Morus,  p. 
161,  s.  7.     Morus  justly  defines  the  obedience 
of  Christ  to  be,  peractio  eorum,  qux  peragere  de- 
buit,  et  in  peragendo  summa  virtus.     Christ  ex- 
hibited this  obedience  in  two  ways — viz.,  (a) 
by  acting  (agenda} — i.  e.,  by  keeping  and  ob- 
serving the  divine  laws;  (6)  by  suffering,  (pa- 
ticndo] — i.  e.,  by   cheerfully   undertaking  and 
enduring  suffering  for  the  good  of  men,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  divine  determination.     Cf.  s. 
93,  III.,  and  s.  95,  ad  finem.     The  former  way 
is  called   obedientia  activa,  (not  active  in   the 
sense  of  busy,  which  would  be  actuosa,  but  in 
the  sense  of  acting,  Germ,  thuender  ,•)  the  latter, 
obedientia  passiva.     These   two  ways   may  be 
thus  distinguished  in  abstracto.   But  they  ought 
not  to  have  been   separated  from  each   other. 
Christ's  active  obedience  is  not  properly  differ- 
ent from  his  passive  obedience.     His  obedience 
is  one  and  the  same  in  all  cases.     Suffering,  in 
itself  considered,  so  far  as  it  consists  in  unplea- 
sant sensations,  is  not  obedience.   A  person  may 
suffer  and  not  be  obedient,  but  impatient,  dis- 
obedient, and  refractory.     But  for  one  to  suffer 
obediently,  or  to  shew  obedience  in  suffering, 
this  is  an  acting,  a  fulfilment  of  duty,  or  that  vir- 
tue which  is  called  patience,  one  of  the  greatest 
and  most  difficult  of  virtues!     But  how  can  a 
virtue,  which  consists  entirely  in  acting,  be  called 
passive  ?  In  truth,  then,  the  obedience  of  Christ 
is  one  and  the  same  thing,  consisting  always  in 
acting.     It  is  that  virtue  by  which  Christ  ful- 
filled not  only  the  moral  laws  of  Gad,  but  also 
the  positive  divine  commands  which  were  laid 
upon  him,  to  suffer,  to  die,  &c.     Obedience  is 
never  wholly  passive,  and  what  is  simply  passive 
is  not  obedience.   But  a  person  shews  obedience 
by  acting  in  suffering. 


Theologians  commonly  hold  that  the  active 
obedience  of  Christ  was  as  much  a  part  of  his 
atonement  or  satisfaction  as  his  passive  obe- 
dience. This  opinion  might  be  more  clearly  and 
definitively  expressed  as  follows  : — The  satisfac- 
tion which  Christ  has  made  consists  both  in  his 
enduring  the  punishments  incurred  by  men  and 
in  his  yielding  a  perfect  obedience  to  the  divine 
laws.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  theologians. 
This  opinion  is  derived  from  the  twofold  obliga- 
tion of  men  («)  to  keep  the  divine  laws,  and  (6) 
when  they  have  failed,  to  suffer  punishment  for 
their  sin.  In  this  way  the  satisfaction  of  Christ 
came  to  be  considered  as  consisting  of  two  parts, 
active  and  passive.  This  view  was  then  con- 
nected with  the  theory  of  Anselmus,  respecting 
he  removal  of  the  guilt  and  penalty  of  sin.  The 
suffering  of  Christ  removes  the  penalty,  and  his 
active  obedience  the  guilt  of  sin;  and  the  per- 
fect righteousness  of  Christ,  or  his  fulfilment  of 
the  law,  is  imputed  to  us,  in  the  same  way  as 
if  we  ourselves  had  fulfilled  the  law,  and  thus 
our  defective  obedience  is  made  good.  Respect- 
ing this  doctrine  de  remissione  culpac  et  pcenae. 
Vide  s.  109,  II.  2.  This  is  in  brief  the  common 
theory,  which  will  be  more  particularly  exa- 
mined, No.  II. 

We  subjoin  a  brief  history  of  this  doctrine. 
Good  materials  for  this  history  may  be  found  in 
Walch's  Inaugural  Disputation,  de  obedientia 
Christi  activa;  Gottingen,  1754,  4to. 

Passages  are  found  even  among  the  ancient 
fathers,  which  teach  that  the  fulfilment  of  the 
divine  law  by  Christ  is  to  be  considered  as  if 
done  by  us.  Vide  the  passages  cited  by  Walch. 
Many  of  these  passages,  however,  appear  very 
doubtful  and  indefinite,  and  this  doctrine  was 
by  no  means  universally  established  in  the  early 
church.  Even  Anselmus,  who  built  up  such  an 
artificial  system,  did  not  make  this  application 
of  the  twofold  obedience  of  Christ.  This,  how- 
ever, was  the  tendency  of  his  theory,  especially 
of  the  doctrine,  de  remissione  culpx  et  pcense. 
But  after  his  time,  this  explanation  of  the  satis- 
faction made  by  Christ  by  means  of  his  twofold 
obedience  was  adopted  by  several  schoolmen, 
who  now  looked  up  texts  for  its  support.  But 
it  was  never  very  generally  adopted  by  theolo- 
gians of  the  Romish  church.  In  the  protestant 
church,  on  the  contrary,  it  has  been  almost  uni- 
versally taught  by  our  theologians  since  the  six- 
teenth century,  and  even  introduced  into  the 
"Form  of  Concord,"  (Morus,  p.  169,  n.  5,) 
which,  however,  never  received  an  universal 
symbolical  authority  in  the  Lutheran  church. 
This  explanation  is  not  found  in  the  other  sym- 
bols. One  reason,  perhaps,  of  the  reception  of 
this  explanation  in  the  protestant  church,  is  the 
supposition  that  the  theory  de  obedientia  adi\ya 
could  be  used  to  advantage  against  the  catholic 
tenet  of  the  value  of  one's  own  good  works. 


406 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Another  reason  is,  that  the  imputation  of  the 
active  obedience  of  Christ  was  denied  by  the 
Socinians  and  Arminians.  For  these  reasons, 
most  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  theologians 
accounted  this  doctrine  essential  to  sound  ortho- 
doxy. But  doubting1  whether  the  active  obe- 
dience of  Christ  constitutes  a  part  of  his  satis- 
faction, has  no  influence  upon  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion through  repentance,  faith,  and  godliness. 
Baumgarten  and  Ernesti  have  therefore  justly 
enumerated  this  dispute  among  those  of  second- 
ary importance.  And,  in  fact,  the  difference 
among  theologians  upon  this  subject  has  often 
been  more  apparent  than  real.  There  were,  in- 
deed, some  protestant  theologians,  even  in  the 
former  century,  who  denied  the  desert  of  the 
active  obedience  of  Christ — e.  g.,  the  Lutheran 
theologian  Karg,  or  Parsimonius  ,•  also  the  Re- 
formed theologian  John  Piscator,  who  had  many 
followers ;  more  lately,  Jo.  la  Placette,  and 
others.  The  same  was  done  by  many  of  the 
English  theologians,  who  in  general  adopted 
the  Arminian  views.  But  from  the  end  of  the 
sixteenth  to  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury the  opinion  was  by  far  the  most  prevalent 
in  the  Lutheran  church  that  the  active  obedience 
of  Christ  is  of  the  nature  of  satisfaction,  or  vi- 
carious. This  opinion  is  defended  even  by 
Walch  in  the  place  just  referred  to. 

But  since  the  time  of  Tollner  the  subject  has 
been  presented  in  a  different  light.  He  pub- 
lished a  work  entitled,  "Der  thatige  Gehorsam 
Christi;"  Breslau,  1768,  8vo.  In  this  he  de- 
nied that  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  is  of  the 
nature  of  satisfaction.  Upon  this  a  violent  con- 
troversy commenced.  Schubert,  Wichmann, 
and  others,  wrote  against  him,  and  he,  in  reply, 
published  his  "Zusatze;"  Berlin,  1770.  The 
best  critique  of  this  matter  is  that  of  Ernesti, 
Theol.  Bibl.  b.  ix.  s.  914,  f.  For  the  history 
of  the  whole  controversy  vide  Walch,  Neeuste 
Religionsgeschichte,  th.  iii.  s.  311,  f.  The  sub- 
ject is  considered  also  in  Eberhard,  Apologie 
des  Socrates,  th.  ii.  s.  310,  f.  Of  late  years,  a 
great  number  of  protestant  theologians  have  de- 
clared themselves  in  behalf  of  the  opinion  that 
the  active  obedience  of  Christ  is  properly  no 
part  of  his  satisfaction,  which  is  the  effect  solely 
of  his  passive  obedience.  Among  these  are 
Zacharia,  Griesbach,  Doderlein. 

II.  The  worth  and  uses  of  the  Active  Obedience  of 

Christ. 

That  Christ  did  render  this  perfect  obedience 
is  clear,  both  from  the  fact  of  his  being  sinless, 
(s.  93,  iii.)  and  from  the  express  declarations 
of  the  Bible,  Matt.  v.  17  ;  John,  iv.  34,  viii.  29 ; 
Phil.  ii.  8.  Cf.  likewise  the  texts  Ps.  xl.  7, 
cited  by  Paul,  Heb.  x.  5.  This  perfect  obedi- 
ence is  useful  to  us  in  the  following  respects  : — 
(1)  This  obedience  of  Christ  stands  in  the 


most  close  and  intimate  connexion  with  his 
whole  work  for  the  good  of  mankind.  His  suf- 
ferings and  death  could  not  possibly  have  the 
worth  and  the  salutary  consequences  ascribed  to 
them  in  the  scriptures,  if  Christ  had  endured 
them  otherwise  than  as  innocent  and  perfectly 
holy.  His  innocence  and  perfect  virtue  are  there- 
fore frequently  mentioned  by  the  apostles,  when 
they  speak  of  the  worth  of  his  sufferings  and 
death,  Heb.  ix.  14;  1  Pet.  i.  19;  iii.  18.  In 
Heb.  vii.  27,  Paul  shews  that  the  death  of  Christ 
was  so  infinitely  superior  to  all  Jewish  sacri- 
fices, because  Christ  was  sinless,  and  was  not 
compelled,  like  the  Jewish  priests,  first  to  purify 
himself  by  offering  sacrifice  for  his  own  sins. 

(2)  Christ's  obedience  to  the  divine  laws  is 
useful  and  instructive  to  us,  in  furnishing  us 
with  a  perfect  example  of  holiness  and  spotless 
virtue.     Christ  explained  the  divine  laws  not 
merely   by   instruction,   but    by    action.     His 
whole  conduct  was  a  living  recommendation  of 
the  purest  and  most  perfect  morality,  and  power- 
fully plead  in  behalf  of  virtue.  To  this  the  New 
Testament  frequently  alludes,  1  John,  iii.  3 ; 
1  Pet.  ii.  21 ;  Heb.  xii.  2. 

(3)  But  besides  this,  the  active  obedience  of 
Christ,  taken  by  itself,  is  considered  by  many 
a  separate  part  of  his  satisfaction,  as  well  as  his 
passive  obedience.     Vide  No.  1.    They  sup- 
pose it  to  be  vicarious,  in  itself  considered,  or 
that  it  will  be  imputed  to  us — i.  e.,  that  merely 
on  account  of  the  perfect  obedience  yielded  by 
Christ  to  the  divine  law  we  shall  be  regarded 
and  treated  by  God  as  if  we  ourselves  had  per- 
fectly obeyed.     Accordingly,  they  suppose  that 
Christ,  in  our  stead,  has  supplied  or  made  good 
our  imperfect  obedience  to  the  divine  law.     To 
this  view  there  are  the  following  objections — 
viz., 

(a)  Christ  never  spoke  of  an  imputation  of 
his  obedience  and  virtue,  as  he  frequently  did 
of  his  sufferings  and  death.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  apostles.  Christ  frequently  speaks  in 
general  of  his  doing  the  will  of  his  Father  for 
the  good  of  men,  and  teaches  that  this  obedi- 
ence will  be  for  the  good  of  those  who  believe 
on  him.  He  does  so  very  frequently  in  the 
Gospel  of  John,  iii.  iv.,  vi.,  xiii.,  seq.  17.  But 
here  he  refers  to  his  whole  obedience  both  in 
acting  and  suffering,  and  does  not  separate  one 
from  the  other.  Indeed,  there  are  passages 
where  the  apostles  must  necessarily  have  spoken 
of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  as  vicarious, 
if  they  had  held  any  such  doctrine.  E.  g., 
Rom.  vii.,  viii.,  where  Paul  laments  the  weak- 
ness and  imperfection  of  human  nature,  by 
which  man  is  unable,  even  with  the  best  inten- 
tions, perfectly  to  fulfil  the  divine  commands. 
In  this  connexion,  nothing  would  have  been 
more  consoling  than  the  mention  of  the  vicari- 
ous obedience  of  Christ,  by  which  our  imper- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       407 


;t  obedience  is  made  good.     But  nothing  of  I 
ill  this!     For  the  consolation  of  the  pious,  he  | 
lentions  only  the  death,  resurrection,  and  inttr- 
ssion  of  Christ,  Rom.  viii.  33,  34. 
The  active  obedience  of  Christ,  however,  is 
not  excluded.   In  Rom.  v.  19,  the  apostle  makes 

(mention  of  it.     In  this  passage,  which  is  cited 

las  one  of  the  most  important  proof-texts,  we 
read,  "As  through  the  disobedience  of  Adam 

'many  became  sinners,  so  through  the  obedience 
of  Christ  many  are  made  righteous,"  or  are  par- 
doned. In  ver.  18,  the  rtapa'rtrw/wa  'A6a/i  and 
jua  Xpttrrov  are  contrasted.  Now,  accord- 
ing to  the  uniform  scriptural  usage,  this  obe- 

[dience  of  Christ  does  not  refer  simply  and  ex- 
clusively to  his  active  obedience,  but  principally 
to  his  obedience  to  the  divine  command  to  suffer 

land  die  for  us,  Phil.  ii.  8;  Heb.  v.  8,  9.  But 
in  the  passage  cited,  the  apostle  clearly  com- 
prises under  the  word  vrtaxorj  the  whole  obedi- 
dience  of  Christ,  and  teaches  that  this,  especial- 
ly as  shewn  in  suffering  for  us,  is  for  our  good. 
Cf.  Rom.  x.  4.  On  the  whole,  then,  our  position, 
that  the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  divine 
commands,  separately  considered,  (i.  e.,  discon- 
nected from  his  death,)  is  never  mentioned  in  the 
Bible  as  meritorious,  is  confirmed.  The  scrip- 
tures declare  that  the  whole  obedience  of  Christ, 
exhibited  both  in  acting  and  suffering,  is  for  our 
good.  But  they  never  divide  this  obedience,  as 
theologians  have  frequently  done.  The  whole 
obedience  of  Christ  is  useful  to  us  principally 
on  account  of  his  obedience  shewn  in  suffering. 
(6)  The  perfect  obedience  of  Christ,  it  is  as- 
serted, must  needs  be  imputed  to  us,  in  order  to 
make  good  our  defective  obedience  to  the  law, 
since  the  justice  of  God  demands  perfect  obe- 
dience. But  to  this  it  may  be  answered,  (a) 
That  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  this  is  necessary ; 
for  our  imperfect  obedience  to  the  divine  law  is 
either  guiltless  on  our  part, — in  which  case  there 
is  no  imputation  of  guilt,  and  consequently  no 
reason  why  another's  righteousness  should  be 
imputed  to  us, — or  it  is  guilty  and  deserving  of 
punishment.  But  this  punishment  is  already 
removed  by  the  sufferings  and  death  (the  pas- 
sive obedience)  of  Christ.  But  that  the  guilt 
as  well  as  punishment  of  sin  is  and  must  be 
removed  by  Christ,  cannot  be  proved.  Vide  s. 
109,  II.  2.  (j3)  It  is  inconsistent  with  many 
other  principles  and  declarations  of  the  Bible — 
e.  g.,  with  the  principle  that  man  will  be  re- 
warded or  punished,  xa-tatatpya,  a  v  tov,  Rom. 
ii.  6.  Here  the  imputation  of  the  merit  of  an- 
other's works  is  entirely  excluded.  The  ancient 
prophets,  and  all  the  teachers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament from  the  time  of  John  the  Baptist,  con- 
tended strenuously  against  the  opinion  of  the 
Jews  respecting  the  imputation  of  the  vicarious 
righteousness  of  Abraham.  Vide  s.  108,  I.  3. 
We  should  not  therefore  expect  such  a  doctrine 


as  this  from  them  ;  but  the  scripture  doctrine  of 
the  merit  of  the  whole  obedience  of  Christ  is 
fully  secured  against  perversion  by  the  frequent 
inculcation  of  diligence  in  holiness.  Vide  s. 
114,  ad  fin.  It  has  as  little  resemblance  to  the 
Jewish  doctrine  of  the  merit  of  the  good  works 
of  Abraham,  as  it  has  to  that  of  the  Romish 
church,  respecting  the  desert  of  the  good  works 
of  the  saints. 

(c)  Many  questionable  conclusions  may  be 
deduced  from  this  doctrine,  which  would  indeed 
be  rejected  by  its  advocates,  but  which  cannot 
be  easily  avoided. 

(a)  We  might  conclude  from  the  doctrine 
that  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us, 
and  that  on  account  of  it  we  are  rewarded  by 
God,  that  the  long-continued  and  high  virtue  of 
a  confirmed  Christian  is  of  no  greater  value  in 
the  sight  of  God,  and  will  receive  no  greater 
reward,  than  the  imperfect  virtue  of  a  beginner ; 
for  the  deficiencies  of  the  latter  in  personal  ho- 
liness will,  according  to  this  doctrine,  be  made 
up  by  the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ  imputed 
to  him — i.  e.,  considered  as  his  own  obedience. 
But  this  is  contrary  to  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples both  of  reason  and  revelation. 

(/3)  However  much  this  doctrine  may  be 
guarded  against  perversion  by  saying  that  the 
personal  virtue  of  the  Christian  is  not  excluded 
or  dispensed  with,  it  must  doubtless  weaken  the 
motive  to  holiness  of  life,  and  thus  prove  inju- 
rious to  the  interests  of  morality.  Why  was  it 
necessary  for  Christianity  to  point  out  so  many 
means  of  holiness,  in  order  that  we  might  attain 
perfect  happiness,  if  in  this  way  it  could  be  at 
once  attained  with  so  little  difficulty  and  labour. 

Note. — It  may  help  to  settle  the  controversy 
on  this  subject  to  consider  that  it  has  originated 
solely  in  mistake.  Two  things  have  been  sepa- 
rated which  never  can  be  put  asunder,  and 
which  never  are  in  the  Bible,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, are  always  connected.  All  that  Christ 
did  and  suffered  for  our  good  receives  its  pecu- 
liar worth  from  the  fact  that  he  did  it  from  obe- 
dience to  the  divine  will.  This  is  the  virtue 
or  obedience  of  Christ.  If  we  would  partake 
of  the  salutary  consequences  of  his  sufferings,, 
we  must,  under  divine  guidance  and  assistance, 
follow  his  example.  This  is  an  indispensable 
condition.  The  two  things  are  always  connect- 
ed in  the  Bible,  and  should  be  in  our  instruc- 
tions; and  then  this  doctrine  cannot  be  abused. 
The  remarks  made  by  Morus,  p.  170,  171,  are 
directed  to  this  point. 

The  Bible  indeed  justifies  us  in  saying,  (1) 
that  everything  which  Christ  actively  performed 
during  his  whole  life,  in  obedience  to  God,  is 
salutary  to  us,  was  done  on  our  account,  and 
for  our  good.  But  (2)  we  therefore  truly  af- 
firm, that  our  whole  happiness  ((jw-fiypta)  is  the 
fruit  in  a  special  manner  of  his  obedience  to  th& 


408 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


divine  command,  both  in  his  suffering  and  in  all 
the  actions  of  his  life.  Had  he  not  shewn  this 
obedience,  we  should  not  have  attained  to  this 
happiness.  So  the  scriptures  everywhere  teach. 
The  obedience  of  Christ  in  suffering-  is  therefore 
the  foundation,  and  imparts  to  us  the  assurance, 
that  all  his  other  obedience,  in  respect  to  all  the 
divine  commands,  will  be  for  our  benefit;  John, 
vi.  51;  iii.  14—16;  xii.  24;  1  John,  iv.  9;  1 
Thess.  v.  9,  seq.  No  injury  to  morals  need  be 
apprehended  if  the  scripture  doctrine  is  follow- 
ed, and  things  which  belong  together  are  not 
Vide  s.  114,  ad  finem. 


PART  II.  OF  CHAPTER  IV. 

ON  REDEMPTION   FROM  THE  POWER  OR  DOMI- 
NION OF  SIN. 


SECTION  CXVI. 

OF  THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  THIS  DOCTRINE  ;  ITS  CON- 
FORMITY WITH  SCRIPTURE  J  AND  THE  MANNER 
IN  WHICH  WE  ARE  FREED  FROM  SIN  THROUGH 
CHRIST. 

I.  Importance  of  this  Doctrine. 

IN  treating  of  the  work  of  redemption,  writers 
have  commonly  considered  only  the  first  part 
•—the  atonement^  or  freedom  from  the  punish- 
ment of  sin.  But  deliverance  from  sin  belongs 
as  really  to  the  redemption  of  Christ  as  deliver- 
ance from  punishment,  which  indeed  Ernesti 
and  others  have  before  remarked.  By  the  death 
of  Christ  we  are  indeed,  as  the  scriptures  teach, 
delivered  from  the  punishment  of  sin.  But  since 
the  disposition  to  sin  is  so  strong  and  universal 
among  men,  (and  this  is  the  whole  cause  of 
their  degeneracy  and  unhappiness,)  some  means 
must  needs  be  pointed  out,  in  the  proper  use  of 
which  they  may,  under  divine  assistance,  over- 
come this  bias  and  propensity  to  sin,  and  may 
attain  to  true  holiness  and  the  practice  of  virtue, 
acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God.  If  Christ  had 
not  shewn  us  such  means,  his  work  of  redemp- 
tion would  have  been  incomplete,  and  his  atone- 
ment in  vain.  For  we  can  participate  in  the 
blessings  of  redemption,  even  after  we  have  ob- 
tained forgiveness,  only  by  avoiding  sin  and 
living  righteously.  And  had  not  Christ  fur- 
nished us  with  means  to  do  this,  his  atonement 
would  be  of  no  avail. 

The  reason  why  this  has  not  been  commonly 
considered  in  the  systems  of  theology  as  making 
a  part  of  the  work  of  redemption,  is,  that  the 
Socinians  have  regarded  it  as  constituting  the 
whole  of  this  work,  exclusive  of  the  atonement 
of  Christ  by  his  sufferings  and  death.  Evange- 
lical writers,  therefore,  though  they  did  not  en- 


tirely omit  this  important  part  of  Christ's  work, 
passed  it  by  in  this  connexion,  in  order  to  avoid 
all  fellowship  with  such  an  opinion,  and  to  af- 
ford no  appearance  of  diminishing  in  the  least 
from  the  influence  of  the  atonement  or  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ.  But  in  conformity  with  the 
Bible,  even  the  ancient  fathers  considered  both 
of  these  things  as  belonging  to  the  work  of  re- 
demption— e.  g.,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Leo  the 
Great,  and  Gregory  the  Great.  The  latter  says, 
"  Christ  became  man,  not  only  to  atone  for  us 
by  his  sufferings  and  death  ;  but  also  to  instruct 
us,  and  to  give  us  an  example."  This  is  the 
full  scriptural  idea  of  drtoXv-r'pwfjtj.  Cf.  s.  106, 
II.  Therefore  redemption  (drtox-uT'pwfjtj)  com- 
prises the  two  following  parts — viz.,  (1)  Deli- 
verance from  the  punishment  of  sin  (&acr/<,o$, 
atonement,  xaraTaayjj)  ;  (2)  from  the  power  and 
dominion  of  sin.  The  former  is  effected  by  his 
sufferings  and  death,  and  is  confirmed  by  his 
resurrection  and  intercession.  The  latter  is  ef- 
fected by  his  doctrine,  accompanied  by  divine 
power  (the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,)  and 
by  his  example. 

The  connexion  of  these  two-parts,  as  we  learn 
it  from  scripture  and  experience,  is  this: — 
When  an  individual  is  assured  of  his  forgive- 
ness through  Christ,  he  is  filled  with  the  most 
sincere  love  and  gratitude  to  God  and  to  Christ. 
"  He  to  whom  much  is  forgiven,  loves  much ;" 
Luke,  vii.  47.  These  feelings  render  him  dis- 
posed and  desirous  to  obey  the  commands  of 
God  and  Christ.  This  obedience,  flowing  from 
love,  is  not  burdensome,  but  easy  and  joyful ; 
1  John,  v.  3,  seq.  The  actual  participation 
in  the  benefits  of  this  second  part  of  Christ's 
work,  belongs,  therefore,  in  all  its  extent,  to 
those  only  who  have  experienced  the  benefits 
of  the  former  part.  A  Christian  teacher,  there- 
fore, proceeds  preposterously,  and  contrary  to 
the  example  of  the  holy  scriptures,  when  he  ex- 
hibits and  inculcates  only  the  second  part,  either 
passing  the  first  in  silence,  or  exciting  doubts 
with  regard  to  it,  or  casting  contempt  upon  it. 
He  ought  to  connect  the  two  parts,  and  to  exhi- 
bit them  clearly  and  scripturally,  as  the  apostles 
have  done.  The  method  of  the  apostles  has 
been  proved  the  best  by  experience.  Whenever 
the  atonement  of  Christ,  or  the  first  part  of  the 
work  of  redemption,  has  been  omitted,  little 
has  been  effected  by  preaching  morality,  and 
holding  up  the  example  of  Jesus.  Men  may 
be  taught  in  this  way  what  they  should  be,  but 
are  left  ignorant  of  the  means  of  becoming  so. 

II.  This  Doctrine  True  and  Scriptural. 
It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  Christ  be- 
came man,  not  only  to  free  us  from  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,  but  from  sin  itself.  Jesus  himself 
says  this,  John,  viii.  32,  36,  seq.  Cf.  John,  vi. 
The  writings  of  the  apostles  contain  passages 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       409 


of  the  same  import — e.  g.,  Titus,  ii.  11 — 14. 
Here  Paul  shews  Titus  what  he  ought  to  teach. 
He  says  (ver.  11,  12),  that  Christianity  makes 
men  pious  and  virtuous,  and  gives  them  the 
most  cheerful  anticipations  of  the  future.  Now 
(ver.  14)  he  mentions  the  redemption  of  Christ, 
implying  (a)  that  he  died  for  us  (t8uxsv  tavtbv 
6)  that  he  designed  to  deliver  us 
from  all  unrighteousness  (d?t6 
,  and  make  us  the  friends  of  God, 
and  ready  for  all  good  works,  (Christian  vir- 
tues.) Here  plainly  drtoTotfpwfft?  implies  both 
the  particulars  above  mentioned.  So  1  Pet.  i. 
18,  Christ  delivered  us  (kurpow)  tx  pata-ias 
dvaaT'po<J>>j?,t/V0m  a  sinful,  heathenish,  vicious  life. 
Ephes.  ii.  9,  10,  "  We  are  xtke&vtes  tv  Xpisr^ 
«t£  spyoi?  dyc£ots" — i.  e.,  renewed,  placed  in  a 
situation  in  which  we  can  act  virtuously.  Gal. 
i.  4,  •*  Christ  gave  himself  rtspt  a^ap-r'cwv  i^uwi/ 
(to  deliver  us  from  sin),  and  to  rescue  us  from 
our  former  condition  in  the  service  of  sin,  (brtwj 
fijsT.^i'ac.  tx  ifov  cuwvoj  rtoi/^pov.)"  The  two 
things  are  connected  still  more  clearly,  1  Pet. 
ii.  24,  "  Christ  suffered  on  the  cross  the  punish- 
ment of  our  sins;  we  ought  therefore  to  die  to 
sin,  and  live  entirely  for  holiness.  For  to  his 
sufferings  are  we  indebted  for  all  our  blessed- 
ness (this  twofold  good) ;  by  his  stripes  we  are 
healed." 

In  order  deeply  to  impress  the  mind  with  the 
close  connexion  and  the  practical  use  of  both  of 
these  parts,  the  apostles  frequently  transfer  the 
terms  relating  to  the  death  of  Christ  to  the, 
moral  improvement  or  holiness  of  men,  effected 
by  him.  E.  g.,  We  ought  to  die  spiritually  to 
sin,  as  he  died  for  it  bodily ;  to  rise,  &c.  Vide 
the  texts  already  cited ;  also  Rom.  vi.  4 ;  viii. 
10,  &c. 

More  important  still  are  the  passages  which 
teach  that  Christ  delivered  us  from  the  power 
and  dominion  of  Satan,  as  Ephes.  ii.  2;  that  he 
has  destroyed  the  power  of  the  devil,  &c. ;  John, 
xii.  31,  seq.  This  phraseology  is  best  explained 
by  the  passage,  1  John,  iii.  8,  o  rtotwv  a^ap-nav 
tx  StajSdkoi;  iatw  (diaboli  films,  or  diabolo  simi- 
lis,  ver.  12;  John,  viii.  44);  for  he  sinned  of 
old  (art'  dp£??$).  Again,  Et$  -tovto  Ifvirtpuijaj  o 
Ttoj  ®fov,  ivo>  hvGy  tpya  5taj36^ou.  The  latter 
clause,  tpya  6ta,8dxou,  is  clearly  synonymous 
with  ajuaptfuu.  Sins  are  thus  described,  because 
the  devil  is  regarded  as  the  author  of  them,  and 
because  by  committing  sin  we  resemble  him, 
and  are  instruments  in  his  hand  ;  as,  on  the  con- 
trary, t pya  ®£ov,  are  virtuous  and  pious  actions — 
such  as  flow  from  likeness  to  God,  or  love  to 
him. 

III.  The  manner  in  which  Christ  delivers  us  from 
Sin. 

If  we  would  obtain  definite  conceptions  upon 
this  subject,  we  must  come  down  to  the  simplest 
52 


possible  ideas,  and  avoid  the  vague  and  obscure 
expressions  with  which  mystics  are  wont  to 
darken  their  own  views.  In  representing  the 
matter  briefly,  writers  are  often  content  with 
saying  that  new  power  and  ability  to  do  good  is 
afforded  us  by  Christ.  This  representation  ac- 
cords perfectly  with  the  holy  scriptures,  with 
the  promise  of  Christ,  and  with  Christian  expe- 
rience. From  this  language,  however,  we  are 
not  to  understand  that  any  miraculous  assistance 
is  furnished  by  Christ.  This  power  is  usually 
afforded  in  a  natural  manner,  and  the  scriptures 
themselves  clearly  point  out  the  means  by  which 
it  is  obtained.  That  Christ  frequently  and  dis- 
tinctly promised  his  aid  and  support  at  all  times 
to  all  his  followers,  if  they  on  their  part  per- 
formed the  requisite  conditions,  is  made  certain 
from  the  scriptures;  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  The 
term  8vvo/uj  Xpitftfoi;  occurs  frequently  in  John 
and  in  the  epistles.  Vide  John,  xv.  1,  seq. ;  2 
Cor.  xii.  9;  2  Pet.  i.  3,  4. 

This  assistance  of  God  and  Christ  which  is 
promised  to  Christians  in  connexion  with  their 
use  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  does  not  act  in  a 
manner  inconsistent  with  the  powers  and  con- 
stitution of  human  nature,  but  wholly  in  accord- 
ance with  them.  According  to  the  wise  consti- 
tution of  our  nature,  all  our  actions  are  princi- 
pally dependent  upon  the  fixed  determination 
of  the  will,  which  is  again  dependent  upon  the 
strength  and  clearness  of  the  motives  present  to 
the  understanding.  Now  we  are  frequently 
hindered  by  external  circumstances  which  are 
beyond  our  control  from  the  practice  of  virtue. 
In  this  case  we  are  without  guilt,  and  the  omis- 
sion cannot  be  imputed  to  us.  (Here,  however, 
we  are  liable  to  deception  by  thinking  we  are 
without  fault,  when  this  is  not  true.)  But  often 
the  fault  is  in  ourselves.  WTe  allow  sense  to 
rule  our  reason.  We  refuse  properly  to  consider 
the  motives  placed  before  us,  or  we  neglect  op- 
portunity of  instructing  ourselves  respecting 
duty ;  or  are  chargeable,  perhaps,  with  both  of 
these  faults.  If  now,  in  this  case,  we  disobey 
the  law  of  God,  we  are  apt  to  bemoan  our  weak- 
ness and  want  of  power  for  doing  good.  Such 
faults  and  weakness  of  the  understandingand  will 
cannot  be  corrected  by  any  miraculous  power 
afforded  by  Christ;  and  the  virtue  which  should 
be  effected  by  such  a  miraculous  power  would 
cease  to  be  a  personal  virtue  of  the  one  in  whom 
it  was  wrought,  and  consequently  could  not  be 
imputed  to  him.  There  is  no  other  way  but  for 
man  to  learn  the  motives  to  piety  and  the  avoid- 
ing of  sin  which  are  presented  in  the  Christian 
doctrine,  and  to  form  the  fixed  resolve  that, 
under  divine  guidance  and  assistance,  he  will 
govern  his  own  will  by  what  he  knows  to  be 
the  will  of  God  and  Christ.  Only  then,  when 
he  has  done  everything  on  his  part,  can  he  count 
upon  the  divine  assistance.  Until  man  ha3 
2  M 


410 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


done  his  part,  he.  is  incapable  of  that  assistance 
which  God  and  Christ  have  promised  to  afford. 
If  we  are  wanting  in  this  thankful  love  to  God 
and  Christ,  which  has  been  before  insisted  upon, 
we  must  also  be  wanting  in  the  disposition  either 
to  learn  or  obey  his  will  ;  and  in  this  condition, 
we  are  of  course  disqualified  for  his  assistance. 
These  remarks  lead  directly  to  the  answer  of 
the  question,  How  are  we  delivered  by  Christ 
from  the  power  and  dominion  of  sin]  When 
we  derive  the  motives  for  obedience  to  the  di- 
vine precepts  from  the  instructions  and  example 
of  Christ,  and  suffer  these  to  control  our  affec- 
tions, and  when  we  do  this  from  grateful  love  to 
God  and  to  Christ,  we  then  fulfil  the  conditions 
which  are  essential  on  our  part,  in  order  that  we 
may  rely  upon  this  promised  guidance  and  as- 
sistance. We  shall  shew,  in  the  following  sec- 
tion, what  is  taught  in  the  Bible  respecting  the 
efficacy  of  the  instruction  and  example  of  Christ, 
in  overcoming  the  power  of  sin.  By  the  in- 
struction of  Christ  we  obtain  exact  and  distinct 
information  respecting  the  nature  of  sin  and  its 
consequences,  &c.  His  instruction  and  example 
shew  the  means  and  motives  for  avoiding  sin, 
and  leading  upright  and  pious  lives, 


SECTION  CXVII. 

OF  THE  DELIVERANCE  FROM  THE  POWER  AND  DO- 
MINION OF  SIN,  FOR  WHICH  WE  ARE  INDEBTED, 
UNDER  DIVINE  ASSISTANCE,  TO  THE  INSTRUC- 
TION AND  EXAMPLE  OF  CHRIST. 

I.  Scriptural  Doctrine  respecting  the  Efficacy  of 
Christ's  Instructions  in  subduing  Sin. 

(1)  THE  doctrine  of  Christ  informs  us  dis- 
tinctly what  are  the  requisitions  of  the  divine 
law,  and  how  we  should  order  our  life  in  con- 
formity with  them  ;  it  teaches  us  to  notice  every 
deviation  from  this  law,  and  the  dreadful  conse- 
quences of  disobedience;  and  it  gives  these  in- 
structions in  a  manner  which  is  plain  and  intel- 
ligible to  every  mind.  This  comprehensive  and 
complete  instruction  as  to  the  whole  extent  of 
Christian  duty  gives  the  Christian  doctrine  a 
great  advantage  above  other  moral  codes,  in 
which  only  the  more  violent  outbreakings  of  sin 
are  at  all  noticed.  The  apostles  everywhere 
exhibit,  with  great  earnestness,  this  advantage 
of  the  Christian  doctrine,  and  Christ  himself 
declares  it  to  have  been  one  great  object  of  his 
coming  into  the  world,  to  give  this  instruction. 
Accordingly,  Matt.  v.  21,  seq.,  he  gives  exam- 
ples of  this  more  complete  instruction  about  the 
duties  of  man,  as  drawn  from  the  divine  com- 
mands. 

Those  religious  teachers,  therefore,  mistake 
very  much  who  make  the  doctrines  of  faith  the 
only  subjects  of  discourse,  entirely  omitting 


Christian  ethics,  and  perhaps  speaking  con- 
temptuously of  them.  These  moral  instruc- 
tions constitute  a  most  valuable  portion  of  the 
Christian  system.  Even  the  enemies  of  Chris- 
tianity, both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  have 
done  justice  to  the  morality  of  the  gospel.  But 
our  own  age  does  not  need  to  be  warned  so 
much  against  this  fault  as  against  the  opposite 
one  of  inculcating  the  mere  morality  of  the 
Bible,  and  of  speaking  disrespectfully  of  the 
evangelical  doctrines.  The  teachers  of  religion 
should  connect  the  two  together,  as  the  sacred 
writers  do,  and  should  draw  the  motives  to  ho- 
liness, virtue,  and  moral  purity  from  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Christian  religion.  Vide  s.  116, 
I.  ad  finem.  It  was  not  the  manner  of  Christ 
to  teach  the  duties  without  the  doctrines  of  reli- 
gion. Neither  he  nor  his  apostles  separated  the 
one  from  the  other.  The  gospel  contains  both. 
The  doctrine  respecting  Christ,  and  the  other 
great  doctrines  of  faith,  afford  a  powerful  support 
to  moral  lessons,  and  so  they  are  uniformly  em- 
ployed by  the  apostles.  This  method,  however 
much  disregarded  at  present,  deserves  to  be  seri- 
ously recommended  to  every  teacher  of  religion 
who  is  desirous  of  promoting  the  true  and  lasting 
interest  of  his  hearers.  Christian  ethics  teach 
us  our  duty;  and  Christian  doctrines  open  the 
sources  from  which  we  must  draw  strength  to 
perform  it.  In  popular  discourse,  then,  instruc- 
tion in  morals  should  always  be  connected  with 
and  derived  from  evangelical  doctrines. 

(2)  The  Christian  doctrine  gives  full  instruc- 
tion respecting  the  manner  of  suppressing  our 
sinful  inclinations,  and  the  means  we  should 
use  to  overcome  temptation  to  siri,  to  weaken 
the  power  of  sense,  and  to  make  constant  ad- 
vances in  holiness.  Tit.  ii.  11,  seq.,  "The  sa- 
lutary system  of  Christianity  is  designed  by 
God  for  all  men.  It  teaches  us  (rtcwfovovaa)  to 
renounce  all  irreligion  (dfftjSfia),  and  all  the 
sinful  passions  that  prevail  among  men  (xoopi- 
xai  £7ti£iyucu) ;  and,  on  the  contrary,  to  live 
wisely,  piously,  and  virtuously  on  the  earth." 
2  Pet.  i.  3,  4,  seq.  This  passage  contains  the 
following  truths: — "God  gives  us  power  to 
lead  a  virtuous  life  (£co»;  xai,  tvatfiua,),  and  shews 
us  the  means  of  doing  this  by  the  knowledge 
of  God,"  (i.  e.,  the  Christian  scheme,  whose 
author  is  God.)  Ver.  4,  "  By  this  knowledge 
we  attain  to  pious  and  godlike  dispositions, 
(©ft'aj  xoivuvoi  ijwrtcoj,  as  children  resembling 
our  Father,)  and  distinguish  ourselves  from  the 
great  mass  of  mankind,  who  live  in  immorali- 
ty." "Thus  we  are  placed  in  a  situation  to 
practise  all  the  Christian  virtues,  (ver.  5 — 7,) 
and  are  not  dpyoi  ov8s  dxaprto/,"  (i.  e.,  are  al- 
ways employed  in  works  of  Virtue,  and  dis- 
posed to  whatever  is  good.) 

Christianity  therefore  justly  requires  of  its 
friends,  to  whom  it  gives  such  perfect  instruc- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       411 


tion  as  to  the  observance  of  the  divine  precepts, 
to  maintain  the  most  unsullied  purity  of  charac- 
ter. John  is  fully  justified  in  declaring  (1  John, 
ii.  4,)  that  he  is  a  liar  who  professes  to  be  a 
friend  and  follower  of  Christ,  and  does  not  keep 
his  commandments.  The  same  writer  justly 
remarks  that  the  Christian  who  is  in  earnest  in 
overcoming  his  sins,  and  who  acts  out  of  pure 
love  to  God  and  to  Christ,  will  not  find  it  diffi- 
cult to  fulfil  the  commands  of  God,  al  evfoTuu 
a/v-tov  j3aptKM  ovx  eiffiv  ;  1  John,  v.  3,  coll.  Matt. 
xi.  30.  He  therefore  assures  us,  in  entire  con- 
formity with  experience,  that  a  true  Christian, 
by  his  obedience  to  Christian  rules,  and  by  con- 
stant exercise,  can  advance  so  far,  that  virtue 
will  become  his  confirmed  habit,  and  the  pre- 
ponderating disposition  to  sin  will  become  sub- 
ordinate, ov  8vvata*  apap'tdvetv,  1  John,  iii. 
8,  9. 

Note. — Paul  and  the  other  apostles  were  ac- 
customed to  connect  the  history  of  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ,  in  his  humiliation  and  exaltation, 
with  his  doctrine.  From  this  history  they  de- 
duce some  of  the  advantages  which  we  enjoy  as 
Christians,  and  also  some  of  our  duties  and  the 
motives  to  the  discharge  of  them;  or  they  refer 
to  this  history  in  inculcating  these  duties,  in 
order  to  render  them  more  impressive.  Thus 
they  frequently  ascribe  to  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  Christ  a  power  to  subdue  sin,  and  to 
excite  pious  affections.  An  example  of  this  is 
Heb.  ix.  14,  seq.,  "If  even  the  blood  of  beasts 
took  away  external  impurity,  and  rendered  those 
who  were  expiated  ^externally  clean,  according 
to  the  law  of  Moses,  how  much  more  must  the 
blood  of  Christ  purify  us  from  sm"  (dead 
works) — i.  e.,  render  us  holy  ;  "  that  we  may 
be  placed  in  a  situation  to  worship  God  in  a 
manner  acceptable  to  him."  Still  more  clear 
is  the  passage  2  Cor.  v.  15,  "He  died  for  all, 
that  they  should  not  live  according  to  their  own 
choice  (laur^),  but  according  to  the  will  and 
commands  of  Christ,  who  died  for  them."  The 
love  of  Christ  in  offering  up  himself  for  them, 
should  incite  them  to  grateful  love,  and  to  will- 
ing obedience  to  his  commands  ;  1  Peter,  i.  18, 
19,  "Christ  delivered  us  by  his  blood  from  an 
idolatrous  and  sinful  course  of  life."  There  are 
many  more  passages  of  the  same  nature. 

From  a  comparison  of  these  texts  it  is  easy  to 
•  see  that  no  direct  or  miraculous  physical  agency 
is  here  ascribed  to  the  death  of  Christ,  nor  any 
power  derived  from  it  which  is  peculiar  and 
distinct  from  the  influence  of  the  doctrine  re- 
specting Christ.  The  influence  of  the  death  of 
Christ  in  promoting  a  reformed  and  holy  life, 
takes  place  in  the  following  way  : — The  consi- 
deration of  the  death  of  Christ  promotes  (a)  ab- 
horrence and  dread  of  sin,  and  regard  for  the 
divine  law,  while  we  see  so  severe  a  punish- 
ment inflicted  upon  Christ.  In  the  death  of 


Christ,  then,  we  see  sin,  in  all  its  dreadful  con- 
sequences, and  the  inviolable  sanctity  of  the 
divine  law.  (£>)  Love,  gratitude,  obedience  to 
God  and  Christ,  and  zeal  in  obeying  his  com- 
mandments, are  also  effects  of  contemplating 
Christ's  death.  Thus  2  Cor.  v.  15,  coll.  Gal. 
ii.  20;  1  John,  v.  3;  Rom.  viii.  3,  4,  "Because 
Christ  was  punished  for  our  sins,  we  ought, 
from  gratitude,  the  more  carefully  to  obey  the 
precepts  of  the  law,"  (foxcu'w^a  fo^uov.)  Here, 
then,  the  effect  is  produced  upon  our  affections 
through  our  understanding. 

The  apostles  ascribe  a  similar  influence  in 
promoting  reformation  and  holiness  to  thercswr- 
rection  of  Christ  and  his  exaltation  in  the  hea- 
vens, 2  Cor.  v.  15;  Col.  iii.  1 ;  Heb.  xii.  2.  By 
the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Christ,  his 
whole  doctrine,  and  all  which  he  did  for  us,  re- 
ceive new  importance,  and  are  rendered  clear 
and  certain;  and  if  we  confide  in  him,  and  obey 
his  precepts,  we  may  now  look  forward  with 
cheerful  anticipations  to  a  reward  in  heaven. 
For  (1)  he  has  gone  before  to  the  place  whither 
we  shall  follow  him  if  we  love  him,  and  seek 
to  resemble  him,  (John,  xiv.  2,  3;)  and  (2) 
while  we  continue  upon  the  earth  he  still  cares 
for  us,  and  is  active  in  promoting  our  welfare. 
Christ  himself  frequently  connects  these  two 
things,  John,  xv.,  xvi.,  xvii.  Vide  s.  112,  II. 
What  a  powerful  influence  in  promoting  piety 
and  holiness  must  these  considerations  exert 
upon  the  heart  of  every  man  who  cordially  be- 
lieves and  embraces  them ! 

II.  Influence  of  Christ's  Example  in  aiding  the 
Practice  of  Virtue. 

There  is  a  propensity  to  imitation  implanted 
in  all  men.  Good  and  evil  examples  often  ex- 
ert an  influence  upon  the  heart  indescribably 
great,  and  sometimes  almost  irresistible.  This 
propensity,  as  well  as  the  love  of  distinction, 
ought  therefore  to  be  turned  to  account  in  edu- 
cation. Good  examples  do  far  more  to  improve 
and  ennoble  the  character,  and  to  perfect  holi- 
ness, than  mere  lessons  and  rules.  Longum  et 
difficile  Her  est  praecepta^  says  Seneca,  breve  ct 
cfficax  per  exempla.  Such  examples  act  more 
strongly  and  directly  upon  the  senses,  and  ex- 
cite the  heart  to  virtue  and  everything  noble  and 
great. 

The  example  of  Jesus  is  held  up  for  imitation 
everywhere  in  the  New  Testament,  as  the  most 
perfect  model  of  every  virtue.  It  is  made  the 
indispensable  duty  of  all  his  followers  to  con- 
form to  it  in  all  their  conduct.  Vide  1  John, 
ii.  6;  iii.  3;  1  Pet.  ii.  11,  "He  has  left  us  ex- 
ample (pattern,  rrtoypa^/tdv,)  that  we  should 
follow  his  steps."  But  the  example  of  Christ 
is  recommended  to  us  for  imitation,  not  only  in 
respect  to  his  general  integrity,  purity  of  mo- 
rals, and  entire  blamelessness,  (in  which  he 


412 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


was  perfectly  exemplary,  and  the  only  one  in- 
deed who  ever  was  so;  vide  s.  93,  III.;)  but 
also  in  respect  to  particular  virtues,  especially 
those  which  are  more  high  and  difficult,  which 
require  a  great  struggle  and  effort,  such  as  pa- 
tience, trust  in  God,  firmness  in  suffering,  the 
practice  of  humility  and  self-denial.  In  these 
respects,  Christ  himself  commends  his  example 
to  the  imitation  of  his  followers.  Vide  1  Pet. 
ii.  21—23;  Phil.  ii.  5,  seq.  We  have  still  fur- 
ther encouragement  to  imitate  the  example  of 
Jesus  by  the  reward  bestowed  upon  him,  the 
man  Jesus,  in  consequence  of  his  piety  and  vir- 
tue, which  we  also  may  expect  to  receive,  so 
far  as  we  are  capable  of  it,  if  we  follow  him. 
Vide  Phil,  ubi  supra,  and  Heb.  xii.  2,  3. 

It  is  an  excellent  rule  which  is  given  by  some 
of  the  ancient  Greek  philosophers,  that  in  our 
whole  life  and  in  all  our  actions  we  should  have 
the  example  of  some  great,  wise,  and  virtuous 
man  in  view,  and  that  we  should  imagine  him 
to  be  the  witness  and  overseer  (custos  et  poeda- 
gogus)  of  all  our  conduct.  They  advised  that 
we  should  do  everything  under  the  notice,  as  it 
were,  of  such  an  inspector,  and  inquire  at  every 
step  what  he  would  do  or  recommend  in  this 
case;  would  he  approve  or  disapprove!  Could 
I  do  or  say  this  thing  if  he  were  present  with- 
out blushing?  &c.  Epictetus  (Enchir.  c.  51) 
recommends  Socrates  and  Zeno  for  models  ;  Se- 
neca (Ep.  11.  Extra.),  Cato,  and  Lselius.  Chris- 
tians can  select  no  greater  and  more  perfect  man 
to  be  the  witness  of  their  conduct  and  guide  of 
their  morals  than  Jesus.  And  we  know,  too, 
that  we  may  not  only  imagine  him  to  be  the 
witness  and  judge  of  our  conduct,  but  that  he 
actually  is  so.  He  knows  all  our  thoughts  and 
actions,  and  will  be  the  sole  Judge  of  the  living 
and  the  dead.  So  we  are  taught  by  Christ  him- 
self in  his  discourses  recorded  in  John,  and  by 
all  the  apostles.  Both  Christ  and  his  apostles 
require  Christians  to  do  everything 


The  passage  Heb.  xii.  1,  2  deserves  to  be  no- 
ticed among  the  many  which  speak  of  imitating 
the  example  of  Christ.  Paul  first  compares  the 
firm  and  pious  sufferers  of  antiquity,  whose  ex- 
ample in  suffering  the  Christian  ought  to  imi- 
tate, with  spectators  and  witnesses,  who  look 
upon  our  race  and  contest,  and  encourage  us  to 
perseverance.  Among  these  witnesses  is  Jesus, 
who  far  surpasses  the  rest,  who  is  the  best  ex- 
ample of  confidence  in  God,  and  of  every  virtue, 
and  who  constantly  observes  us,  and  will  finally 
reward  us  if  we  follow  him. 

But  those  only  who  possess  the  character  de- 
scribed, s.  116,  I.,  ad  finem,  are  properly  capa- 
ble of  imitating  this  example  of  Jesus.  Men 
who  have  not  felt  the  consciousness  that  their 
sins  were  forgiven,  and  have  not  been  renewed 
in  the  temper  of  their  mind,  have  no  taste  or 


capacity  for  this  imitation  of  Christ.  Nor  can 
we  properly  require  of  them  what  they  in  this 
situation  are  incapable  of  performing.  We  can 
make  them  feel,  however,  if  their  moral  sensi- 
bility is  not  entirely  deadened,  how  far  below 
this  example  they  stand,  and  how  good  and  sa- 
lutary it  would  be  for  them  to  imitate  it. 


PART  III.  OF  CHAPTER  IV. 

ON  THE  PRESENT  AND  FUTURE  CONSEQUENCES 
OF  THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST. 


SECTION  CXVIII. 

SCRIPTURAL  TITLES  OF  THE  SALVATION  PROCURED 
BY  CHRIST  FOR  MEN  ;  ITS  GENERAL  NATURE  J 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  RE- 
SPECTING THE  ABOLITION  OF  THE  OLD-TESTA- 
MENT DISPENSATION  BY  CHRISTIANITY,  AND 
THE  ADVANTAGES  RESULTING  FROM  IT  TO  THE 
WORLD. 

I.  Scriptural  Names  of  the  Blessings  of  Christianity, 
and  their  Nature. 

SOME  of  these  names  are  literal,  others  figu- 
rative. The  most  common  are  the  following — 
viz.,  ErXoytTor,  rrna,  denoting  every  kind  of  be- 
nefit, Ephes.  i.  3 ;  Gal.  iii.  14.  Xa'pt?,  jn,  -ion, 
John,  i.  16,  "Through  his  infinite  love  we  have 
obtained  %dpw  avti  ^aptroj,"  an  undeserved  bene- 
fit superior  to  the  other,  in  opposition  to  the  Mo- 
saic dispensation,  (ver.  17,)  which  could  not 
secure  this  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  the  blessings 
connected  with  it,  which  are  here  intended  by 
the  word  %dpiv.  The  word  £10?;  is  also  fre- 
quently used,  vita  vere  vitalis,  happiness.  Also 
£«07toi,«fl&<u,  £yv,  x.  r.  A.,  in  opposition  to  drtw- 
tet'a  and  £awxroj,  unhappiness,  John,  iii.  36 ;  x. 
11  ;  Ephes.  ii.  5,  where  the  figure  is  continued, 
"  Through  Christ  he  has  vivified  and  raised  us 
up,"  &c. 

The  Jews  had  anciently  very  diverse  opinions 
respecting  the  nature  of  the  blessings  to  be  ex- 
pected from  Christ.  Only  a  few  of  the  better 
instructed  conceived  that  these  benefits  were 
entirely  of  a  spiritual  nature.  For  such  bless- 
ings the  great  mass  had  no  taste.  They  expect- 
ed, for  the  most  part,  temporal  blessings,  and 
hoped,  under  the  Messiah,  to  be  rich,  honourable 
and  mighty.  Vide  s.  89.  And  these  expecta- 
tions have  prevailed  in  a  large  portion  even  of 
the  Christian  world.  Accordingly,  many,  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  s-pirit  of  Christianity, 
have  associated  the  promises  of  earthly  good  and 
temporal  welfare,  made  under  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tute, with  the  precepts  of  the  New  Testament. 
We  may,  indeed,  hope  and  expect  to  obtain  from 
God  all  that  good,  even  of  a  temporal  nature,  ol 


L 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      413 


hich  we  are  capable,  and  of  which  we  stand 
in  need.  But  through  Christ,  and  observance  of 
his  precepts,  we  cannot  hope  to  obtain  earthly 
good.  For  the  design  of  his  religion  is  to  with- 
draw us  from  earth  and  sense,  to  improve  and 
ennoble  the  heart,  and  to  procure  the  enjoyment 
of  high  spiritual  blessedness  ;  Philippians,  iii. 
14,  17,  20.  On  this  ground,  therefore,  the  Jew- 
ish idea  of  the  coming  of  a  millenial  kingdom 
of  Christ  upon  the  earth  is  entirely  objection- 
able. The  apostles  never  indulge  in  such  ex- 
pectations, but  take  every  opportunity  to  con- 
tradict them.  They  call  those  who  entertain 
such  ideas  oapxixot,  persons  who  adhere  to  what 
is  sensible  and  exterior,  have  no  taste  for  what 
is  spiritual,  and  are  not  therefore  real  disciples 
of  Jesus.  Hence  Paul  says,  Ephes.  i.  3,  "God 
has  blessed  us,  through  Christ,  jtday  evtoyia 
riv  f  UjU.  atf  i  xy  sv  ETtovpouaotj."  IIvfDju.aT'txdj  is 
here  opposed  to  oapxi'xoj,  and  implies  that  the 
blessings  spoken  of  are  not  designed  for  the 
body  and  the  senses,  but  for  the  mind.  The 
phrase  'Ej/  -tol$  trtovpavioi$  (sc.  tonoif  vide  verse 
20;  ii.  6,  12)  does  not  signify  in  the  Christian 
'hurch,  but  denotes,  literally,  the  blessings 
which  we  shall  enjoy  in  heaven,  which  is  our 
home,  where  we  are  citizens,  (not  in  the  visible 
world.)  Hence  in  Heb.  viii.  6,  he  calls  the 
blessings  which  are  bestowed  upon  us  through 
Christ,  in  comparison  with  the  promises  made 
under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  xpeiftova  dyo£a. 
In  Heb.  vii.  19,  he  says,  that  there  is  through 
Christianity,  £7t?i(jayco'y?7  xps Lftovo^  i Xrfi'fioj,  (i.  e. 
it  inspires  the  hope  of  more  great  and  distin- 
guished divine  favours,)  since  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tute is  removed. 

The  blessings  bestowed  upon  us  through 
Christ  are  commonly  divided  into  general  or 
public,  (such  as  relate  to  the  whole  human  spe- 
cies,) and  particular,  privata,  (such  as  relate  to 
each  individual  Christian.)  Among  the  former 
is,  as  the  New  Testament  everywhere  shews, 
the  abolition  of  Judaism,  (the  ancient  institute,) 
and  the  establishment  of  a  new  dispensation 
and  institute,  by  which  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  might  be  united  in  one  common  religion. 
We  shall  first  treat  of  the  removal  of  the  ancient 
church  of  God,  and  of  the  establishment  of  the 
new  ;  and  then  of  the  particular  benefits  of 
Christianity. 

II.  The  Abolition  of  the  Mosaic  Institute,  and  the 
Union  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  one  common  Re- 
ligion. 

(1)  The  Israelitish  constitution  and  religion 
(vcyioj)  were  only  temporary  and  national.  They 
were  designed,  in  their  first  origin,  only  for  a 
barbarous  and  rude  people,  destitute  of  moral 
cultivation.  But  the  human  race  was  not  des- 
tined to  remain  always  in  a  state  of  infancy; 
and  as  soon  as  men  were  prepared  for  a  more 


high,  perfect,  and  spiritual  instruction,  that  more 
imperfect  kind,  intended  for  beginners,  would 
of  course  be  omitted.  The  Jewish  institute 
was  designed  to  be  only  preparatory ;  such  is 
the  uniform  doctrine  of  the  apostles,  especially 
of  Paul.  Vide  the  Introduction,  s.  12,  where 
we  have  cited  the  most  important  texts,  which 
are  principally  contained  in  the  epistles  to  the 
Galatians  and  Hebrews.  Now,  therefore,  ac- 
cording to  their  instruction,  Christ  had  abolish- 
ed the  law.  (Christ  himself,  for  good  reasons, 
gave  at  first  only  hints  which  led  to  this  con- 
clusion— e.  g.,  John,  iv.  21 — 24;  x.  16.  He 
left  the  full  development  of  this  doctrine  for  his 
disciples.)  Rom.  x.  4,  rt^oj  tov  vopov  'XpiO'tos — 
i.  e.,  vetos  H$tpe  *u  vo^uoi.  Heb.  vii.  18,  19  ;  Gal. 
iv.  4,  5;  Eph.  ii.  14,  15.  According  to  these 
and  other  passages  Christ  has  freed  his  follow- 
ers from  obligation  to  observe  the  law  of  Moses ; 
and  the  punishments  threatened  in  it  do  not  re- 
late to  those  who  believe  in  Christ.  Vide  Gal. 
iii.  13,  Xpwi'of  ifyyopaasv  ^ita?  ex  trfi  xatdpas 
tov  vopov — i.  e.,  from  the  punishments  which 
the  Mosaic  law  threatens. 

Here  two  questions  arise — viz., 

(a)  How  are  we  to  understand  those  texts 
which  teach  that  the  Mosaic  law  and  institute 
are  removed  and  declared  to  be  null  by  the  cru- 
cifixion? Such  texts  are,  Gal.  iii.  13;  Eph.  ii. 
16;  iii.  15;  and  especially  Col.  ii.  14,  "He 
took  it  away,  and  nailed  it  to  his  cross," — by 
his  crucifixion  he  declared  it  invalid.  The  apos- 
tles everywhere  teach  that  the  new  dispensation 
through  Christ  (xawri  810^307)  commenced  at 
his  death,  and  was  by  that  event  solemnly  sanc- 
tioned and  introduced.  Eph.  v.  25,  26;  Heb. 
xiii.20;  ix.  14,  15,  where  the  preparatory  eco- 
nomy of  Moses,  consisting  in  sacrifices,  is  com- 
pared with  the  preparatory  economy  of  Christ, 
consisting  in  the  sacrifice  of  himself.  Christ 
himself  calls  his  blood  which  was  shed,  al^ua 
xuivijs  Sto&r[x>7J,  Matthew,  xxvi.  28.  Conse- 
quentty,  the  ancient  Israelitish  dispensation 
ceased  with  the  death  of  Christ,  because  at 
that  event  the  new  dispensation  commenced. 
We  see  by  this  what  value  was  attached  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  and  how  everything  in  this  new 
dispensation  through  Christ  proceeds  from  it. 
The  day  of  his  death  is  the  consecration-day  of 
the  new  covenant.  The  new  covenant  is  not 
dated  from  the  time  when  he  began  to  teach, 
but  from  the  time  of  his  death. 

(6)  Are  all  the  Mosaic  laws  abolished  by 
Christ,  and  no  longer  obligatory  upon  Chris- 
tians? From  the  passages  cited  we  must  cer- 
tainly answer  in  the  affirmative.  But  the  laws 
of  Moses  are  of  different  kinds;  and  many  of 
the  older  theologians  maintained  that  Christ 
abolished  only  the  ceremonial  and  civil  law  of 
the  Israelites,  and  not  the  moral  law,  especially 
that  contained  in  the  decalogue.  But  in  the 
2M2 


414 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


passages  of  the  New  Testament  which  treat  of 
the  abolition  of  the  law  there  is  no  allusion  to 
this  threefold  distinction.  Paul  includes  the 
whole  under  vo^oj,  Romans,  vi.  14;  Gal.  iii.  19, 
25.  Besides,  many  of  the  laws  of  Moses,  which 
are  truly  moral,  are  expressed  and  stated  in  such 
a  way  as  to  shew  plainly  that  they  were  de- 
signed, in  that  form,  only  for  the  circumstances 
and  wants  of  the  Israelites  at  the  time  being — 
e.  g.,  "  Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother,  that 
thy  days  may  be  long  in  the  land"  (Palestine ;) 
and  the  law  respecting  the  Sabbath. 

The  mistake  upon  which  this  limitation  is 
founded  may  be  pointed  out.  Moral  laws  are 
in  themselves  universally  obligatory,  and  unal- 
terable as  the  laws  of  nature.  There  are,  doubt- 
less, many  such  moral  laws  in  the  code  of 
Moses,  as  well  as  of  Solon,  Lycurgus,  and 
others.  But  they  are  not  binding  upon  Chris- 
tians because  they  are  parts  of  the  Mosaic  code, 
and  stand  in  the  decalogue,  but  (a)  because 
they  are  founded  in  the  constitution  of  human 
nature,  which  God  himself  has  given  us,  and 
are  therefore  laws  of  nature,  and  (6)  because 
Christ  has  commanded  us  to  obey  them.  In 
the  same  way,  we  observe  the  moral  laws  which 
stand  in  the  codes  of  heathen  legislators — Con- 
fucius, Solon,  Lycurgus,  &c. ;  not  because  they 
have  given  them,  but  because  these  laws  are 
universal,  and  founded  in  our  very  nature. 
When  a  ruler  introduces  a  new  statute-book 
into  his  dominions,  the  old  book,  after  its  rejec- 
tion, is  no  longer  the  rule  by  which  right  and 
wrong  are  determined,  although  much  in  it 
still  remains  true.  Just  such  is  the  case  here. 
Morus  well  observes  (p.  243,  infra},  that  Chris- 
tians observe  the  moral  precepts  in  the  Mosaic 
code,  quia  ratio  diet  at,  et  Christi  doctrina  propo- 
nit,  proponendoque  confirmat.  Judaei  vero  tene- 
bantur  ea  observare,  quia  ratio  dictabat,  et  Moses, 
Jussu  divino,  praescripserat. 

In  this  way  we  may  understand  the  declara- 
tion of  Christ,  Matthew,  v.  17 — 19,  "that  he 
was  not  come  to  destroy  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets, (vtytov'xat  rtpo^jj-raj,)  and  that  all  the  di- 
vine commands  contained  in  them  must  be 
punctually  obeyed."  This  does  not  conflict 
with  the  doctrine  of  Paul.  Christ  was  neither 
able  nor  willing  to  abrogate  these  universal 
laws,  because  they  were  given  by  God  for  all 
men ;  not,  however,  because  they  were  given 
t>y  Moses.  It  was,  on  the  contrary,  the  design 
of  Christ  still  more  to  illustrate  these  laws,  and 
to  recommend  obedience  to  them  by  his  doc- 
trine and  example. 

The  question,  Whether  the  ten  command- 
ments of  Moses  should  be  retained  in  the  moral 
instruction  of  the  common  people  and  of  the 
young,  has  been  much  controverted  of  late. 
(Cf.  Thorn.  Boclo,  Etwas  iiher  den  Decalogus, 
oder,  von  der  Verbindlichkeit  der  zehn  Gebote 


fiir  die  Christen;  Schmalkalden,  1789,  8vo; 
Hufnagel,  Ueber  den  Religionsunterricht,  nnch 
den  zehnGeboten;  Zacharia,  Bibl.  Theol.  th. 
4;  Less,  Doderlein,  Reinhard,  in  their  Chris- 
tian ethics.)  From  what  has  been  already  said, 
it  is  plain  that  the  Ten  Commandments  are  not 
obligatory  because  they  are  laws  given  by 
Moses.  They  are  not  therefore,  of  necessity, 
fundamental  in  Christian  instruction.  No  in- 
jury, however,  is  to  be  apprehended  from  mak- 
ing them  so,  any  more  than  in  the  first  Christian 
church,  if  the  manner  in  which  Christ  and  the 
apostles  allude  to  the  moral  precepts  of  Moses 
and  the  Old  Testament  be  only  made  our  model. 
The  intelligent  and  conscientious  teacher  will 
be  very  cautious  in  declaring  to  the  common 
people  and  the  young  that  the  Ten  Command- 
ments are  abrogated,  since  he  might  be  easily 
understood  to  mean,  that  the  duties  enjoined  in 
them  are  no  longer  obligatory.  The  instruction 
which  God  has  given  through  Jesus,  respecting 
the  moral  law  and  our  duties,  is  much  more 
perfect  and  extensive  than  that  which  was 
given,  or  could  be  given,  through  Moses.  Our 
hearers  should  therefore  be  led  directly  to  this 
more  copious  fountain  of  knowledge.  This  will 
not  prevent  our  connecting  instruction  from  the 
Old  Testament  with  that  from  the  New,  as 
Christ  and  the  apostles  did,  especially  since 
the  history  of  the  Old  Testament  so  well  eluci- 
dates and  explains  many  points  of  duty. 

In  those  churches  in  which  the  decalogue  is 
incorporated,  by  their  very  constitution,  into  the 
system  of  instruction,  it  is  neither  necessary  nor 
advisable  for  the  teacher  to  urge  the  discontinu- 
ance of  this  custom.  By  this  course  he  would 
do  more  hurt  than  good.  He  will  proceed  more 
properly  and  judiciously  by  confirming,  com- 
pleting, and  enlarging  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment all  the  particular  moral  precepts  contained 
in  the  decalogue,  making  the  decalogue,  in  this 
way,  serve  only  as  a  guide  to  Christian  instruc- 
tion. He  will  do  well  also  to  connect  with  or 
append  to  the  catechism  a  good  outline  of  Chris- 
tian doctrines  and  morals,  exhibited  in  a  natural 
order,  and  in  an  intelligible  and  practical  man- 
ner, according  to  the  holy  scriptures. 

(2)  It  was  the  great  object  of  Jesus  to  esta- 
blish an  universal  religion,  by  which  all  nations 
of  the  earth  might  be  united  in  one  common 
worship  of  God.  Vide  John,  x.  16,  "  One  fold 
and  one  Shepherd."  Cf.  Reinhard,  Ueber  den 
Plan  des  Stifters  der  christlichen  Religion.  But 
this  plan  in  its  whole  extent  could  not  be  car- 
ried into  effect,  nor  indeed  was  it  designed  to 
be,  until  after  his  departure  from  the  earth. 
Vide  John,  xii.  32.  In  order  to  render  this 
plan  practicable,  it  was  essential  that  the  Mo- 
saic institute  should  be  abrogated,  and  declared 
to  be  thenceforward  abolished.  Without  this, 
Jews  and  Christians  could  never  be  brought 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       415 


•gether,  or  united  in  a  common  religious  so- 
;iety.  The  Jews  were  distinguished  by  na- 
tional pride  and  contempt  for  all  the  rest  of 
mankind.  They  considered  themselves  exclu- 
sively as  a  holy  people,  beloved  of  God.  All 
other  nations  seemed  to  them  to  be  desecrated, 
and  hated  by  God.  They  exhibit,  as  Tacitus 
says  (Hist.  v.  5),  Odium  hostile  adversus  omnes 
gentes;  and,  as  Paul  says,  1  Thess.  ii.  15,  a 
universal  misanthropy,  Ttaniv  cu^pwytotj  tvavtioi. 
And  what  was  the  occasion  of  this  hatred  and 
separation?  Their  misunderstanding  the  Mo- 
saic laws,  and  putting  a  false  interpretation 
upon  them. 

In  opposition  to  this,  the  great  principles  of 
Christianity  are,  the  love  of  God  and  universal 
philanthropy,  and  that  all  upright  and  true  wor- 
shippers of  God,  of  whatever  nation  they  may 
be,  are  equally  acceptable  to  him,  have  equal 
rights,  and  an  equal  share  in  the  blessings  of 
Christianity,  John,  iv.  21 — 24;  Acts,  x.  35; 
Romans,  x.  12 ;  Gal.  v.  6.  This  assimilation 
and  union,  by  which  all  distinction  between 
Jew  and  heathen  would  cease,  could  not  be 
brought  about  except  by  the  abrogation  of  the 
Mosaic  institute,  which  was  designed  by  God 
to  be  only  a  preparatory  economy.  One  of  the 
principal  passages  relating  to  this  subject  is 
Ephes.  ii.  12—19,  coll.  Col.  i.  21,  seq. ;  Ephes. 
ii.  10,  seq.  "  Christ  has  united  the  two  (Jews 
and  heathen),  has  done  away  the  cause  of  their 
enmity,  has  established  harmony,  brought  them 
both  together  into  one  society,  and  given  them 
citizenship  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  this  he  did 
by  removing  the  wall  of  partition  (peaotoizov 
fov  ^poy^ov,  ver.  14),  that  separated  between 
heathen  and  Jews,  and  prevented  their  becom- 
ing one  people."  This  wall  of  partition  was  the 
Mosaic  law,  as  he  himself  explains  it,  ver.  15, 
vo^oj  ivtoKuv.  This  he  calls,  in  ver.  14,  J'^pa, 
the  cause  of  enmity. 

SECTION  CXIX. 

THE  HAPPINESS  WHICH  CHRISTIANS  OBTAIN  IN 
THIS  LIFE  FROM  CHRIST. 

WE  treat  now  of  the  particular  benefits  of 
which  every  professor  of  Christianity  partakes 
when  he  performs  the  prescribed  conditions. 
Vide  s.  118,1.  ad  fin.  As  our  existence  is  com- 
posed of  two  very  unequal  portions,  these  bless- 
ings are  likewise  of  two  kinds.  We  enjoy  some 
of  them  even  in  the  present  life,  and  others  not 
before  we  enter  the  future  world ;  s.  120.  It 
must  always  be  borne  in  remembrance,  that  the 
apostles  derived  all  these  spiritual  advantages, 
of  whatever  kind,  from  Christ,  and  that  they 
connect  these,  as  well  as  the  rewards  of  the 
pious  (natural  and  positive),  in  such  a  way  with 
the  history  of  Jesus,  that  they  represent  him  as 
the  procurer  of  them  all.  This  method  of  in- 


struction is  perfectly  suited  the  wants  of  man- 
kind. General  truths  become  much  more  intel- 
ligible, clear,  and  certain,  by  being  placed  in 
connexion  with  true  history,  from  which  they 
receive  a  positive  sanction.  We  find  that  the 
ancient  teachers  of  religion  among  the  heathen 
pursued  the  same  course.  And  this  is  a  proof  that 
they  better  understood  the  constitution  of  man 
than  those  Christian  teachers  who  would  sepa- 
rate everything  historical  from  the  exhibition  of 
Christian  truth.  Vide  s.  108. 

The  spiritual  blessedness  which  believers  in 
Christ  receive  through  him,  even  in  the  present 
life,  consists,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
New  Testament,  in  the  following  particulars  : — 

I.  Assurance  of  t fie  undeserved  Benevolence,  the  Con- 
stant Favour,  and  Paternal  Love  of  God. 

The  apostle  places  this  class  of  spiritual  be- 
nefits in  the  closest  connexion  with  the  whole 
history  of  Christ,  representing  them  always  as- 
the  fruit  of  the  atonement.  Their  doctrine  is,  that 
whoever  is  sure  of  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins  (and 
this  assurance  he  receives  through  the  atonement 
of  Christ,  or  through  faith  in  Christ  as  a  Saviour 
and  expiator),  and,  under  the  guidance  and  as- 
sistance of  God  and  Christ,  lives  conformably 
to  the  divine  precepts  (which  he  learns  from  the 
Christian  doctrine  and  from  the  example  of 
Christ),  such  an  one  is  capable  of  receiving  the 
divine  blessings  which  are  promised  to  such,  and 
he  can  at  all  times  be  assured  of  the  favour  and 
paternal  love  of  God ;  he  will  be  treated  by  God 
and  Christ  as  a  friend,  and  mad.e  partaker  of 
their  happiness,  so  far  as  he  is  susceptible  of  it. 

Various  figures  and  expressions  are  used  in 
the  scriptures  to  represent  these  fruits  of  the 
atonement,  and  of  faith  in  it.  But  they  all  con- 
vey one  and  the  same  idea.  They  ought  not 
therefore,  in  systems  of  theology,  to  be  sepa- 
rately considered,  in  different  chapters  or  arti- 
cles. The  following  expressions  are  some  of 
the  most  common — viz.,  sonship,  the  right  of 
adoption,  election,  access  to  God,  and  union  with 
him.  We  shall  now  briefly  explain  these  terms.. 

(1)  Tto^adt'a  ®sov.  This  is  a  term  which  was- 
originally  borrowed  from  the  Israelitish  church.. 
In  the  ancient  languages  the  phrase,  children  of 
God,  denotes  the  peculiar  friends,  the  favourites- 
of  the  Deity.  The  Israelites  received  this  name, 
and  also  that  of  firstborn,  to  denote  their  pre- 
eminence above  other  people.  Vide  Ex.  iv.  22,. 
23.  Hence  in  Rom.  ix.  4,  the  Israelites  are 
said  to  possess  vto&ctia, — i.  e.,  the  rights  of  the 
favourite  people  of  God.  This  term  is  trans- 
ferred to  true  Christians,  in  order  to  denote  the 
relation  which  subsists  between  them  and  God. 
Those  who  endeavour  to  resemble  God  in  their 
conduct,  and  who  faithfully  obey  his  command- 
ments, have  a  higher  capacity  for  happiness  and 
reward  than  others  who  are  wanting  in  these 


41G 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


traits  of  character.  We  hence  conclude,  with 
reason,  that  God  loves  and  favours  them  more 
than  others  who  are  unlike  him.  One  who  loves 
God  as  a  son  loves  his  father,  and  seeks  to  re- 
semble him  as  a  dutiful  son  seeks  to  resemble 
his  father,  will  he  loved  by  God  in  return,  as  a 
dutiful  son  is  loved  by  his  father.  All  the  ad- 
vantages and  spiritual  benefits,  therefore,  which 
we  obtain  through  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience 
to  his  precepts,  are  considered  as  belonging  to 
vto^stfta,  because  they  are  all  proofs  of  the  pater- 
nal love  of  God.  Vide  Gal.  iv.  4, 5 ;  iii.  2G ;  Rom. 
viii.  15  (7tv£v(j,avio$£Gia$,  a  filial  disposition),  and 
ver.  23  (the  reward  of  Christians) ;  Ephes.  i.  5 ; 
1  John,  iii.  1,  2.  This  right  of  adoption  we  owe 
to  Christ,  as  the  author  of  Christianity  and  our 
Saviour.  Those  only  possess  this  right  who 
believe  in  him  as  Xptcr-r'o?  and  Swr^p.  Hence 
John  declares  (i.  12),  "He  gives  to  all  who 
believe  on  him  the  privilege  (tf-ovffto)  of  consi- 
dering themselves  the  children  of  God"  which 
privilege  they  obtain,  according  to  ver.  13,  not 
by  descent  from  pious  ancestors,  according  to 
the  Jewish  prejudice,  but  solely  by  true  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ,  and  from  the  holiness  and  like- 
ness to  God  arising  from  and  connected  with 
faith. 

The  apostles  give  this  appellation  to  the  sin- 
cere worshippers  of  God  the  more  readily  and 
frequently  on  account  of  the  name  of  Christ, 
Ttoj  06ov.  God  treats  Christians  as  his  peculiar 
friends  on  account  of  Christ,  who  is  his  most 
beloved  and  chief  favourite,  TtpwroT'oxoj,  p.ovo- 
yevfy.  Vide  Gal.  iii.  26,  27 ;  iv.  4—7. 

Pious  Christians  are  thus  called  the  children 
of  God  in  a  twofold  sense:  (a)  because  they 
love  God  as  their  Father,  and  obey  him  from 
love;  (6)  because  they,  on  account  of  this  dis- 
position, are  loved  in  return  by  God,  as  obedient 
children,  and  so  obtain  from  him  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  other  Christian  blessings.  Both  of 
these  ideas  are  sometimes  implied  at  the  same 
time  in  this  term. 

[In  the  older  writers  of  the  English  church 
(as  well  as  in  the  ancient  fathers,  and  the  most 
devout  and  spiritual  writers  of  other  nations,) 
we  frequently  meet  with  the  idea,  that  the  rela- 
tion existing  between  man  and  God,  denoted 
by  sonship,  is  not  merely  a  relation  of  feeling, 
but  also  of  nature.  This  is  sometimes  illustrated 
by  saying  that  we  are  not  adopted  by  God  into 
his  family  in  the  same  manner  in  which  a 
wealthy  benefactor  sometimes  adopts  a  destitute 
and  orphan  child,  conferring  upon  him  great 
privileges,  and  giving  him  the  name  of  son,  to 
which  he  has  no  natural  title.  In  such  a  case, 
this  name  would  denote  only  that  the  per- 
son on  whom  it  was  conferred  held  the  same 
place  in  the  affections  of  the  benefactor,  and 
exercised  in  return  the  same  feelings  of  grati- 
tude and  dutiful  reverence  as  an  own  son  would 


in  similar  circumstances.  And  this  seems  to  be 
the  more  general  sense  in  whioh  this  appella- 
tion was  used  in  reference  to  the  friends  and 
worshippers  of  God  before  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation, and  to  those  few  who,  like  the  devout 
Cornelius,  are  found  fearing  God  even  in  the 
midst  of  heathenism.  But  this  term,  when 
applied  to  believers  in  the  New  Testament,  has 
a  superior  meaning,  and  points  to  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  of  adoption,  which,  in  the  highest  sense,  is 
peculiar  to  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  con- 
sequent upon  the  completion  of  Christ's  work. 
By  being  born  of  God,  and  receiving  this  peculiar 
grace,  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  believers  become 
partakers  of  "  the  divine  nature,"  and  possessed 
of  an  internal  principle,  the  fruits  of  which  are 
the  love  and  obedience  in  which  the  essential 
nature  of  sonship  is  sometimes  placed,  but 
which  are  in  reality  only  the  signs  or  effects  of 
that  new  life  in  which  it  really  consists.  The 
possession  of  this  Spirit  by  Christ,  though  in  a 
far  higher  degree  of  intimacy,  seems  to  be  one 
of  the  grounds  of  his  bearing  the  title  of  Son. 
And  the  manner  of  the  Spirit's  presence  and 
operation  in  believers  is  compared  by  the  sacred 
writers  with  the  hypostatical  union  of  the  divine 
and  human  natures  in  Christ.  These  ideas 
may  be,  indeed,  carried  so  far  as  to  involve 
error.  But  it  is  an  important  question  whether 
they  have  not  a  scriptural  basis.  Is  the  compa- 
rative infrequency,  in  our  later  theological 
writings,  of  these  ideas,  which  were  so  current 
in  the  fathers  of  the  English  church,  the  result 
of  an  advance  or  a  decline  in  theological 
science? — TR.] 

(2)  All  the  words  which  literally  signify  to 
choose  and  elect  are  frequently  employed  in  order 
to  denote  the  distinguished  favour  and  love  of 
God  to  his  people.  We  are  accustomed  to 
select  from  many  things  that  which  is  the  best, 
most  desirable,  and  valuable.  Hence  to  say  a 
thing  is  chosen  is  often  the  same  as  to  say  it  is 
valuable  or  useful — e.  g.,  axsvos  ix^oyr^,  Acts, 
ix.  15.  Now,  because  our  love  rests  upon  those 
objects  which  appear  to  us  good  and  valuable, 
the  words  which  in  the  oriental  languages  sig- 
nify to  select,  signify  also  to  love,  to  wish  well  to 
any  one,  to  benefit  him,  in  a  distinguished  man- 
ner. In  the  same  way  is  iro  used  in  Hebrew — 
e.  g.,  Deut.  iv.  57,  where  JHN  is  added.  The  LXX. 
sometimes  render  it  by  the  word  txte'yfo^cu,  as 
in  the  passage  cited,  and  sometimes  by  sv8o- 
xslv  and  wyartdv.  The  New  Testament  employs 
the  words  ixheysa^Ku,  and  ixtexto$  in  the  same 
manner.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  Israelites 
were  denominated,  by  way  of  eminence,  the 
chosen  or  beloved  (an^rn)  of  God.  This  term  was 
then  transferred  to  Christians,  who  become  wor- 
thy of  the  love  of  God  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ, 
and  by  conduct  conformed  entirely  to  the  divine 
will— e.  g.,  Matt.  xxiv.  24;  1  Pet.  ii.  9. 


I 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION. 


417 


is  therefore  Christianumfaccre,  as  1  Cor. 
i.  27,  28.  In  the  same  way  the  verba  cogno- 
scendi,  in  the  ancient  languages  mean  to  love, 
to  be  friendly  to  any  one.  Thus  Christians  are 
said  to  be  •yycoc&tVr'sj  vrto  ®sov,  amid  Deo.  Gal. 
iv.  9 ;  1  Cor.  viii.  3,  coll.  Ps.  Iv.  14. 

(3)  The  terms  which  denote  the  drawing  near 
of  God  to  men,  or  union  with  him.  God  was 
conceived  of  by  the  ancient  world  as  corporeal, 
and  as  resembling  man.  Thus  many  believed 
that  he  was  literally  and  actually  more  present 
in  one  place  than  in  another,  and  that  he  ap- 
proached the  place  where  he  wished  to  exert 
his  power,  and  that  otherwise  he  withdrew  or 
absented  himself.  Vide  s.  23,  II.  From  such 
conceptions  a  multitude  of  figurative  expressions 
have  arisen  in  all  the  ancient  languages.  These 
expressions  appear  very  gross  and  unworthy  of 
God.  At  first,  however,  they  were  literally 
understood  by  the  great  mass  of  mankind,  But 
afterwards,  as  the  views  of  men  became  en- 
larged and  improved,  they  were  understood  figu- 
ratively, and  were  interpreted  in  such  a  way  as  to 
be  consistent  with  the  divine  perfections.  The 
terms,  the  approach,  or  coming  of  God  to  any 
one,  the  connexion  of  God  with  any  one,  denote 
a  high  degree  of  his  favour  and  love,  and  of  the 
active  display  of  these  feelings,  his  assistance 
and  agency ;  and  so  the  withdrawment  of  God, 
and  his  forsaking  any  one,  denote,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  withdrawing  of  his  love  and  the  bene- 
fits resulting  from  it.  Thus  naip»  denotes  the 
friendship  of  God,  Ps.  Ixxiii.  28,  coll.  Zech.  ii. 
1 0, 1 1 .  And  thus  Christ  promises  to  his  disciples 
that  he  and  his  Father  would  come  and  make 
their  abode  with  them — i.  e.,  would  be  always 
connected  with  them,  and  never  withhold  from 
them  their  special  assistance  and  protection  ;  in 
short,  would  be  to  them  what  one  friend  is 
to  another  in  guiding  and  upholding  him  ;  ver. 
21,  tptyavgeiv.  Thus  Jesus  consoles  his  dis- 
ciples who  were  lamenting  his  departure.  Cf. 
Rev.  iii.  20,  and  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  The  terms, 
ijfjifis  sdfjLev  (or  jUEvo/iEv)  h  ^£9,  ^«6j  tcrtiv 
(or  /ji£V£t,}  iv  v^lv,  which  occur  John  xvii.  21, 
and  1  John,  iii.  24,  &c.,  denote,  in  the  same 
way,  a  high  degree  of  the  special  favour  and 
friendship  of  God,  agreement  of  disposition 
with  him,  and  his  assistance  connected  with 
his  favour.  Cf.  John,  xv.  1,  "Whoever  is  and 
remains  faithful  and  devoted  to  him  shall  be 
treated  by  him  in  the  same  manner  in  return ; 
he  shall  be  united  to  him,  as  the  branch  is 
united  to  the  vine." 

From  these  and  similar  passages  the  mystics 
have  taken  occasion  to  speak  of  a  secret  union 
(unio  mysUca)  with  God  and  Christ.  They 
commonly  express  this  by  the  terms,  the  in- 
dwelling of  God  in  the  heart,  sinking  down  into 
God,  ihe  communication  of  God,  the  enjoyment 
53 


of  him,  &c.  &c.  Some  of  them  associated  very 
gross  conceptions  with  these  phrases ;  cf.  s.  23. 
After  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries  such 
language  became  more  common  in  the  Western 
church.  It  was  understood  by  some  in  a  literal 
manner,  and  in  a  sense  unworthy  of  the  charac- 
ter of  God ;  by  others,  in  a  manner  entirely  con- 
formed to  the  Bible,  but  yet  sometimes  too  indis- 
tinctly. Luther,  Melancthon,  and  other  reform- 
ers, retained  the  phraseology  of  the  ancient  mys- 
tics, and  it  was  adopted  into  the  systems  of  theo- 
logy. Some  made  a  special  article  on  the  subject 
of  the  mystical  union  ,•  though  Melancthon  and 
others  took  pains  to  controvert  the  gross  ideas 
of  the  fanatical  mystics.  Hence  it  came  to 
pass  that  this  phraseology  was  thus  used  mostly 
in  homiletical  and  catechetical  discourses,  and 
that  formerly  many  sermons  and  books  were 
written  upon  this  subjoct. 

In  the  holy  scriptures  these  terms  denote  some- 
times the  agreement  of  the  dispositions  of  the 
pious  with  the  law  of  God;  sometimes  the  pe- 
culiar favour  and  friendship  of  God  towards 
them,  and  the  special  proofs  of  it,  and  also  their 
enjoyment  and  feeling  of  the  tokens  of  this 
friendship. 

There  is  no  reason,  therefore,  for  making  a 
particular  article  in  the  systems  of  theology 
upon  this  subject.  Caution,  however,  should 
be  used  in  Christian  instruction  to  prevent  the 
notion  that  there  is  anything  properly  miraculous 
in  this  matter  which  is  not  according  to  the 
Bible.  This  caution  is  the  more  necessary,  as 
many  enthusiastic  parties  frequently  employ 
such  expressions  with  regard  to  these  divine  in- 
fluences, and  give  them  such  a  meaning  as  im- 
plies an  immediate  illumination  independent  of 
the  holy  scriptures.  So  the  Quakers  and  Bohe- 
mians. And  it  has  sometimes  happened  that 
well-meaning  though  nnenlightened  Christians 
have  received  the  doctrine  of  these  sectarians  as 
scriptural  because  it  was  expressed  in  scriptural 
phraseology. 

Another  reason  for  calling  these  proofs  of  the 
love  of  God,  and  the  experience  of  them,  unio 
mystica,  is,  that  they  are  inward,  and  enjoyed  by 
spiritual  fellowship,  and  are  unseen  and  disre- 
garded by  those  who  have  no  taste  or  capacity 
for  such  experiences.  A  satisfactory  and  full 
explanation  of  these  feelings  cannot  be  given  to 
those  who  have  no  experience  of  them,  as  is  trie 
case  with  all  matters  of  experience.  Paul  said, 
very  truly,  Col.  iii.  3,  "  Your  (the  true  Chris- 
tian's) life  in  God,  (i.  e.,  your  divine  life,  which 
is  acceptable  to  God — your  happy  life  as  Chris- 
tians,) like  the  present  life  of  Christ  in  heaven, 
in  the  full  enjoyment  of  happiness,  is  concealed 
(xExpurtfat)  from  the  great  multitude  of  men ;" 
they  do  not  regard  it  as  happy  or  desirable  be- 
cause they  have  no  taste  for  it. 


418 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


II.   Happiness  and  Peace  of  Mind,  and  a  joyful 
Prospect  of  the  Future. 

We  owe  to  Christ,  according  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  New  Testament, 

(1)  Inward  peace    and    happiness.     These 
spring  from  the  firm  conviction  that  through 
Christ  we  have  obtained  from  God  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  and  from  the  joyful  consciousness 
of  the  power  of  God,  and  his  approbation  of  our 
feelings  and  conduct.     This  state   of  mind  is 
frequently  expressed  in  the  New  Testament  by 
Ttofj/j^tfta,  cheerful  conjidence  in  God,  in  opposition 
to  an  anxious  and  slavish  fear  of  punishment. 
Thus  Heb.  iv.  16,  rtpotffp^to/if^-a  p,s fa  rtapfydias 
tq  ^povcp  tij$  ^apttfoj,  "  We  may  now  with  joyful 
confidence   expect  unmingled  good  from  God, 
and  supplicate   him   for  it."     1  John,  iv.  17, 
Tta/j^utow  t%eiv  ev  ^£pa  xpttfscoj,  to  be  able  to 
look  forward  to  the  day  of  judgment  with  cheer- 
fulness.    Cf.  1  John,  iii.  20,  21,  peace  of  God, 
or  with  God.     Rom.  v.  1,  2,  Etp^v  Ttpoj  rbv 
®c6v  ££0/ie?,  8ixau£$evf£$ — rtpocraycoy^v  c&£  #aptv 
®eov,  &c.   Ver.  11,  "  We  can  at  all  times  rejoice 
in  the  assurance  of  divine  favour,  (xav^Q^E^a  iv 
06CJ ;)  and  this,  Christ  by  his  atonement  has  en- 
abled us  to  do."     By  this  assurance  and  confi- 
dence the  soul  of  the  true  Christian  comes  to 
such  a  firm,  steadfast,  and  composed  frame,  as 
enables   him  to  endure  unmoved   the   greatest 
trials.   He  is  deeply  convinced  that  the  greatest 
adversities  contribute  to  his  highest  good,  and 
are  the  means  which  God,  as  a  kind  father,  em- 
ploys for  the  welfare  of  hi$  children,  whom  he  is 
educating  not  merely  for  this  short  life,  but  for 
eternity,  Rom.  v.  3 ;  viii.  28,  32. 

(2)  The  most  cheerful  prospect  of  the  future,  or 
a  certain  hope  of  our  future  blessedness.     One 
great    object    of   Christian    instruction    is,   to 
awaken,  confirm,  and  cherish  this  hope.     It  is 
always  used  as  a  motive  to  diligence  in  holi- 
ness, to  self-denial,  and  to  steadfastness  in  all 
the  sufferings  and  adversities  of  the  present  life. 
Rom.  v.  2,  fkrttj  So|^j  ©fou — i.  e.,  of  the  divine 
rewards.     Rom.  viii.  17,  18,  24,  seq. ;  1  Pet.  i. 
3;  2  Cor.  vii.  1,  4,  8,  seq.     All  this  is  every- 
where connected  with  the  history  of  the  person 
of  Jesus  in  his  humiliation  and  exaltation ;  and 
confirmation  of  the  views  now  given  is  drawn 
from  his  sufferings  and  death,  as  Heb.  ix.  15; 
from  his  resurrection  and  subsequent  exaltation,  as 
John,  vii.  28;  xvii.  24;  1  Thess.  v.  8—10.   By 
his  death  we  are  delivered  from  death.     His  re- 
surrection and  his  exalted  station  are  pledges  to 
us  that  he  will  actually  perform  all  that  he  pro- 
mised, and  will  bring  us  to  that  place  to  which 
he  has  gone  before — to  our  proper  home,  and  our 
Father's  house. 

We  ought  not,  however,  in  hope  of  the  future 
world,  to  forget  the  present.     We  should  re- 


member that  God  designs  that  we  should  live 
for  the  present  world,  and  that  our  happiness 
hereafter  depends  upon  our  good  improvement 
of  the  time  now  allotted  us.  Faith  in  Christ 
and  grateful  obedience  to  all  his  requirements 
should  render  us  happy  even  here.  1  Tim.  iv.  8, 
M'  (££«)  £w>j£  "t^S  vvv  xal  -tr^ 
.  This  cheerfulness  and  joy  which 
so  visibly  distinguish  the  pious  Christian,  and 
more  than  ever  in  the  midst  of  sufferings  and 
adversities,  often  compel  those  who  are  without 
to  wish  that  they  were  as  pious  and  as  enviably 
happy  as  they  see  him  to  be.  Many  are  in  the 
case  of  King  Agrippa,  (Acts,  xxvi.  28,)  who  con- 
fessed that  but  little  was  wanting  to  persuade  him 
to  become  a  Christian.  But  they  stop  here,  be- 
cause they  are  unwilling  to  employ  the  simple 
means  necessary  for  obtaining  the  Christian  cha- 
racter, and  dread  to  sacrifice  their  sinful  pro- 
pensities. 

SECTION  CXX. 

THE    HAPPINESS   WHICH    CHRISTIANS   OBTAIN 
THROUGH  CHRIST  IN  THE  FUTURE  LIFE. 

THIS  subject  also  is  placed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  the  most  intimate  connexion  with  the 
history  of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  "is  de- 
duced from  it.  He  is  the  procurer  of  this  happi- 
ness. This  subject  needs  only  to  be  briefly  and 
summarily  stated  here;  since  the  scripture  doc- 
trine respecting  the  happy  and  unhappy  condi- 
tion of  men  after  death  will  be  more  fully  exhi- 
bited, s.  147,  et  seq. 

I.   Our  Deliverance  from  Death  obtained  through 
Christ. 

Death  is  always  represented  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  the  effect  and  consequence  of  sin. 
Now  since  Christ  has  delivered  from  the  conse- 
quences and  punishment  of  sin,  he  must  also  be 
regarded  as  the  cause  of  our  deliverance  from 
death.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead — i.  e.,  the 
complete  restoration  of  the  whole  man,  both  as 
to  soul  and  body,  is  a  blessing  for  which  the 
human  race  is  indebted,  according  to  the  New 
Testament,  to  Christ.  Vide  John,  xi.  25 ;  1  Cor. 
xv.  22.  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  was  gene- 
rally believed  among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles,  and  only  the  Sadducees 
denied  it.  But  Christianity  gave  to  this  doctrine 
a  new  support  and  sanction.  It  now  became 
intimately  connected  with  the  religion  of  Jesus 
and  with  the  history  of  his  person,  like  every- 
thing else  relating  to  the  deliverance  and  welfare 
of  man. 

(1)  Christ  and  the  apostles  have  the  merit, 
which  is  unquestionably  great,  of  casting  new 
light  upon  the  doctrine  of  life  beyond  the  grave, 
and  the  future  restoration  of  the  whole  man,  and 


L 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       419 


giving  it  a  certainty  it  never  had  before.  They 
exhibited  this  truth  in  such  a  way  that  on  one 
side  it  serves  for  the  comfort  and  consolation  of 
mankind,  and  on  the  other,  to  urge  powerfully 
to  the  practice  of  goodness  and  holiness  in  the 
present  life.  Vide  Heb.  ii.  15;  1  Thess.  iv. 

13,  18;    1    Cor.   xv.  30,  57,  58;   Acts,   xxiv. 
14 — 16.     Paul  therefore    says,   very  truly,   2 
Tim.  i.  10,  that   Christ  is  ^wT'itfaj  ^w^v  xai 
afy^apaiav  Sia  tov  fiayy^t'ot; — i.  e.,  by  his  in- 
structions he  brought  to  light,  and  clearly  and 
infallibly  revealed,  the  doctrine  of  a  happy  im- 
mortality. 

(2)  But  this  doctrine  is  intimately  connected 
in  the  New  Testament  with  the  history  of  the 
person  of  Christ.  According  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment we  are  indebted  for  our  hope  of  a  future 
restoration  to  life  by  the  resurrection, 

(a)  To  the  death  of  Christ.  For  the  deliver- 
ance of  man  from  every  kind  of  misery,  and 
from  all  the  punishment  of  sin,  and  consequently 
from  death,  is  always  derived  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament from  the  death  of  Jesus.  Vide  s.  111. 
The  clearest  passage  of  this  kind  is  Hebrews,  ii. 

14,  "  Christ  became  man  in  order  to  take  away 
(I'va  xatapyrfiy)  by  his  death  the  power  of  him 
who  is  the  author  of  death, /AedmV,"  (from  whom 
death  and  every  calamity  is  derived,  since  he  is 
regarded  as  the  author  of  sin,  which  brought 
death  in  its  train.     Vide  1  Cor.  xv.  56.)     Here 
belongs  also  the  passage,  Rom.  v.  14 — 19,  where 
Christ  is  compared  with  Adam.     Adam  brought 
death  into  the  world  by  his  disobedience,  Christ 
brought  in  life  by  his  obedience,  (vrto-xor^  willing 
obedience  to  the  divine  will,  especially  to  the 
divine  purpose  that  he  should  suffer  and  die  for 
us.)   The  same  thing  is  briefly  expressed,  1  Cor. 
xv.  21,  thus  : — «  As  Adam  was  the  cause  of  the 
death  of  all  men,  so  all  owe  it  to  Christ  that  they 
shall  be  raised  at  the  last."     This  corresponds 
with  the  language,  ver.  55,  $dvato$  xaterto^y  £tj 
vlxo$,  death  overcome  (by  him),  henceforth  ceases  ; 
and  also  with  2  Tim.  i.  10,  xatfapy^oaj  tbv  §dva- 
tfov,  taking  away  the  power  of  death,  vanquishing 
it — i.  e.,  freeing  men  from  it,  and  awaking  them 
to  eternal  life.     And  in  the  Revelation  of  John, 
the  victory  of  Christ  is  made  to  consist  princi- 
pally in  the  fact  that  through  him  death  ceased  to 
be  ,•  Rev.  xxi.  4,  §dva-to$  ovx  ttrtiv  tVi,  or,  was  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire,  xx.  14 — i.  e.,  was  removed 
and  able  no  more  to  hurt. 

Note. — :The  Bible  mentions  it  as  one  of  the 
blessings  resulting  from  the  work  of  Christ,  that 
all  mankind  will  be  raised  by  him — e.  g.,  1  Cor. 
xv.  21,  22,  coll.  John,  v.  21,  seq.,  and  conse- 
quently the  wicked  as  well  as  the  good.  Some 
theologians,  indeed,  have  objected  to  considering 
resurrection  in  the  case  of  the  impenitent  as  a 
blessing,  and  have  rather  regarded  it  as  a  punish- 
ment. But  a  great  value  is  ascribed  in  the  Bible 


to  mere  existence,  even  in  the  present  life,  where 
we  live  in  the  midst  of  so  many  evils  and  adver- 
sities. Life  in  itself  is  always  more  valuable 
than  non-existence,  or  annihilation;  although  it 
seems  that  for  some  men  it  would  have  been 
better  never  to  have  been  born ;  as  Christ  him- 
self says,  doubtless  in  the  language  of  a  current 
proverb,  Matt.  xxvi.  24.  Now  although  the 
wicked  are  to  be  punished  in  the  future  world 
through  their  own  fault,  the  preservation  of  their 
life  does  not  on  this  account  cease  to  be  a  bless- 
ing; still  less  is  it  changed  itself  into  a  punish- 
ment, by  the  punishments  which  will  be  conse- 
quent upon  it.  The  ancient  fathers,  Athana- 
sius,  Augustine,  Theodoret,  Hilarius,  and  others, 
understood  the  subject  very  much  in  this  way. 

(6)  To  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  Morus,  p. 
175,  s.  3. 

The  New  Testament  teaches,  that  from  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  we  may  and  should  argue 
the  possibility  and  reality  of  our  own.  Was  God 
able  to  raise  Christ,  and  did  he  actually  raise 
him,  from  the  dead  j  he  is  both  able  to  raise  us, 
and  will  actually  do  so.  The  resurrection  of 
Christ  is  therefore  a  sensible  confirmation  of  the 
doctrine  of  our  resurrection.  So  Paul  argues, 
1  Cor.  xv.  12—20.  In  Acts,  iv.  2,  it  is  said  that 
the  apostles  taught  through  Jesus  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead — i.  e.,  by  his  example.  As  God 
raised  up  Christ  in  order  to  confer  upon  him  a 
reward  in  heaven,  we  are  to  share  in  the  same 
reward  and  happiness,  and  to  be  with  Christ. 
We  can  therefore  be  certain  of  our  resurrection ; 
1  Thess.  iv.  14;  2  Cor.  iv.  14;  1  Peter,  i.  21. 
Christ  is  therefore  called  a/tap 
1  Cor.  xv.  20,  23,  and  rtpwr'oT'oxoj  ex  tfwv 
thejirst  that  rose,  Col.  i.  18,  because  he  must  be 
sv  rtacrt  rtpursvuv.  Cf.  progr.  "  de  nexu  resurrec- 
tionis  Jesu  Christi  mortuis  et  mortuorum,"  in 
scripta  varii  argumenti,  N.  ix. 

(c)  To  the  more  perfect  condition  of  Christ  in 
heaven.  Christ  and  the  apostles  everywhere 
teach  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  Christ  should 
continue  and  complete  in  heaven  the  great  work 
which  he  commenced  on  earth  for  the  restoration 
of  the  human  race.  He  has  therefore  empowered 
Christ  to  raise  the  dead  and  to  hold  a  day  of  judg- 
ment, with  which  Christ  will  accomplish  his 
great  work  for  the  good  of  man.  He  himself  de- 
clares this,  John,  v.  21,  25 — 29,  and  represents 
this  charge  as  entrusted  to  him  by  the  Father. 
In  John,  xi.  25,  he  says,  fyw  e Ipt,  yj  avdtrtaais  xai 
r[  £u>rt — i.  e.,  the  cause  of  the  resurrection  and 
vivification  of  men,  he  to  whom  they  are  indebted 
for  this ;  cf.  ver.  26.  Paul  says,  Rom.  xiv.  9,  that 
by  his  death  and  resurrection  he  has  shewn 
himself  to  be  Lord  (xvpifwiv)  of  the  dead  and 
living;  and  1  Cor.  xv.  25,  26,  he  will  conquer 
and  disable  death,  the  last  enemy  of  the  human 
race.  Cf.  s.  98,  99. 


420 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


II.  Our  Deliverance  from  Punishment  after  Death, 
and  our  Happiness  in  the  Future  World  obtained 
through  Christ. 

The  consequences  and  punishment  of  sin 
continue  even  into  the  future  world  ;  and  it  is 
there  first,  according  to  the  scriptures,  that  the 
positive  punishments  of  sin  are  completely  in- 
flicted. Now  Christ  has  not  only  freed  us  from 
these  punishments  (eternal  condemnation)  on 
certain  conditions  to  be  fulfilled  by  us,  (vide 
Romans,  v.  9;  1  Thess.  i.  10,  £vo>6vo$  ^ita$  drto 
tfij?  opy»?j  1*^5  £p£o/t£v)7$  ;)  but  we  owe  to  him  our 
whole  welfare  and  blessedness  in  the  future 
world,  (£co»7  ouwyioj.)  There  the  happiness  be- 
gun in  the  present  life  will  continue  and  be  per- 
fected, and  everything  by  which  it  is  now  in- 
terrupted will  be  removed.  Besides,  according 
to  the  New  Testament,  we  may  expect  that 
God  will  there  confer  positive  blessings  and  re- 
wards. Paul  says,  1  Thess.  v.  9, 


(the  attainment    of   happiness)   St 

But  how  do  we  attain  this  happiness  through 

Christ? 

(1)  By  the  doctrine  of  Christ.     This  gives  us 
(a)  Information  respecting  the  nature  of  future 
happiness,  so  far  as  we  are  now  capable  of  un- 
derstanding it.     Vide  1  Timothy,  i.  10;  1  Cor. 
xv.    (6)  Direction  how  we  may  obtain  the  pos- 
session of  it.    The  religion  of  Christ  derives 
motives  to  piety  and  godliness  from  the  bless- 
edness of  the  future  world,  shews  us  the  means 
by  which  we  may  attain  it,  and  prepares  us  for 
it.     John,  iii.  16;  vi.  51;  1  John,  ii.  25,  the 
great  end  of  the  Christian  religion  (irtayyfXta) 
is  to  give  men  £u>rj  atwwoj.     By  the  Christian 
doctrine,  and  obedience  to  it,  we  are   made 
(through  divine   assistance)    to  resemble  the 
holiness  and  righteousness   of  Christ  in  this 
world,  in  order  that  we  may  hereafter  be  re- 
warded, as  he  is;  1  John,  iv.  17;  2  Thess.  ii. 
13,  15;  iv.  14.     Hence  the  Christian  doctrine 
itself  is  called  £w>J  and  £co^  attowoj,  because  it 
shews  6obv  £0775  ;  John,  xvii.  3.     But, 

(2)  Our  enjoyment  of  this  happiness  is  de- 
scribed as  principally  owing  to  Christ's  death 
and  subsequent  exaltation,     (a)  Our  entire  free- 
dom from  misery  and  our  being  placed  in  a 
happy  condition  is  ascribed  to  the  death   of 
Christ,   (vide  No.  I.,)  and  consequently  the 
happiness  of  the  future  state  must  also  be  a 
consequence  of  this  event.     Heb.  ix.  15,  "  We 
obtain  through  the  death  of  Christ  tjtayyetiav 
afaviav  xtofpovtyuo*."    1  Thess.  v.  10,  "He  died 
for  us,"  i'va  tfiiv  avtfw  fjjtfw/tci/.    (6)  Since  Christ 
is  exalted  in  heaven,  he  cares  for  the  good  of 
men.    He  is  oi'f  w>$  cwr^puxj  aluvlov  tfocj  vrtaxov- 
ovaiv  0/0*9  taah  Heb.  v.  9,  coll.  vii.  25.     And 
as  he  has  received  power  from  the  Father  to 
raise  the  dead  and  hold  a  day  of  judgment,  he 


has  also  received  charge  from  him  to  distribute 
rewards  to  the  righteous  and  to  introduce  his 
followers  into  the  abodes  of  the  blessed.  Vide 
Matt.  xxv.  32,  seq. ;  John,  x.  28,  29,  ^co^v  aia- 
VLOV  SJSccyit  aijfotj,  xvii.  2;  2  Tim.  iv.  18,  et 
seq. 


ARTICLE  XI. 

ON  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CONDITIONS  OF 
SALVATION. 


This  Article,  and  the  following,  exhibit  the  man- 
ner in  which  Christians  may  attain  to  the  promised 
happiness.  The  Eleventh  Article  treats  of  the  con- 
ditions which  the  Christian  doctrine  prescribes  to 
men,  and  which  must  be  performed  by  them  if  they 
would  actually  enjoy  this  blessedness.  These  con- 
ditions are,  repentance  and  faith.  The  Twelfth 
Article  treats  of  the  assistances  by  which  God  ena- 
bles men  to  perform  the  prescribed  conditions,  or, 
technically  speaking,  De  operationibus  gratix,  sive 
de  ceconomia  gratiae. 


SECTION  CXXI. 

ON  THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  "FAITH,"  AS 
THE  ONLY  CONDITION  OF  SALVATION;  TOGE- 
THER WITH  REMARKS  RESPECTING  THE  SALVA- 
TLON  OF  THE  HEATHEN  AND  OF  INFANTS. 

I.  Outline  of  the  Christian  Doctrine  respecting 
Faith ;  the  origin  and  ground  of  the  same. 

(1)  JESUS  and  the  apostles,  in  the  instruc- 
tions which  they  give  to  adults  who  are  ac- 
quainted with  the  Christian  doctrine,  always 
insist  chiefly  on  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
great  condition  of  obtaining  the  salvation  pur- 
chased by  Christ.    The  whole  happiness  of  the 
Christian  (his  Sixtwoavvr]  and  owi'jfpux)  is  de- 
rived from  this  single  source;  and  the  unbeliever 
(artiGtrfias')   loses  this  happiness,  and  brings 
upon   himself   misery,    (aTtwtaia,   scataxptotj;) 
Mark,  xvi.  16;   Romans,  i.   17;   iii.  21,  22, 
"the  gospel  makes  known  the  determination 
of  God  to  forgive  all  who  believe  on  Jesus 
Christ,  on  account  of  their  faith,  (ix  or  Sia  *jjj 
rttWswj;)"  Hebrews,  x.  38,  39,  seq. 

(2)  The  doctrine  of  faith  is  therefore  inse- 
parably connected  writh  the  doctrine   of  the 
atonement  and  of  justification.     The  latter  can 
be  obtained  only  through  faith.     Therefore,  cf. 
s.  108,  where  the  plan  of  this  doctrine  is  stated. 

We  are  led  even  by  natural  religion  to  the 
following  points: — "Man  must  regard  himself 
as  morally  imperfect,  and  in  such  a  way,  too, 
as  to  imply  guilt  on  his  own  part;  or,  which  is 
the  same  thing,  he  must  acknowledge  himself 
to  be  a  sinner,  a  transgressor  of  the  divine  pre- 
cepts. He  must  acknowledge  that  he  ought  to 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION. 


void  and  abhor  sin,  place  his  confidence  in  the 
mercy  of  God,  hope  for  pardon  and  forgiveness 
from  him,  and  that  he  ought  to  form  and  execute 
the  serious  purpose  of  obeying  the  divine  pre- 
cepts and  living  acceptably  to  God."  This 
might  be  called  the  faith  of  reason.  But  this 
philosophical  faith  is  wanting  in  that  certainty 
and  evidence  which  is  necessary  to  tranquillize 
the  mind;  it  is  insufficient  to  satisfy  those  whose 
consciences  are  awakened ;  as  we  have  before 
shewn,  s.  108.  Experience  teaches  that  a  faith 
of  this  general  nature  is  not  able  to  answer  those 
feelings  which  rise  in  the  inmost  soul  even  of 
the  best  of  men.  There  must  be  something  po- 
sitive and  historical  upon  which  they  can  rely; 
some  express  assurance  from  God  of  his  for- 
giveness; or  they  will  be  left  in  the  most  dis- 
tressing uncertainty.  The  greater  part  of  the 
human  race,  in  all  nations,  are  therefore  united 
in  believing  that  something  must  be  done  in 
order  to  conciliate  the  favour  of  God  to  sinners, 
and  to  induce  him  to  forgive  their  past  offences ; 
and  also  that  their  mere  reformation,  and  their 
living  in  the  practice  of  virtue,  imperfect  as 
their  goodness  will  always  be,  is  insufficient  to 
secure  the  divine  forgiveness,  and  can  afford  no 
quieting  assurance  that  pardon  is  obtained.  Vide 
s.  108.  Now  Christianity  rejects  all  the  means 
of  conciliating  the  favour  of  God,  in  which  the 
great  body  of  men  place  their  confidence,  and 
which  were  common  among  Jews  and  Gentiles 
at  the  time  of  Christ.  It  regards  them  as  af- 
fording false  grounds  of  peace,  and  as  being  in- 
jurious to  morality;  and  in  place  of  them  incul- 
cates faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  atonement 
made  by  him,  and  makes  this,  exclusive  of  the 
personal  deserts  of  believers,  the  sole  ground  of 
all  the  benefits  which  they  enjoy. 

In  this  manner,  the  doctrine  respecting  the 
conditions  of  salvation  is  brought  into  the  cl  osest 
connexion  with  the  other  positive  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  and  especially  with  the  history  of 
the  person  of  Christ.  To  the  greater  part  of  man- 
kind this  scriptural  faith  possesses  far  more  in- 
terest, evidence,  and  certainty,  than  a  merely 
philosophical  faith  can  ever  give.  The  latter 
must  be  for  ever  attended  with  uncertainty,  doubt, 
and  fear  of  the  reverse  of  what  is  hoped  for. 
And  this  uncertainty  and  fear  may  become,  in 
moments  of  suffering  and  adversity,  extremely 
disturbing,  and  perhaps  lead  to  obstinate  de- 
spair. For  we  cannot  obtain  from  philosophy  any 
express  assurance  of  the  will  of  God  relative  to 
our  forgiveness.  Again :  the  scriptural  account 
of  faith  in  Christ  as  the  only  condition  of  sal- 
vation excludes  wholly  all  the  false  motives  to 
duty  which  are  so  injurious  to  true  morality. 
The  essentials  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  on  this 
point,  and  their  connexion  with  each  other,  may 
be  clearly  seen  in  the  following  statement. 
The  Christian  should  strive  after  the  greatest 


possible  moral  perfection,  (likeness  to  God.) 
This  effort  should  result  from  willing  obedience 
to  God,  and  this  again  from  thankful  love  to 
God,  and  confidence  in  him,  and  not  from  slavish 
fear  of  punishment;  1  John,  iv.  18,  19.  But 
this  love,  this  grateful  confidence,  cannot  exist 
unless  man  is  convinced  that  God  is  graciously 
disposed  towards  him,  and  will  forgive  his  sins. 
God  does  not  forgive  sins,  however,  on  account 
of  good  works,  self-inflictions,  sacrifices,  &c., 
but  on  account  of  Christ;  s.  108.  We  must 
therefore  believe  that  Christ  by  his  death  has 
procured  forgiveness  and  salvation.  But  would 
we  come  to  the  actual  enjoyment  of  the  promised 
forgiveness,  we  are  under  indispensable  obliga- 
tions to  live  henceforward  in  the  strictest  ob- 
servance of  the  divine  commands  from  grateful 
love  to  God  and  to  Christ.  Consequently  we 
must  become  familiarly  acquainted  with  the 
divine  precepts  and  must  regulate  our  whole 
conduct  according  to  them  ;  and  how  to  do  this 
we  are  fully  taught  in  the  Christian  doctrine. 
And  thus  faith  as  much  involves  our  doing  the 
divine  will,  as  it  does  our  knowing  it. 

The  personal  enjoyment  and  possession  of 
forgiveness  and  saving  grace,  and  of  the  whole 
sum  of  Christian  blessedness  which  God  has 
promised  to  bestow,  is  called  applicatio  gratise, 
and  the  condition  on  which  we  obtain  these 
blessings  (conditio  gratise')  is  faith.  Vide  Morus, 
p.  197,  seq.,  s.  1,  2.  Those  who  enjoy  these 
blessings  are  called  in  the  scriptures  by  dif- 
ferent names.  Vide  Morus,  p.  197,  note  3. 
Cf.  Tollner,  Wahre  Griinde  warum  Gott  den 
Glauben  an  Christum  will,  in  his  "  Vermischte 
Aufsatze,"  th.  ii.  st.  2. 

II.  On  the  Salvation  of  Heathen  and  of  Children. 

(1)  When  treating  of  the  conditions  of  salva- 
tion established  in  the  Christian  scheme,  we 
speak  in  reference  to  Christians — i.  e.,  those 
who  have  opportunity  and  capacity  to  become 
acquainted  with  Christianity,  and  to  convince 
themselves  of  its  truth,  without  undertaking  to 
say  what  means  for  attaining  salvation  God 
may  give  those  who  are  ignorant  of  Christian- 
ity, or  who  remain  unconvinced  of  its  truth 
through  unintentional  mistake,  and  without 
criminality  on  their  part.  God  is  not  limited 
to  one  single  method,  which  he  is  compelled  to 
employ  equally  at  all  times  and  among  all  men. 
The  Bible  says,  indeed,  that  God  will  punish 
the  heathen  on  account  of  their  sins ;  not,  how- 
ever, because  they  did  not  believe  in  Jesus 
Christ,  if  this  was  not  their  fault,  but  because 
they  did  not  act  agreeably  to  the  knowledge 
which  they  possessed,  and  the  law  of  nature 
with  which  they  were  acquainted  ;  Rom.  i.  21, 
seq.;  Ephes.  ii.  1,  2.  The  holy  scriptures, 
therefore,  never  regard  the  heathen  merely  as 
such,  as  excluded  from  salvation.  Such  pas- 
2N 


422  CHRISTIAN 

sages  as  Mark,  xvi.  16,  do  not  relate  to  the 
heathen  who  are  innocently  ignorant  of  the 
gospel.  The  word  artiatsiv  does  not  signify 
not  to  believe,  but  to  Disbelieve,  and  always  im- 
plies guilt.  The  conclusion  sometimes  drawn 
from  such  passages  is  as  improper  as  it  would 
be  to  conclude  from  2  Thess.  iii.  10  that  the 
child  and  the  infirm  man  should  be  left  to  pe- 
rish by  hunger;  as  Heilmann  well  observes. 
No  one  will  ever  be  condemned  for  guiltless 
ignorance,  or  for  unintentional  and  innocent 
mistake;  but  only  for  guilty  rejection  and  con- 
tempt of  the  truth,  or  for  living  contrary  to  the 
truth  when  once  known.  What  Mark  expresses 
by  ajttatslv,  John  expresses  by  py  rtt><rttvtt,v, 
(to  be  unbelieving,}  John,  iii.  18;  xii.  47,  48; 
and  these  two  modes  of  expression  are  synony- 
mous. Vide  John,  iii.  36.  Hence  artiatla,  and 
artefesia,  were  frequently  interchanged  as  syno- 
nymous, Rom.  iii.  3;  xi.  20,  23,  30.  Now  the 
a$£&ovvts$  or  artitrtovvtis  are  (a)  the  unbeliev- 
ing, those  who  do  not  receive  the  words  and 
declarations  of  another  as  true,  who  do  not  give 
them  credit;  (6)  the  disobedient,  obstinate,  (con- 
tumaces  ,•)  in  which  sense  Xenophon  and  other 
classical  writers  use  the  word  artKCfttv.  Now 
the  terms,  ajtt&iv  XpcffT^,  drtwmv,  /JLVJ  jtiG-tsv- 
tw,  a^ftftv  XpKj-r'ov,  are  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament to  designate  those _who  are  disobedient 
to  Christ,  and  do  not  follow  his  precepts,  always 
implying  guilt  on  their  part.  This  is  done  in 
two  ways:  (a)  by  despising  and  rejecting  Chris- 
tianity when  it  is  once  made  known,  or  when 
opportunity  is  given  for  understanding  and  exa- 
mining it ;  Rom.  iii.  3 ;  2  Cor.  iv.  1 1 ;  (j3)  by  liv- 
ing in  opposition  to  Christian  truth  when  it  is 
understood  and  embraced,  and  by  neglecting 
its  precepts.  Vide  Tit.  i.  16.  In  both  of  these 
cases  there  is  guilt,-  and  hence  punishment 
(xa-rcwqucri?)  ensues.  The  word  unbelief,  there- 
fore, often  designates  at  the  same  time  these 
two  kinds  of  guilt — e.  g.,  Mark,  xvi.  16;  John, 
iii.  18—21;  xii.  47,  48. 

Those  heathen,  now,  who  do  not  belong  to 
one  or  the  other  of  these  classes,  are  not  disbe- 
lievers, though  they  may  not  believe  in  Christ. 
Upon  such,  therefore,  condemnation  is  not  pro- 
nounced in  these  passages.  They  are  not  in- 
deed obedient  to  Christ,  nor  yet  disobedient. 
Thus  one  who  is  not  the  subject  of  a  certain 
king  may  not  indeed  be  obedient  to  his  laws, 
either  because  he  is  ignorant  of  them,  or  not 
bound  in  duty  to  obey  them  ;  but  he  cannot  on 
this  account  be  called  disobedient.  Disobedience 
always  presupposes  an  obligation  to  obedience. 

(2)  God  has  not  seen  good  as  yet  to  bring 
all  nations  to  the  knowledge  of  Christianity. 
And,  little  capable  as  we  are  of  understanding 
the  plan  of  God  in  this  respect,  we  ought  not  to 
conclude  from  this  circumstance  that  the  Chris- 
tian revelation  is  unnecessary  and  may  easily 


THEOLOGY. 

be  dispensed  with.  It  has  pleased  God  to  leave 
many  nations  for  thousands  of  years  in  a  barba- 
rous and  savage  state.  But  can  we  conclude 
from  this  fact  that  intellectual  cultivation  and 
moral  improvement  are  superfluous  and  useless, 
and  therefore  missions  are  unnecessary  ?  Nor, 
on  the  other  hand,  can  we  conclude  from  this 
circumstance  that  God  cannot  save  the  heathen 
because  they  have  not  enjoyed  the  light  of 
Christian  revelation.  Human  happiness  has  as 
many  degrees  and  gradations  as  human  cultiva- 
tion and  refinement  of  manners,  and  all  men  are 
not  capable  of  one  and  the  same  degree.  They 
cannot  all,  therefore,  be  treated  by  God  in  the 
same  manner.  One  thing  may  be  indispensable 
to  the  happiness  of  some  persons  and  of  some 
nations,  while  to  others  the  same  thing  is  quite 
superfluous,  because  they  are  as  yet  incapable 
of  enjoying  the  happiness  arising  from  it.  It  is 
not  said  in  direct  words  in  the  New  Testament, 
that  God  will  make  the  heathen  eternally  happy. 
If  this  were  said,  there  are  many  who  would 
pervert  it.  But  it  is  expressly  asserted  that 
God  does  not  demand  more  from  any  one  than 
he  is  able  with  his  knowledge  and  abilities  to 
perform;  Luke,  xii.  48,  seq.;  and  also,  that  he 
who  faithfully  serves  God  according  to  the 
knowledge  and  means  which  he  enjoys,  and 
does  what  he  considers  to  be  his  duty,  is  accept- 
able to  him;  Acts,  x.  35.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  129, 
note  9.  According  to  the  testimony  of  the  holy 
scriptures,  God  will  have  reference,  in  deter- 
mining the  character  and  conditions  of  men,  to 
the  knowledge  they  have  had,  the  dispositions 
they  have  cherished,  and  the  actions  they  have 
performed.  We  may  confidently  expect  from 
the  goodness  of  God  that  since  he  has  hereto- 
fore given  to  so  many  nations  only  the  light  of 
nature,  he  will  not  make  them  miserable  for  the 
want  of  that  higher  knowledge  of  which  they 
are  innocently  destitute.  And  since  there  is  a 
future  life,  we  may  trust  that  he  will  there  lead 
them  to  that  higher  degree  of  happiness  and 
clearness  of  knowledge  which  they  did  not  at- 
tain in  this  life,  because,  without  fault  of  their 
own,  they  were  here  incapable  of  receiving  it. 
To  such  a  dispensation  in  the  future  world  there 
is  at  least  an  allusion  in  Rev.  xxii.  2,  in  the  tree 
of  life,  by  the  river  of  life,  whose  leaves  serve  s  I  $ 


The  great  body  of  the  Jews,  from  the  earliest 
ages,  denied  salvation  to  the  heathen,  on  the 
principle,  Extra  ecclesiam  non  dari  salutem. 
But  this  is  entirely  opposite  both  to  the  Old 
Testament  and  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity. 
Even  Mahommed  did  not  go  to  this  degree  of 
exclusiveness.  Nor  did  the  more  ancient  Gre- 
cian fathers  deny  salvation  to  the  heathen, 
although  they  philosophized  about  it  after  their 
manner.  E.  g.,  Justin  the  Martyr  and  Clement 
of  Alexandria  held  that  the  Adyoj  exerted  an 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       423 


agency  upon  the  heathen  by  means  of  reason  ; 
and  that  the  heathen  philosophers  were  called 
justified,  and  saved  by  philosophy.  But  after- 
wards, especially  after  the  third  century,  when 
the  false  Jewish  notions  respecting  the  church 
(s.  134)  were  introduced  into  the  West,  and  the 
maxim  was  adopted,  Extra  ecclesiam  nun  dari 
salutem,  (which  was  the  case  after  the  age  of 
Augustine,)  they  then  began  to  deny  the  salva- 
tion of  the  heathen :  though  there  were  always 
some  who  judged  more  favourably.  Thus 
Zwingli,  Curio,  and  others,  believed  that  God 
would  pardon  the  heathen  on  account  of  Christ, 
although  in  this  life  they  had  no  knowledge  of 
his  merits.  Cf.  the  historical  account  in  Bey- 
kert's  Diss.  "de  salute  gentium;"  Strasburg, 
1777;  and  a  short  statement  of  the  opinions  of 
others  in  Morus,  p.  128,  129,  where  he  justly 
recommends  to  our  imitation  the  exemplary 
modesty  pf  the  apostles  when  speaking  on  this 
point.  The  whole  subject  was  investigated 
anew  on  occasion  of  the  violent  attack  which 
Hofstede,  a  preacher  in  Holland,  made  upon 
the  Belisaire  of  Marmontel.  This  gave  rise  to 
Eberhard's  "  Apologie  des  Socrates."  Cf.  also 
Tollner,  Beweis  dass  Gott  die  Menschen  auch 
durch  seine  Oifenbarung  in  der  Natur  zur  Se- 
ligkeit  fiihre;  Ziillichau,  1766,  8vo.  Many 
modern  writers  have  treated  this  subject  in  such 
a  way  as  to  lead  to  a  feeling  of  indifference 
towards  Christianity;  but  this  result  need  not 
be  feared  from  the  scriptural  representation  here 
given. 

(3)  We  must  apply  these  same  principles  to 
the  subject  of  the  salvation  of  infants.  None 
have  ever  really  doubted  respecting  the  salva- 
tion of  those  who  have  died  in  infancy,  before 
they  attained  to  the  full  use  of  their  understand- 
ing. For  since  there  is  a  future  life,  we  may 
expect  with  certainty  that  God  will  make  such 
provision  there,  that  both  children  in  the  literal 
sense,  and  those  who  are  children  in  under- 
standing and  knowledge,  will  be  able  to  obtain 
what  they  were  here  deprived  of  without  their 
own  fault;  and  that  in  his  goodness,  wisdom, 
and  justice,  he  will  bestow  upon  them  that  de- 
gree of  happiness  of  which  they  are  capable. 

Theologians  have  pursued  two  different  me- 
thods in  treating  of  this  subject. 

(a)  Some  are  content  with  saying  that  God 
will  pardon  and  save  infants  on  account  of  the 
merits  of  Christ,  which  extend  to  all,  although 
they  may  not  have  believed  in  Christ  during 
their  life-time;  and  that  their  being  born  with 
natural  depravity  will  not  harm  them,  because 
they  themselves  are  not  to  blame  for  it.  These 
writers  refer  to  Rom.  v.  15 — 17  for  an  analo- 
gous proceeding.  This  is  the  most  simple  and 
the  safest  view. 

(6)  Others,  misunderstanding  the  passage, 
Mark,  xvi.  16,  suppose  that  faith  in  Christ  is 


an  indispensable  requisite  for  salvation  in  all 
men ;  and  have  therefore  (together  with  some 
schoolmen)  embraced  the  doctrine  of  -a  faith  nf 
infants,  which  they  have  variously  explained 
and  described,  as Jides prsesumpta,  implicita,  per 
baptismum  sine  verbo  (some  say,  sine  cognitione\ 
infusa ;  talis  affectio  in  infante  qualis  Deo  placet. 
The  schoolmen  describe  it  as  dispositio  ad  jus- 
tiliam.  But  none  of  them  succeed  in  conveying 
any  intelligible  idea.  Nothing  is  said  in  the 
New  Testament  about  such  a  faith.  Faith 
always  presupposes  knowledge,  and  power  to 
exercise  the  understanding.  Now  since  chil- 
dren have  neither  of  these  requisites,  faith  can- 
not be  ascribed  to  them ;  nor  indeed  disbelief, 
unless  the  word  is  used  very  improperly.  The 
mere  want  of  faith  is  not  damnable,  but  unbelief 
only,  or  the  guilty  destitution  of  faith.  Those 
who  have  adopted  this  view  have  thus  been 
compelled  (as  appears  from  the  preceding  re- 
marks) to  vary  the  idea  which  is  uniformly 
attached  to  the  word  faith  when  adults  are  re- 
ferred to,  as  soon  as  they  speak  of  children,  and 
to  call  something  in  them  by  this  name  which 
is  nowhere  else  so  denominated.  The  passage, 
Matt,  xviii.  6,  does  not  bear  upon  this  point, 
since  the  disciples  of  Christ  are  there  meant 
Cf.  the  Article  on  Baptism,  s.  142,  and  Morus, 
p.  249.  From  the  words  of  Christ,  however, 
Matt.  xix.  14,  "Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God,"  it  is  clear  that  he  considers  children  as  be- 
longing to  his  kingdom.  And  this  is  enough. 

SECTION  CXXII. 

OF  THE  VARIOUS  SIGNIFICATIONS  OF  THE  WORD 
FAITH,  AS  USED  IN  THE  BIBLE  ;  SOME  OF  THE 
PRINCIPAL  PASSAGES  RELATING  TO  FAITH  ;  THE 
PARTS  OF  WHICH  FAITH  IS  MADE  UP ;  AND 
SOME  OF  THE  MOST  IMPORTANT  THEOLOGICAL 
DIVISIONS  OF  FAITH. 

I.  Significations  of  niyns ;  and  Explanation  of  the 
principal  texts  relative  to  Faith. 

THE  terms,  faith,  the  faithful,  &c.,  frequently 
occur  in  the  religious  dialect  even  of  the  He- 
brews. They  were  originally  taken  from  the 
language  of  common  life,  and  transferred  into 
the  religious  phraseology  of  the  Jews,  where 
hey  express  various  nearly  related  ideas. 
From  this  Jewish  dialect  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles borrowed  these  terms.  The  Hebrew  words 
CN,  ppsn,  rmcN,  were  translated  by  the  Hellen- 
stic  Jews  (e.  g.,  the  LXX.)  by  the  words  jtia- 
tvfiv,  jtia-tis,  and  were  also  rendered  in  the 
same  way  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

DN  primarily  signifies,  to  be  firm;  and  then, 
to  be  certain,  sure,  confident.  Hence  HJICN  signi 
les,  as  TttWtj  does,  aside  from  its  religious  use, 
truth,  faith,  integrity,  honour,  proof  (Acts,  xvii. 
31),  and  conviction,  (Rom.  xiv.  23.)  When 


424 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


things  are  spoken  of,  pcs'n  and  rtiafsveiv  signify, 
to  hold  them  (whatever  they  are,  events,  doc- 
trines, laws)  as  certain;  when  persons  are 
spoken  of,  they  signify,  to  trust  in  them,  to  rely 
on  their  words,  declarations,  works.  These 
words  were  used  in  the  same  sense  in  reference 
to  persons  and  things,  in  the  language  of  com- 
mon life  among  the  Jews.  In  Hebrew  they 
were  construed  with  the  particles  ?  or  hy.  Hence 
in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  New  Testament, 
rttotfEiW  is  construed  with  * ij  and  ev,  frequently 
too,  as  in  pure  Greek,  with  the  dative — e.  g., 
£  tj  or  EV  Xpwr^,  T'Q  Xpiffr'a,  s-uayy^u^,  &c.  The 
term  occurs  for  the  first  time,  in  the  religious 
sense,  in  reference  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xv.  G, 
irtiotevat  0^9 — i.  e.,  considered  his  promise  as 
sure,  relied  on  it,  and  acted  accordingly.  It 
frequently  occurs  afterwards  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment— e.  g.,  Exod.  xiv.  31 ;  Psalm  Ixxviii.  22, 
32,  &c. 

To  believe,  therefore,  (a)  when  commands, 
promises,  doctrines,  events,  are  spoken  of,  sig- 
nifies, to  consider  and  regard  them  as  fixed  and 
certain;  (6)  when  God  is  spoken  of,  it  denotes 
our  whole  duty  to  him,  love,  confidence,  and  obe- 
dience to  his  commandments,  because  everything 
which  comes  from  him  is  certain  and  infallible; 
(c)  when  prophets  and  the  messengers  of  God 
are  spoken  of,  to  believe  them,  means,  to  receive 
and  obey  what  they  make  known  as  of  divine 
origin  and  infallibly  certain.  This  term  is  em- 
ployed in  the  Koran  in  the  same  way.  These 
main  ideas  are  differently  modified  according  to 
the  different  objects  which  are  received  by  us 
as  certain.  And  hence  we  can  easily  derive  the 
strictly  religious  senses  in  which  this  word  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament. 

(1)  IliWtj  frequently  signifies  religion  itself 
and  the  particular  doctrines  of  which  it  consists, 
(fides,   quae   creditur,   or  fides  objectiva;}    like 
Iman,  in  the  Koran,  and  runs  in  the  Talmud. 
It  is  thus  used  for  Christianity  in  general,  Jude, 
ver.  3,  20,  dytcotaT^  ytlctti,  Gal.  iii.  23.     Also 
in  the  phrases  vrtaxorj  rtiatfus,  fides  apostolica, 
Nicsena,    &c.     No^aoj  rttWtwj  is   the    doctrine 
which  requires  faith. 

(2)  It  is  more  frequently  used  subjectively, 
denoting  the  approbation  which  one  gives  to  a 
teacher,  and  the  obedience  which  he  yields  to 
his  instructions,  after  being  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  his  doctrine  and  the  divinity  of  his  mis- 
sion.  This  approbation  is  called  in  the  schools, 
fides  qua  creditur.     Thus  John,  v.  46,  rtKjr'fvftv 
Mttitefl  5  Matt.  xxi.  25,  32,  'ludvvy.    When  used 
in  the  gospels  in  reference  to  Jesus  it  denotes 
the  acknowledgment  of  him,  and  obedience  to 
him,  sometimes  as  a  prophet,  and  indeed  the 
greatest  messenger  of  Heaven;  and  sometimes 
as  Messiah.     Hence  Christians  are  called  ytto- 
-ttvovtts,  fti&toi.     Synonymous  with   ftiatmfiv 
are   rt£i£-£<j£ku,  fyt<&0yciv  Xptar'oi'  'Iq/sovv,  tlvai 


. 

sow, 


or  fi/   Xpttft^,  Kvptov  fl 
ovo/j.a  Xpifffov.     The  opposite  terms 
are  arcwtsiv,  artffesiv,  ju^  vrtaxovstv   •c 
Closely  connected  with  this  is, 

(3)  The  sense,  trust,  confidence 
which  arises  from  the  conviction  of  the  truth 
and  divinity  of  a  doctrine,  and  is  manifested  in 
different  ways. 

(a)  When  one  is  convinced  of  the  power  and 
goodness  of  another,  and  therefore  confidently 
hopes  for  help  and  assistance  at  his  hand,  and 
this  not  only  because  he  is  able,  but  also  will- 
ing to  help  and  befriend  him.  This  use  is  com- 
mon in  profane  writings,  in  Hebrew  (nrs  and 
rpNpi),  in  the  Septuagint,  and  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Isaiah,  xxviii.  16;  Matt.  xix.  2,  &c. 
This  confidence  is  therefore  sometimes  express- 
ed by  the  word  Itott's,  Rom.  v.  5,  by  fajtC&tv, 
with  sv  and  e£j,  and  by  other  similar  terms. 
For  the  same  reason,  the  confidence  one  may 
feel  that  God  will  enable  him  in  an  extraordi- 
nary manner  to  work  a  miracle,  is  called  7tiatt$ 
— e.  g.,  Matthew,  xvii.  20 ;  Acts,  vi.  5,  8 ;  1 
Cor.  xiii.  2.  This  faith  is  technically  called 
fides  miraculosa — the  faith  of  miracles. 

(6)  When  one  is  convinced  that  another  will 
do  what  he  says,  (is  veracious  and  faithful,)  he 
depends  entirely  on  his  promises,  and  certainly 
expects  their  fulfilment  in  every  case,  and  from 
this  confidence  complies  with  everything  which 
the  other  requires.  Thus  Abraham's  faith  in 
God  is  described ;  and  thus  the  terms  rtiatevtw 
®?9  and  Aoy9  ®EOV  are  often  used,  Ps.  cvi.  12 ; 
Hab.  ii.  1. 

From  this  wider  meaning  has  arisen  the  pro- 
per Christian  sense  of  saving  faith,  which  Paul 
frequently  uses  in  his  epistles  to  the  Romans 
and  Galatians,  where  he  controverts  the  mis- 
take of  the  meritoriousness  of  observing  the  di- 
vine law.  Here  rtM'tsvsw  Xpttftcj  and  jtiati^ 
denote  the  firm  persuasion  that  we  owe  our 
whole  spiritual  welfare  to  Christ,  or  to  the  free, 
unmerited  mercy  of  God  on  Christ's  account, 
and  our  trust  in  God  and  Christ  arising  from 
hence,  Gal.  ii.  16;  iii.  6;  Rom.  iv.  16,  seq. 
This  kind  of  Christian  faith  is  compared  with 
that  of  Abraham.  He  confided  in  God  in  the 
same  manner,  according  to  the  measure  of  his 
knowledge.  He  relied  on  the  promise  (sTtoy- 
ysTita,  Rom.  iv.  20)  of  God  respecting  a  numer- 
ous offspring,  and  on  the  other  great  promises 
connected  with  this,  (although  he  saw  the  good, 
as  Paul  says,  only  rtop+xo^K,)  without  doubt- 
ing. (<w  SifxpiHty,  and  ttMpoQopq&k  firmly  con- 
vinced,) though  the  thing  promised  was  appa- 
rently improbable,  (map1  &rti8a,  ver.  18.)  Now 
as  Abraham  confided  in  the  promise  of  God, 
(£ftiof£vtf£  ®£<p,)  Christians  should  also  confide 
in  the  promise  of  God  and  Christ,  and  look  to 
God  for  salvation  and  blessedness,  in  this  life 
and  the  life  to  come,  in  and  through  Christ, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       425 


and  not  on  their  own  account,  or  on  the  ground 
of  their  own  merit,  of  which  they  have  nothing 
to  boast.  This  is  what  theologians  call  justify- 
ing and  saving  faith. 

The  two  former  senses  of  faith  are  not  ex- 
cluded from  this  third  signification,  but  are  al- 
ways presupposed  and  included  in  it.  One 
who  would  obtain  forgiveness  through  faith  in 
Christ  must  (a)  have  an  acquaintance  with  the 
Christian  religion,  and  a  persuasion  of  its  truth  ; 
he  must  regard  it  as  of  divine  authority,  and 
embrace  it  with  all  his  heart;  and  (6)  he  must 
actually  rely  on  the  divine  promises  contained 
in  this  religion,  and  prove  the  reality  of  his  con- 
fidence by  his  feelings  and  actions.  The  latter 
sense  springs  out  of  the  former.  How  could 
Abraham  have  confided  in  God  if  he  had  been 
destitute  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  of  his  attri- 
butes, and  promises]  Hence  when  Paul  would 
give  a  complete  description  of  true  Christian 
faith,  he  often  comprises  both  these  ideas  quite 
distinctly  under  the  word  rttWtj,  Rom.  iii.,  iv., 
and  James,  ii.  19 — 24,  where  ritatevnv  refers 
sometimes  to  knowledge  and  the  assent  of  the 
understanding,  and  sometimes  to  the  confidence 
which  springs  from  them. 

Note. — The  passage  Heb.  xi.  1  has  always 
been  considered  one  of  the  most  important  with 
regard  to  the  subject  of  faith,  and  so  indeed  it 
should  be,  though  its  sense  has  been  frequently 
perverted.  The  meaning  of  this  passage  needs 
to  be  distinctly  exhibited.  Paul  here  speaks  of 
faith,  or  confidence  in  the  divine  promises  or 
declarations,  in  general,  especially  of  that  exer- 
cised in  sufferings  and  persecutions,  (in  order 
to  preserve  Christians  from  apostasy,)  not  ex- 
clusive, however,  of  the  peculiar  saving  faith 
of  the  Christian,  as  he  also  hopes  to  obtain  for- 
giveness and  salvation  through  Christ.  This 
is  taught  by  the  examples  of  Rahab,  Samson, 
Jephthah,  and  others,  which  are  mentioned. 
Paul  does  not  undertake  to  give  a  logical  defi- 
nition of  faith,  but  only  distinctly  to  describe  its 
characteristics,  without  which  one  cannot  lay 
claim  to  the  possession  of  faith.  But  this  is 
the  very  reason  why  the  passage  is  so  worthy 
of  note,  and  so  practically  useful ;  for  it  shews 
what  is  requisite  to  faith  in  general,  according 
to  Paul's  ideas  of  it,  and  what  traits  it  must  al- 
ways possess,  however  different  may  be  the 
objects  to  which  it  is  directed.  A  person  shews 
his  faith  by  being  firmly  and  unhesitatingly 
convinced,  on  the  mere  testimony  of  God,  (1) 
with  respect  to  things  which  are  not  actually 
present  with  us  and  in  our  possession  (liut<£6- 
ptva) — e.  g.,  future  deliverance,  future  blessed- 
ness, promised  by  God,  of  whatever  kind  it  may 
be,  temporal  or  spiritual;  (2)  with  respect  to 
things  beyond  the  reach  of  our  senses,  (ov 
j3a.f7t6jU.6va.)  'Trtocrfatttc  and  ttey%o$  are  synony- 
mous in  this  passage,  and  signify  ftrma  ptrsua- 
54 


sio.  Paul  himself  explains  his  meaning  in  ver. 
6 :  the  pious  man  must  believe  that  God  exists, 
(although  he  does  not  see  him,)  and  that  he  will 
reward  his  worshippers,  (although  the  reward 
is  not  immediate.)  Here  therefore  both  know- 
ledge and  assent  to  the  truth,  and  the  confidence 
which  is  the  result  of  them,  are  requisite,  in 
order  to  the  existence  of  faith  in  the  wider  sense 
in  which  it  is  here  used. 

II.  Theological  Divisions  of  Faith  ;  and  the  parts 
of  which  it  is  composed. 

(1)  The  Bible  frequently  says  respecting  one 
who  professes  Christianity,  that  he  has  faith  in 
Christ.    Vide  No.  1.     But  this  faith  is  twofold. 
One  may  understand  and  externally  profess  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity  without  obeying  them 
or  feeling  their  transforming  influence  upon  his 
heart;  or  he  may  apply  them,  according  to  their 
design,  to  the  improvement  of  his  heart  and  the 
sanctification  of  his  dispositions;  in  short,  he 
may  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him  in  the 
Christian  doctrine.     The  faith  of  the  former  is 
called  fides  externa,  historica,  or  theoretica;  that 
of  the  latter,  fides  interna,  habitualis,  salvifita, 
(salutary,  saving,  tfwrTjpfcoj.)     The  former  kind 
of  faith,  disconnected  with  the  latter,  is  some- 
times called  dead  faith,  because  it  is  ineffectual, 
and  contributes  nothing  to  our  improvement  or 
salvation.     The  phrase  is  taken  from  James,  ii. 
17,  20,  26.   The  latter  is  called  living,  viva,  ac- 
tuosa,  because  it  exerts  a  salutary  influence  in 
promoting  our  happiness  and  true  welfare. 

Christian  faith,  in  its  whole  extent,  is  there- 
fore a  conviction  of  the  truth  and  divinity  of  the 
Christian  scheme  of  salvation,  and  a  conduct 
conformed  to  this  conviction.  One  who  believes 
the  Christian  religion  in  such  a  way  as  to  act  in 
accordance  with  it,  and  who  allows  his  affec- 
tions to  be  governed  by  his  belief,  is  a  true 
Christian,  and  possesses  fides  salvifica.  As  to 
one  who  willingly  and  cheerfully  follows  the 
commandments  of  God  and  Christ,  and  sedu- 
lously conducts  himself  by  the  rules  which  they 
have  prescribed,  the  Bible  says,  either  that  he 
is  obedient  to  God  and  Christ,  or  he  believes  in 
them.  Hence  these  two  terms  are  synonymous ; 
Morus,  p.  201,  n.  3.  The  definition,  therefore, 
which  Crusius  gives  in  the  passage  before 
cited,  is  just:  saving  faith  is  a  cordial  approval 
of,  and  compliance  with,  the  divine  plan  of  salva- 
tion. 

(2)  On  the  different  parts  of  which  faith  con- 
sists. 

Faith  is  made  up  of  different  parts,  all  of 
which,  however,  must  belong  to  it,  in  order  to 
its  being  perfect.  The  different  objects  of 
Christian  instruction,  to  which  faith  refers, 
form  the  ground  of  this  division.  There  is  a 
faith  in  events,  in  doctrines,  commands,  and 
promises.  These  objects  will  be  particularly 


426 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


considered  in  the  following  section.  Now 
Christian  faith,  in  a  general  view,  embracing 
all  these  objects,  is  considered  by  theologians 
as  consisting  of  three  parts — knowledge,  assent, 
and  trust,  or  confidence,  (notitia,  assensus,  fidu- 
cia),  which  will  now  be  considered.  Whenever 
entire  Christian  faith  is  spoken  of  as  compre- 
hending all  the  objects  just  mentioned,  this  di- 
vision is  perfectly  applicable.  But  all  these 
parts  do  not  belong  to  Christian  faith  as  direct- 
ed to  each  particular  object.  They  all  belong 
only  to  the  faith  in  promises.  Knowledge  and 
assent  merely  are  requisite  to  the  faith  in  events 
and  doctrines;  and  a  will  and  inclination  to 
obey,  to  faith  in  the  divine  commands.  To  avoid 
this  inconvenience,  faith  might  be  made  to  con- 
sist in  two  particulars — knowledge,  and  a  dispo- 
sition of  heart  correspondent  to  this  knowledge, 
(Ertb'ypcoat;  xai  aia$r]ai$,  Phil.  i.  9,)  according  to 
which  one  would  be  inclined  to  obey  the  divine 
commands  and  confide  in  the  divine  promises. 
Many  theologians  prefer  this  division.  But  in 
what  remains  we  shall  follow  the  common 
threefold  division. 

(a)  Knowledge  of  the  subject  to  be  believed  is, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  an  essential 
part  of  faith,  of  whatever  kind  it  may  be.  Paul 
asks,  How  can  men  believe,  if  they  are  not  in- 
structed? (if  they  do  not  possess  knowledge  of 
the  things  to  be  believed,)  Rom.  x.  14.  This 
knowledge  cannot,  indeed,  in  every  case,  be 
equally  thorough  and  comprehensive.  In  many 
of  the  early  Christians  it  was  at  first  very  gene- 
ral and  confined,  as  indeed  it  is  often  still,  to 
some  of  the  great  elementary  truths.  But  how- 
ever limited  and  imperfect  this  knowledge  may 
be,  it  always  implies  certainty,  and  must  amount 
to  a  firm  conviction ;  otherwise,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  human  mind,  it  can  produce  no 
effect  on  the  will,  and  it  ceases  to  be  faith.  For 
we  believe  only  that  of  which  we  are  certain. 
Cf.  the  terms  vrtoa-taais  and  i'Xfy#o$,  Heb.  xi.  1, 
and  7tto7po$6p£Kj^cu,  Rom.  iv.  21,  where  it  is 
contrasted  with  doubting,-  also  James,  i.  6. 
But  this  conviction  should  be  effected  by  rea- 
sons which  enlighten  the  understanding,  by  in- 
struction intelligible  to  the  human  mind,  not  by 
authoritative  and  compulsory  decisions.  The 
mere  reception  of  a  doctrine  on  the  word  or 
command  of  another,  without  being  ourselves 
convinced  of  its  truth,  is  not  faith,  but  credulity. 
Christ  and  his  apostles  therefore  prescribe  in- 
struction, (xypvaoeiv,)  and  make  faith  a  result  or 
effect  of  instruction — e.  g.,  Mark,  xvi.  16.  And 
Paul  derives  jtCant  from  dgoq,  Rom.  x.  17,  &c. 
From  these  remarks  we  can  easily  see  how  far 
to  admit  the  fides  implicita  of  the  schoolmen. 
They  mean  by  this,  faith  in  such  doctrines  as 
we  do  not  understand,  and  of  which  we  are  not 
convinced  by  reason,  but  must  receive  on  the 
mere  word  and  authority  of  the  church.  From 


these  remarks,  too,  we  can  easily  form  an  opi- 
nion respecting  the  faith  of  children,  for  which 
some  contend.  Vide  s.  120,  ad  finem. 

(6)  Assent.  This  is  divided  into  general  (as- 
sensus generalis'),  by  which  is  meant  the  general 
reception  of  known  truth  as  credible  and  sure ; 
and  into  particular  (assensus  specialist,  by  which 
is  meant  the  special  application  of  certain  gene- 
ral truths  of  the  Christian  doctrine  to  oneself — 
e.  g.,  Christ  died  for  men,  and  also  for  me.  It 
is  this  latter  kind  which  more  frequently  pro- 
duces salutary  feelings  and  emotions  in  the 
soul.  Vide  the  examples,  Rom.  viii.  31 — 39; 
1  Tim.  i.  15,  16;  Morus,  p.  201,  s.  6.  This  is 
commonly  expressed  in  the  New  Testament  by 
8£%sa§a&  and  rfopo&£&($<u,  as  Mark,  iv.  20, 
where  O.XOVEIV  implies  the  kiypwledge  of  the 
truth,  7tapaS£££a£a&,  assent  to  it,  from  whence 
the  result  xaprtofyopflv.  1  Thess.  ii.  13,  where 
TtapaXa^jSai/ftv  koyoj/,  merely  to  hear  instruction^ 
is  distinguished  from  fo'^o&at.  1  Cor.  ii.  14, 
the  carnal  man,  obedient  only  to  his  passions, 
does  not  assent  (dc'gEo^o*)  to  the  divine  doc- 
trine, &c. 

Although  assent  should  always  be  connected 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  because  the 
will  should  be  governed  by  the  understanding, 
yet  we  find  that  it  is  often  withheld  from  truths 
which  cannot  be  doubted,  from  the  prevalence 
of  prejudice  or  passion.  So  it  was  with  the 
contemporaries  of  Jesus  in  Palestine.  They 
could  not  deny  that  the  miracles  which  he 
wrought  were  real  miracles,  and  yet  they  did 
not  yield  him  their  assent.  Like  to  these  are 
all  who  at  the  present  day,  from  love  to  sin,  re- 
fuse obedience  to  the  truth  which  they  know. 
Such  persons  commonly  endeavour  to  persuade 
themselves  and  others  that  the  cause  of  their 
unbelief  has  some  other  ground  besides  their 
own  will ;  hence  they  give  ready  credit  to  every 
semblance  of  reason  for  doubting  the  truth  and 
divinity  of  Christianity. 

If  this  assent,  therefore,  is  genuine,  it  must 
act  on  the  heart  of  man.  The  will  must  be  con- 
trolled and  governed  by  the  truths  which  the 
understanding  acknowledges  and  embraces  as 
true.  Otherwise  this  assent  resembles  that 
which,  according  to  James,  ii.  19,  we  allow  even 
to  devils.  Cf.  James,  i.  22 ;  Luke,  viii.  13  ;  and 
Heb.  iv.  2. 

It  will  be  understood,  of  course,  that  this  as- 
sent has  different  degrees,  respecting  which  we 
shall  say  more  hereafter, 

(c)  Trust,  or  confidence.  Knowledge  and  as- 
sent become,  in  respect  to  the  divine  promises 
given  to  Christians,  confidence — i.  e.,  a  firm  con- 
viction that  the  promises  given  by  God  will 
surely  be  fulfilled.  Morus,  p.  202,  n.  2,  justly 
says,  "that  to  the  assent  of  the  understanding 
there  must  be  added  a  trust  in  that  grace  (of 
God)  by  which  one  conducts  himself  conform- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       427 


'ably  to  this  gracious  promise."  All  the  three 
parts,  therefore,  of  which  faith  consists,  are 
comprised  in  that  faith  which  relates  to  the 
divine  promises;  while,  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  case,  only  knowledge  and  assent  belong 
to  the  faith  relating  to  events,  doctrines,  and 
commands.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  from  the 
very  nature  of  the  subject,  all  the  three  parts 
must  consist  together.  This  state  of  mind  in 
Christians  is  called  in  the  New  Testament 
rtsrto/Styfftj,  rta/3|j»7<5ia,  £>jttj,  x.  i1.  &.  Ephes.  iii. 
12;  Heb.  iii.  6;  1  John,  ii.  28. 

Note. — On  the  method  pursued  by  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  in  teaching  the  doctrines  of  faith.  They 
do  not  confine  themselves  merely  to  enlighten- 
ing the  understanding  (SiScumtv),  but,  in  con- 
nexion with  this,  they  would  always  have  an 
appeal  made  to  the  heart,  (rtapcwcatatv.)  So 
2  Tim.  iv.  2;  1  Tim.  iv.  13;  2  Cor.  v.  20,  &c. 
They  always  employ  the  effect  produced  in  the 
understanding  by  truth,  to  move  and  excite  the 
affections  of  their  hearers  or  readers.  Thus  their 
instruction  is  always  perfectly  practical.  The 
beginning  must  indeed  be  always  made  by  in- 
forming the  understanding.  For  how  can  a  man 
believe  or  perform  anything  with  which  he  is  un- 
acquainted ]  Vide  Rom.  x.  14.  But  the  Chris- 
tian teacher  who  is  content,  as  is  often  the  case, 
with  giving  lifeless  instruction  to  the  understand- 
ing, and  who  supposes  that  the  approval  of  the 
affections  will  follow  of  course,  betrays  great 
ignorance  of  human  nature.  For  experience 
proves  that  the  state  of  the  heart  exerts  a  great 
influence  on  the  attention  paid  to  truth,  and  on 
the  whole  activity  of  the  understanding.  If  the 
heart  is  wanting  in  love  for  the  truth,  the  under- 
standing will  be  very  slow  in  coming  to  a  clear 
knowledge,  just  discernment,  and  proper  esti- 
mation of  it,  and  the  reverse.  According  to  the 
method  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  therefore, 
which  is  adapted  to  the  very  nature  of  the  human 
soul,  the  teacher  who  labours  to  promote  the  con- 
viction and  conversion  of  men,  must  begin  at 
the  very  outset  by  inculcating  the  most  clear, 
practical  truths,  in  order  that  the  heart  may  first 
become  favourably  disposed  to  the  truth,  and 
that  the  understanding  may  thus  become  more 
susceptible  of  what  is  taught.  He  must  then 
employ  again  the  truths  which  he  has  thus  com- 
municated to  excite  and  move  the  affections. 
And  whatever  knowledge  is  conveyed  to  the 
mind  should  always  be  so  directed  by  the  Chris- 
tian teacher  as  to  excite  and  move  the  affections. 

SECTION  CXXIII. 

OF  THE  DIFFERENT  OBJECTS  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOC- 
TRINE TO  WHICH  FAITH  REFERS;  AND  THE 
RELATION  OF  FAITH  TO  THE  SAME. 

THESE  different  objects  were  enumerated,  s. 


122,  II.  2,  and  will  now  be  separately  consi- 
dered. 

The  truths  of  the  Christian  religion  which 
faith  embraces  may  be  reduced  to  the  following 
classes  : — 

I.  Doctrines,  and  Historical  Facts. 

Historical  facts  are  here  classed  with  doctrines 
because  the  Christian  religion  is  founded  on 
facts;  such,  for  example,  as  that  Christ  died, 
rose  again,  &c.  The  firm  conviction  that  these 
doctrines  or  events  are  true  is  called,  with  re- 
gard to  the  former,  fides  dogmatica,  with  regard 
to  the  latter,^c?cs  historica,  (in  the  more  limited 
sense.)  For  examples  of  the  former  kind,  vide 
Heb.  xi.  2,  seq. ;  of  the  latter  kind,  Rom.  x.  9, 
10;  John,  xx.  29;  1  Cor.  xv.  3.  The  apostles 
always  placed  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  in 
the  most  intimate  connexion  with  the  person 
and  whole  history  of  Christ,  and  in  this  way 
gave  general  truths,  such  as  the  paternal  love 
of  God,  and  his  readiness  to  forgive,  the  author- 
ity of  positive  Christian  doctrines.  Vide  Art. 
x.  Christ  and  the  apostles  teach  no  Christianity 
independent  of  the  person  and  history  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Their  whole  system  is  founded  on  the 
fact  that  Christ  is  the  great  Messenger  promised 
by  God,  and  that  life  everlasting  may  be  ob- 
tained through  faith  in  him ;  and  to  these  truths 
they  constantly  refer;  John,  xx.  31.  To  extend 
and  perpetuate  the  knowledge  of  these  facts  all 
the  gospels  were  written,  and  all  the  apostles 
laboured  in  their  oral  and  written  instructions. 
As  soon  as  the  doctrines,  laws,  and  promises  of 
Christianity  are  separated  from  the  history  of 
Christ,  they  lose  that  positive  sanction  which 
they  must  have  in  order  to  answer  the  demands 
of  the  great  mass  of  mankind.  The  apostles 
therefore  always  built  their  instructions  on  the 
history  of  Christ.  Cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  2,  3,  14.  And 
the  teacher  who  regards  the  directions  and  ex- 
ample of  Christ  and  of  the  early  Christian 
teachers,  and  who  is  convinced  of  the  import- 
ance of  these  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christian- 
ity, will  follow  their  example  in  this  respect, 
that  instead  of  withholding  these  doctrines  from 
the  youth  whom  he  is  called  to  instruct,  he  will 
place  them  before  their  minds  in  a  manner 
adapted  to  their  comprehensions.  And  he  must 
disapprove  the  course  of  some  who  confine  their 
instructions  to  the  truths  of  natural  religion. 
But  even  supposing  that  the  teacher  should 
doubt  in  his  own  mind  respecting  the  import- 
ance of  these  peculiar  Christian  doctrines,  he 
ought  to  know,  from  the  mere  principles  of  hu- 
man nature,  that  the  dry  exhibition  of  the  truths 
of  reason,  without  the  vehicle  of  history,  is  ill 
adapted  for  the  instruction  of  the  common  people 
and  of  the  young.  He  ought  to  know,  too,  that 
there  is  no  history  which  can  be  used  to  more 
advantage  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  the  great 


428 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


truths  of  religion  evident,  impressive,  and  prac- 
tical, than  the  history  of  Christ.  In  neglecting 
this  method,  or  objecting  to  it,  he  has  considered 
only  one  side  of  the  subject,  and  while  he  sup- 
poses he  is  proceeding  very  philosophically,  his 
conduct  is,  in  fact,  exceedingly  otherwise. 
Happy  the  teacher  who  knows  from  his  own 
experience  the  salutary  efficacy  of  the  positive 
doctrines  of  Christianity!  Supposing  him, 
however,  not  to  have  this  experience,  he  ought, 
for  the  reasons  above  given,  to  adopt  this  most 
reasonable  method  of  instruction.  Cf.  Miiller, 
Vom  christlichen  Religionsunterrichte ;  Winter- 
thur,  1809,  8vo. 

But  in  order  that  the  general  doctrines  of 
Christianity  may  exert  an  influence  on  any  one's 
feelings  and  dispositions,  he  must  exercise  the 
assensio  specialis  (s.  122,  II.) — i.  e.,  he  must  be 
convinced  of  the  applicability  of  these  doctrines 
to  himself;  he  must  appropriate  and  apply  them 
to  himself;  he  must  feel,  for  example,  that  Christ 
died  not  only  for  all  men,  but  also  for  him.  For 
our  confidence  in  the  divine  promises  given 
through  Christ  and  on  his  account  must  depend 
on  our  conviction  that  they  relate  personally  to 
ourselves,  that  they  are  given  to  us.  To  pro- 
duce this  conviction  should  be  the  great  object 
of  the  teacher.  For  religion  should  not  be  so 
much  the  concern  of  the  head  as  the  interest  of 
the  heart. 

II.  The.  Divine  Promises. 

The  divine  promises  constitute  a  very  import- 
ant part  of  the  Christian  doctrine.  The  faith  in 
them  which  is  required  of  us  as  Christians  has 
not  so  much  respect  to  the  promises  of  temporal 
good  as  to  those  of  spiritual  and  eternal  good 
which  we  may  obtain  through  Christ  and  on 
his  account. 

The  following  particulars  may  be  noticed  with 
respect  to  this  faith — viz., 

(1)  True  faith  in  the  divine  promises  consists 
in  a  confident  and  undoubting  hope  that  God  will 
fulfil  them,  and  will  actually  bestow  upon  us  the 
good  which  he  has  promised.  All  the  three 
parts  of  which  faith  consists  (knowledge,  as- 
sent, and  confidence,  Rom.  iv.  16)  belong  to 
this  kind,  s.  122.  Paul  illustrates  the  nature 
of  this  kind  of  faith  by  the  example  of  Abraham, 
Rom.  iv.  20;  Gal.  iii.  8,  16.  Abraham  had 
great  promises  made  to  him  (^rtayym'ow),  the 
fulfilment  of  which,  at  the  time  they  were  given, 
was  quite  improbable;  and  yet  he  maintained  a 
firm  faith.  We  may  mention  here  the  examples 
of  the  faith  of  the  Israelites,  John,  iii.  14,  coll. 
Num.  xxi.,  and  Heb.  iv.  1.  In  the  last-cited 
passage,  faith  in  Christian  promises  is  not,  in- 
deed, the  particular  subject  of  discourse.  But 
all  which  is  true  of  faith  in  other  promises  of 
divine  favours  is  also  true  of  faith  in  Christian 
promises.  The  only  difference  in  the  two  cases 


is  the  difference  of  the  objects  upon  which  faith 
fixes.  The  signs  and  characteristics  of  it  are 
the  same.  Vide  Heb.  xi.  1,  (s.  122,  ad  finem.) 
Hence  Paul  calls  all  who  believe  in  the  divine 
promises  (oi  ix  rtCcttw,')  Abraham's  children— 
i.  e.,  like  him,  and  capable  of  a  similar  reward. 
(2)  The  promises  given  to  Christians,  as 
such,  have  all  reference  to  Christ;  Morus,  p. 
203,  s.  7.  They  are  placed  in  the  most  intimate 
connexion  with  his  person  and  history.  Christ 
is  therefore  always  described  as  the  ground  of 
our  faith,  (fundamentumfidei.)  We  are  taught 
everywhere  that  Christ  died  for  us,  that  on  his 
account.  God  remits  the  punishment  of  sin,  and 
bestows  upon  us  everlasting  happiness.  It  is  in 
these  divine  promises  that  we  are  required  to  be- 
lieve —  i.  e.,  we  must  be  persuaded  that  God  will 
fulfil  them  for  us.  Vide  Rom.  iii.  15;  viii.  12, 
17  ;  iv.  24.  Theologians  call  this  kind  of  faith, 
or  this  firm  conviction  that  God  will  perform  his 
promises  to  us,  and  for  Christ's  sake  be  gracious 
to  us,  the  application  or  laying  hold  (apprehen- 
sionem)  of  the  merits  of  Christ.  Both  the  theory 
itself  and  this  term  rest  upon  the  authority  of 
the  New  Testament,  although  the  term  Ttapa- 
Xa/ijSavttv  XpttfT'oi/  in  Col.  ii.  6,  signifies,  to  be 
informed  respecting  Christ  and  his  religion,  to 
hear  Christian  doctrines.  This  idea  is  com- 
monly denoted  by  the  terms,  rcia-ttvsw  7*9  71079 
-tov  (jfavpov,  ftj  v-^c^tsvrfa,  x.  f.  X.  Vide  Morus, 
p.  203,  n.  1.  But  in  John,  i.  12,  the  term  hap- 
pdvtt,v  XpitTfov  is  used  to  denote  this  self-apply- 
ing faith,  for  it  is  directly  explained  by  the  term 


(3)  The  result  of  this  confident  faith  in  the  di- 
vine promises  is  the  possession  or  enjoyment  of 
the  promised  good,  or  the  reward.  God  is  not 
only  able  to  perform  his  promises;  he  is  likewise 
true  and  infallible.  But  he  never  makes  promises 
to  men  on  the  ground  of  their  desert,  for  they 
have  none;  but  all  his  promises  are  undeserved. 
lie  gives  them,  indeed,  on  condition  of  faith 
(Sta  Tt'.Vrr'jcof),  Rom.  iv.  4,  16;  but  yet  Scopsav 
and  xa-fa  %dpw,  and  not  as  o^t'^/ua.  This 
truth  is  thus  expressed  in  the  same  connexion 
(ver.  3)  ;  a  man's  observing  the  divine  law  can 
not  be  imputed  to  him  as  a  merit,  but  faith 
only  koyt^Wat  ft$  SixaioGvvyv.  Cf.  Gen.  xv.  6. 
For  obedience  to  the  divine  law  is  what  we  owe. 
Nor  can  we  find  anywhere,  even  in  the  greatest 
saint,  an  obedience  so  perfect  as  to  satisfy  con- 
science. Now  since  Christians  are  to  have 
good  bestowed  upon  them  through  Christ,  and 
on  account  of  faith  in  the  divine  promises,  and 
since  this  good  is  commenced  in  the  removal  of 
punishment,  or  the  forgiveness  of  sin  (justifi- 
cation, pardon},  this  faith  is  called  justifying 
(justificam);  as  Paul  says,  in  the  passage  cited, 
8ixai,ovp£vo<<  dupeav  8t,a  tvj$  rttWfcoj.  Paul  illus- 
trates this  by  the  example  of  Abraham.  His 
faith  in  the  divine  promises  was  imputed  to  him 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      429 


/  by  God  as  a  merit — i.  e.,  he  was  rewarded  on 
account  of  his  faith.  The  promises  made  to 
him  of  a  favoured  posterity  and  the  possession 
of  Canaan  were  fulfilled  to  him  as  a  reward. 
In  Heb.  xi.  31,  Paul  illustrates  this  by  the  ex- 
ample of  Rahab.  Her  faith  (a  firm  conviction 
that  the  God  of  the  Israelites  is  omnipotent,  and 
would  fulfil  his  promises  to  the  Israelites,  and 
give  them  the  land  of  Canaan)  was  the  occasion 
of  her  being1  pardoned,  and  not  perishing  with 
the  rest  of  the  Canaanites,  ov  ovvo.Ttute'to  T'otj 
a,ftsi$r(aatst,,  or,  as  James  says  (ii.  25),  eSixatuJty. 
In  this  case,  indeed,  the  object  of  faith  is  differ- 
ent from  the  object  of  Christian  faith.  But  the 
result  (reward)  is  the  same  ;  and  the  character- 
istics of  it  are  the  same.  In  the  case  of  Rahab, 
the  good  bestowed  was  earthly  and  temporal ; 
in  the  other,  spiritual  and  eternal. 

III.  The  Divine  Laws  or  Precepts. 

Since  to  believe,  in  the  large  sense,  is  the  same 
as  to  receive  and  obey  the  Christian  doctrine  in 
all  its  parts;  its  laws  and  rules  of  action  must 
be  as  perfectly  acknowledged  and  received  as  its 
promises. 

(1)  Statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament on  this  subject.  One  who  believes  the 
divine  promises  receives  the  good  promised  on 
account  of  his  faith ;  but  it  is  not  optional  with 
him  to  receive  this  part  only  of  the  Christian 
doctrine,  and  to  refuse  obedience  to  the  laws 
which  it  prescribes.  No  one  can  say,  /  will 
hold  fast  to  the  promises,  and  leave  the  observance 
of  the  law  to  others.  These  two  things  cannot 
be  separated  ;  and  they  are  both  implied  in  be- 
lieving in  Christ,  or  the  gospel.  Christ  and  the 
apostles  everywhere  teach  that  the  observance 
of  the  precepts  of  Christianity,  or  holiness,  can- 
not be  separated  from  faith  in  Christ.  Obedi- 
ence is  the  fruit  of  faith.  Matt.  vii.  21,  "He 
only  who  does  the  will  of  my  Father  can  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  John,  xv.  14; 
Luke,  vi.  46—49;  1  John,  ii.  3—6,  which  is 
the  most  decisive  text.  Paul  expresses  himself 
in  the  same  manner  on  this  subject,  Gal.  v.  6; 
Ephes.  iv.  22,  and  here  certainly  he  does  not 
contradict  James.  The  latter  is  very  explicit  on 
this  subject,  especially  in  the  second  chapter  of 
his  epistle,  where  he  remonstrates  against  the 
perversions  of  the  doctrine  of  faith,  as  if  a  mere 
knowledge  and  cold  assent  to  the  truth,  a  dead 
faith  in  Christ,  disconnected  with  the  practice 
of  holiness,  could  be  sufficient. 

This  disposition  of  the  Christian  to  live  in 
entire  conformity  with  the  precepts  of  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  is  called  fpomf/Mt  rtufvpa'tos,  Ro- 
mans, vii.  6,  7,  18 — i.  e.,  the  renewed  temper 
produced  by  God,  by  means  of  Christianity, 
the  holiness,  love,  and  zeal  for  virtue  produced 
in  the  Christian  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  op- 
posed to  fypovypa  cropxoj — i.  e.,  the  disposition  to 


live  according  to  sinful  propensities.  This  dis- 
position is  everywhere  ascribed  to  God,  or  to 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  author  of  Christianity, 
the  guide  of  the  pious,  and  the  promoter  of  all 
Christian  perfection.  In  Romans,  viii.  1,  this 
state  is  described  by  the  phrase  rttptrta-mv  xata, 
7tvfv/j.a,  and  in  ver.  9,  by  rtvevpu  Xptcfr'ov,  a 
Christian  state  of  mind,  a  disposition  like  that 
of  Christ,  and  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  his 
assistance  and  instructions.  In  1  John,  iii.  24, 
the  same  term  is  used.  In  Gal.  v.  22,  the  term 
xaprtoj  ftvivfjurtos  is  used,  denoting  Christian 
virtues,  actions  proceeding  from  a  heart  renewed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  influence  of 
Christianity.  In  Rom.  vi.  6,  &c.,  this  charac- 
ter is  called,  metaphorically,  xawog  cu&purtof, 
and  the  renunciation  of  the  previous  love  and 
habit  of  sinning  is  called  p.t?dvoia,  the  putting 
off  of  the  old  man,  &c.,  which  will  be  further 
considered  hereafter.  Faith  in  the  divine  pro- 
mises, thus  connected  with  obedience  to  Chris- 
tian precepts,  or  holiness,  is  called  living,  or 
active  faith,  viva,  actuosa,  operosa,  practica.  Paul 
himself  speaks  of  a  faith  (8c  aydjtqi)  Evspyovjuet^, 
Gal.  v.  6. 

(2)  On  the  use  of  the  words  LAW  and  GOSPEL, 
in  the  Bible  and  in  theology,  and  inferences  from 
it.  Morus  treats  this  subject  as  an  Appendix 
to  c.  3,  p.  238—244. 

(a)  When  the  words  v6p.os  and  ypa^a  are 
used  in  the  New  Testament  in  opposition  to 
ftiayytTaov  and  jtvevpa,,  the  former  do  not  mean 
precepts  respecting  the  conduct  of  men  in  gene- 
ral ;  nor  the  latter  merely  the  promises  (Irtoyys- 
Xuu)  given  to  Christians.  But  v6f*o$  and  ypa^a 
frequently  denote  the  Mosaic  law,  or  the  whole 
Old-Testament  institute  and  religion;  £iJayy£- 
?u,of,  jtvfvpa,  and  other  similar  terms,  the  whole 
Christian  doctrine,  its  commands  as  well  as  its 
promises.  Thus,  e.  g.,  the  sermon  on  the  Mount, 
Matt,  v.,  is  purely  evangelical,  even  in  the  pre- 
cepts respecting  conduct  which  it  contains; 
John,  i.  17;  Rom.  viii.  2;  2  Cor.  iii.  6;  iv.  6, 
seq. ;  Morus,  p.  240,  s.  4. 

This  will  help  us  to  explain  many  of  the  texts 
in  which  the  apostles  speak  of  the  great  advan- 
tages which  the  gospel  has  over  the  law ;  where 
they  say  the  law  was  imperfect,  was  not  design- 
ed for  all  men  in  all  ages,  is  not  obligatory  on 
Christians,  and  is  supplanted  by  Christianity. 
Much  like  this  is  found  in  Rom.  iii.,  iv.,  vii., 
viii.,  and  Gal.  iii. 

But  the  schoolmen,  and  many  theologians 
who  followed  them,  did  not  distinguish  accu- 
rately between  the  various  senses  of  the  words 
vojttoj  and  fvoyyt'xtov  in  the  New  Testament. 
And  notwithstanding  it  is  clearly  asserted  that 
the  whole  Mosaic  institute,  as  such,  is  super- 
seded by  Christianity  (vide  s.  118,  II.),  yet 
many  held  the  opinion  that  the  law  given  on 
Mount  Sinai  was  designed,  as  far  as  its  moral 


430 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


part  is  concerned,  for  the  whole  world,  and  is 
obligatory  at  all  times,  even  on  the  ground  of 
its  having  been  there  given.  They  understand 
the  Christian  law  and  the  law  of  Moses  to  be  sy- 
nonymous, and  believe  that  the  Mosaic  law,  as 
such,  (the  ceremonial  part  only  excepted,)  is 
obligatory  upon  Christians.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  always  understand  fvayyaTuor,  according 
to  its  etymology  (joyful  news),  to  mean,  not 
the  whole  Christian  doctrine,  but  only  that  part 
of  it  which  contains  the  promises. 

This  departure  from  the  scriptural  usage  gave 
occasion  to  adopt  the  division  into  law  and  gos- 
pel in  the  theological  sense.  Such,  then,  is  the 
state  of  the  case.  Gospel,  in  the  wider  sense, 
is  the  whole  Christian  doctrine,  as  composed 
both  of  precept  and  promise.  This  is  the  most 
common  sense  in  the  New  Testament.  In  the 
narrower  sense,  it  is  the  promises  of  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  especially  those  of  pardon  through 
Christ.  In  this  sense  it  sometimes  occurs  in 
the  New  Testament;  Rom.  x.  16,  coll.  ver. 
3—15;  Rom.  i.  16,  17;  iii.  21;  Acts,  xiii.  32; 
xx.  24,  fvayy&iov  ^apt-roj  ©sou,  1  Cor.  ix.  23. 
In  this  sense  theologians  have  always  used  it. 
Law  generally  signifies  in  the  New  Testament 
the  Mosaic  law;  but  sometimes  the  precepts  of 
God  and  of  Christ,  Gal.  vi.  2,  &c. 

(&)  By  law  and  gospel,  as  used  in  theology, 
the  whole  sum  of  the  doctrine  of  salvation  is 
meant.  By  the  law  is  understood  the  sum  of 
all  the  divine  precepts  given  to  man  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testament ;  or,  the  whole  moral  law  ,• 
Morus,  p.  238,  seq.,  s.  2.  From  this  we  learn 
what  God  has  commanded  and  forbidden,  and 
of  course  what  sin  is.  By  gospel  is  understood 
all  the  promises  relating  to  the  salvation  of  man 
through  Christ,  whether  contained  in  the  Old 
or  New  Testament.  These  assure  men  of  grace 
and  forgiveness,  and  thus  comfort  and  encour- 
age the  sinner ;  this  is  what  is  more  properly 
called  fuayyfTuov  ^aptr'oj. 

This  definite  theological  use,  which  is  not  in 
itself  unscriptural,  was  common  before  the  Re- 
formation in  the  Romish  church,  and  was  em- 
ployed by  the  schoolmen  in  their  systems.  Be- 
cause  the  decalogue  contains  moral  precepts,  and 
is  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  law,  and  be- 
cause fo/toj  occurs  sometimes  in  this  sense  in 
the  New  Testament,  they  called  all  moral  pre- 
cepts the  law  ,•  and  because  cvoyyt'tow  signifies, 
etymologically,  a  joyful  message,  and  occurs 
sometimes  in  this  sense  in  the  New  Testament, 
they  called  all  the  promises  of  God,  inasmuch  as 
they  are  of  a  joyful  nature,  gospel.  This  was 
proper  in  itself.  The  fault  lay  in  their  regard- 
ing this  as  the  only  scriptural  use,  and  accord- 
I  ingly  endeavouring  to  adapt  it  to  all  the  pas- 
sages in  which  law  and  gospel  occur.  Luther 
and  Melancthon,  and  also  the  Swiss  reformers, 
retained  the  established  usage  of  these  terms, 


and  from  them  it  has  been  adopted  by  other  the- 
ologians of  the  protestant  church  into  their  sys- 
tems. The  Arminians,  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, made  the  first  attempt  to  shew,  some  of 
them,  that  this  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible, 
and  others,  more  justly,  that  it  is  not  the  only 
scriptural  use.  They  taught  that  the  gospel 
comprehends  laws  as  well  as  promises,  and 
that  one  as  well  as  the  other  must  be  comprised 
in  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  But  the  old  division 
was  for  a  long  time  retained  by  protestant  theo- 
logians, even  in  their  homiletical  and  cateche- 
tical instructions ;  nor  was  there  anything  ob- 
jectionable in  this.  Although  this  use  of  these 
words  is  not  the  only,  nor  even  the  common 
scriptural  usage,  yet  there  is  good  reason  for 
this  distinction  (Morus,  p.  240,  s.  4),  if  it  is 
only  properly  explained.  The  truth  which  is 
designated  by  it  cannot  and  ought  not  to  be 
passed  over.  For  it  is  plain  that  rules  for  con- 
duct and  promises  of  blessing  are  of  altogether 
a  different  nature,  have  different  ends,  and  pro- 
duce different  effects,  and  that  both  therefore 
must  have  different  predicates.  The  Christian 
doctrine  contains  both.  From  the  nature  of  the 
human  soul,  promises  of  a  great  good  awaken 
pleasure  in  the  mind,  and  incite  to  willing  effort 
to  do  everything  which  can  secure  the  enjoy- 
ment of  this  good.  But  this  very  nature  of  the 
soul  makes  rules  for  feeling  and  conduct  neces- 
sary. Precepts  and  promises  must  be  most  in- 
timately connected.  And  the  promises  must  be 
made  to  serve  as  a  spring  and  motive  to  obey 
the  divine  commands.  This  obedience  is  an 
indispensable  condition,  and  unless  it  is  fulfilled 
the  promised  good  cannot  be  bestowed.  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
Christian  teacher  must  therefore  make  use  of 
the  law,  in  order  to  promote  the  knowledge  of 
sin,  and  repentance,  and  to  shew  the  unhappy 
consequences  which,  according  to  the  Christian 
doctrine,  result  from  sin  both  in  this  life  and 
the  life  to  come;  and  that  he  may  employ  for 
this  purpose  everything,  as  well  in  the  Old  as 
in  the  New  Testament,  which  bears  on  this 
subject.  Vide  Morus,  p.  242,  s.  7. 

Note. — The  passages,  Rom.  iii.  and  Gal.  iii. 
and  iv.,  relating  to  the  law  and  its  abolition, 
have  been  misunderstood  in  two  different  ways, 
which  should  be  carefully  guarded  against. 

(a)  Some  have  taught  that  believers  have  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  law,  since  Christ  has  ful- 
filled it  for  them  ;  and  they  appeal  to  these  pas- 
sages. They  would  embrace  only  one  part  of 
the  gospel — its  promises,  and  would  gladly  be 
relieved  of  the  other,  and  thus  overthrow  all 
morality.  Such  were  the  doctrines  of  many  of 
the  fanatics  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  and 
afterwards.  Morus,  p.  241,  s.  6.  The  same 
thing  was  charged  upon  Agricola  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  and  his  followers,  the  Antino- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       431 


mians.    Hence  the  fifth  and  sixth  articles  were 
introduced  into  the  Form  of  Concord. 

(6)  Others  have  supposed  that  the  Mosaic 
ceremonial,  or  civil  law  exclusively,  is  intended 
in  those  passages  where  it  is  said  that  man  de- 
serves nothing  of  God  by  observing  the  law — 
e.  g.,  Rom.  iii.  and  Gal.  iii.  and  iv.  They 
maintained,  accordingly,  that  although  the  fa- 
vour of  God  could  not  be  conciliated  by  obe- 
dience to  the  ceremonial  law,  it  might  be  by  the 
observance  of  the  moral  law.  Thus  the  Soci- 
nians  and  many  others.  But  Paul  knows  nothing 
of  such  a  distinction,  and  what  he  says,  he  says 
of  the  whole  Mosaic  law,  moral  as  well  as 
ritual.  The  observance  of  the  one  is  as  little 
meritorious  as  of  the  other;  and  what  is  true  of 
the  moral  law  of  Moses  is  true,  according  to 
his  express  declaration  in  these  passages,  of  the 
whole  moral  law,  whether  learned  from  nature 
or  from  the  Christian  doctrine.  Vide  Progr.  in 
Rom.  vii.  et  viii.,  in  «« Scripta  varii  argumenti," 
Num.  xii.  The  following  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostles: — Obedience  to  the  divine  law  is  not 
the  ground,  or  the  procuring-cause,  of  our  for- 
giveness and  salvation.  (And  happy  is  it  for 
men  that  it  is  not;  for  were  it  so,  no  man  of  an 
enlightened  and  tender  conscience  could  ever  be 
sure  of  salvation.)  Faith  in  Christ  who  died  for 
us  is  the  only  ground  of  our  acceptance.  Still 
obedience  to  the  divine  law  is  an  indispensable 
duty  in  connexion  with  this  faith;  indeed,  it  is 
practicable  and  easy  only  while  this  faith  exists. 
The  strict  requirements  of  the  moral  law  cause 
us  to  see  clearly  how  deficient  and  imperfect 
we  are,  since  while  we  allow  that  the  law  re- 
quires only  what  is  right,  we  are  yet  unable  to 
conform  to  it.  They  also  excite  in  us  a  deep 
feeling  of  our  need  of  a  different  dispensa- 
tion, coming  in  aid  of  our  imperfection.  And 
by  seeing  our  need,  we  become  disposed  to  em- 
brace the  provisions  for  salvation  which  God 
offers.  Thus  the  law  leads  us  to  Christ,  Rom. 
iii.,  vi.,  vii.,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 

SECTION  CXXIV. 

OF   THE    CONNEXION    OF    THE     PARTS     OF    WHICH 

FAITH   is  COMPOSED;   THE  CHARACTERISTICS 

AND  DEGREES  OF  FAITH  J  AND  THE  CONDITIONS 
ON  WHICH  IT  IS  SAVING. 

I.  The  relation  in  which  the  parts  belonging  to  Faith 
stand  to  each  other. 

HERE  the  following  cautions  should  be  ob- 
served— viz., 

(1)  We  should  not  separate  one  part  of  faith 
from  another,  or  insist  more  upon  one  than  an- 
other, or  imagine  that  the  different  parts  may 
exist  at  different  times.  This  mistake  has  been 
made  by  some  with  respect  to  the  promises, 


(gospel,)  and  the  rule's  of  conduct,  (law.) 
Some  insist  wholly  or  disproportionately  on 
the  latter,  and  thus  alarm  one  who  is  just  be- 
ginning a  religious  life,  and  who  feels  himself 
to  be  still  weak.  This  is  the  fault  of  those  who 
preach  only  the  law  or  morality,  who  are  always 
telling  men  (though  they  generally  know  it 
sufficiently  without  being  told)  what  they  ought 
to  be,  without  shewing  them  the  proper  means 
of  becoming  so,  and  how  they  may  acquire  the 
requisite  power.  Others  dwell  entirely  on  the 
promises,  and  neglect  the  law,  instead  of  deriv- 
ing from  the  promises  the  motives  and  power 
to  obey  the  law,  as  the  Bible  does,  1  John,  iv. 
10,  19  ;  iii.  3 ;  Gal.  ii.  20.  Vide  s.  123,  ad  finem. 
At  the  present  day,  the  former  mistake  is  the 
more  common  one,  and  therefore  needs  to  be 
guarded  against  more  carefully  than  the  other. 

(2)  We  should  not  consider  the  manner  in 
which  faith  arises  in  man,  and  in  which  one 
part  of  it  follows  another,  to  be  uniformly  the 
same  in  all  cases;  nor  should  we'prescribe  the 
same  order  and  succession  as  essential  to  all. 
The  physical  and  moral  constitution  of  men  is 
so  different,  and  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  begin  to  amend  their  lives  are  so  unlike, 
that  the  same  form  and  method  cannot  possibly 
be  prescribed  to  all.  The  neglect  of  proper  at- 
tention to  this  difference  among  men  gives  easy 
occasion  to  uncharitable  judgments,  to  hypo- 
crisy, anxiety,  and  scrupulous  doubts. 

The  common  representation  is  that  which 
Melancthon  has  given  in  his  "  Loci  Theologici." 
Reformation  is  commenced  by  means  of  the 
law,  which  convinces  man  of  his  sins.  Then 
follows  the  distressing  sense  of  the  merited  di- 
vine displeasure,  and  the  desire  of  obtaining 
pardon.  Here  the  gospel  comes  in  for  man's 
relief,  and  imparts  comfort  and  consolation. 
Hence  arise  faith,  and  the  fruits  of  it;  and  from 
faith,  forgiveness  of  sin  and  the  assurance  that 
it  is  remitted. 

In  this  way  does  the  moral  change  in  men 
frequently,  but  not  always,  take  place.  The 
order  is  not  important,  provided  all  the  essen- 
tial parts  of  faith  are  exhibited.  Faith  can  no 
more  be  wrought  in  all  Christians  in  the  same  * 
manner  than  the  sciences  and  arts  can  be  learned 
by  all  in  the  same  manner.  With  one,  the  ter- 
rors of  the  divine  threatenings  and  punishments 
must  be  used  in  the  first  instance ;  with  an- 
other, of  a  more  mild  and  gentle  disposition, 
the  infinite  love  of  God  and  his  promises  must 
be  used.*  Though  beginning  in  different  ways 
both  may  come  to  the  same  result.  When  we 
compare  the  accounts  of  conversions  recorded 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  we  observe  this 
very  difference.  They  all  exhibit  the  great  es- 
sential of  faith ;  but  the  manner  in  which  they 
came  to  the  possession  of  it  is  different.  Books 


432 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


containing1  accounts  of  the  conversion  of  parti- 
cular men  are  very  useful;  but  we  should  be- 
ware of  making  the  experiences  of  individuals 
and  the  way  in  which  they  may  have  been  led 
to  faith  a  rule  for  all.  Vide  Toellner,  Theolo- 
gische  Untersuchungen,  st.  i.  ii. 

[Note. — Neander  has  illustrated  this  import- 
ant point  very  fully  in  his  "  Denkwiirdigkeiten," 
and  also  in  his  "  Gelegenheitsschriften."  The 
Fifth  Article  in  the  latter  collection  of  Trea- 
tises, entitled,  "The  Manifold  Ways  of  the  Lord 
in  the  Work  of  Conversion,"  is  worthy  of  the 
careful  study  of  all  engaged  in  promoting  reli- 
gion in  the  world.  It  is  a  deep  saying  of  Ori- 
gen,  that  what  Paul  said  of  his  becoming  all 
things  to  all  men,  that  he  might  gain  some,  is 
applicable  in  a  far  higher  sense  to  the  Saviour 
himself,  in  the  methods  he  employed  while  on 
the  earth,  and  still  employs  in  heaven,  to  bring 
men  to  saving  faith. — TR.] 

II.  Signs  by  which  we  can  discover  the  Existence 

of  true  Faith. 

To  every  Christian  it  is  of  the  first  import- 
ance to  know  whether  he  possesses  true  faith, 
that  he  may  be  sure  of  his  being  accepted  by 
God.  These  signs  may  be  reduced  to  two 
classes,  which  correspond  with  the  instructions 
of  the  New  Testament. 

(1)  Christian  dispositions.     These  are  called 
in  the  New  Testament  ^poi^a  7tv£vlu.ato$,  or 
ytvfv/jLa.      Vide   s.    123.      Rom.   viii.    14,    16, 
"The  renewed  Christian  temper  (rtvtvpa)  pro- 
duced in  us  by  God,  by  means  of  Christianity, 
affords  us  inwardly  the  surest  proof  (crr^ap- 
fupst)  that  we  are  the  children  of  God,"  that  we 
resemble  him,  that  we  love  him,  and  that  he 
loves  us  a  father  loves  his  children.     Eph.  i. 
13,  14,  "Ye  are  sealed  by  the  Holy  Spirit— 
i.  e.,  the  Christian  disposition,  for  which  you 
are  indebted  to  God,  is  a  sure  proof  to  you  that 
God  loves  you  and  will  bless  you  ;  it  is  a.  pledge 
(djj/jaSwv)  to  you  of  future  reward."   Thus,  too, 
1  John,  iii.  24,  "  By  the  spirit  (that  renewed 
temper  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Spirit)  we  know  that  we  are  true 
Christians,  and  beloved  by  God."    The  Chris- 
tian may  therefore  be  sure  that  he  has  faith 
when  he  is  conscious  of  hatred  to  sin,  sincere 
love  to  God  and  Christ,  to  the  good  and  pious, 
and  of  a  constant  effort  to  increase  in  holiness 
or  moral  perfection. 

(2)  But  these  dispositions  must  be  exhibited 
in  the  external  conduct,  by  actions  which  flow 
from  grateful  love  to  God  and  Christ,  and  from 
other    religious   motives,   (xaprtot    rtj'fv.uctT'os.) 
These,  therefore,  are  infallible  signs  of  faith. 
Vide  1  John,  ii.  29;  iii.  7,  seq.     Christ  said, 
Matthew,  vii.   16,  "By  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them."    Entire  reliance  cannot  be  placed 


upon  evidences  drawn  from  mere  internal  feel- 
ing. One  may  easily  deceive  himself  with  re- 
gard to  his  own  feelings ;  and  if  a  certain  de- 
gree of  feeling  is  insisted  upon  as  necessary, 
those  who  do  not  come  up  to  this  standard, 
while  yet  the}  may  have  faith,  will  be  easily 
led  into  mistake,  and  involved  in  doubt  and  dis- 
tress. Nor  can  we  properly  demand  that  every 
one  should  give  the  time  and  hour  when  he  be- 
gan to  believe;  for  faith  is  not  always  instanta- 
neous, but,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  human 
soul,  is  sometimes  gradual.  Vide  Spalding, 
Vom  Werth  der  Gefuhle. 

Note. — The  common  theological  phrase,  in- 
ternum  testimonium  Spiritus  Sancti,  is  derived 
from  Rom.  viii.  16.  (The  passage,  1  John,  v. 
6,  8,  does  not  relate  to  this  point.) 

(1)  This  passage  treats  directly  of  the  inward  . 
conviction  which  Christians  obtain  of  their  be- 
ing forgiven  by  God,  from  the  new  disposition 
which  he  has  produced  in  them  by  means  of 
Christianity.     By  this  they  are  sure  (a)  that 
they  are  now  free  from  the  divine  punishments, 
which  they  had  reason  to  fear  while  they  con- 
tinued unrenewed  and  followed  their  sinful  de- 
sires ;  and  also  (&)  that  they  have  a  share  in  all 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  believers,  and  shall  be 
partakers  of  the  promised  blessedness  in  future. 

(2)  But  under  this  phrase  theologians  include 
the  internal  conviction  which  Christians  have  of 
the  divinity  of  the  Christian  doctrine.     But  this 
conviction  arises  only  by  way  of  inference.   The 
Christian  reasons  thus: — Because  more  is  ef- 
fected for  the  moral  good  of  men  by  means  of 
Christianity  than  by  all  other  means,  (as  he  can 
say  from  his  own  experience,)  it  follows  that 
this  doctrine  is  divine,  or  that  we  must  believe 
what  Christ  and  his  apostles  say  when  they 
declare  it  to  be  divine.     John,  vii.  17,  "  One 
may  be  sure  from  his  own  experience  that  what 
Christ  affirmed  is  true,  that  he  did  not  speak  of 
himself,"  &c.     Cf.  1  Thess.  ii.  13.    This  con- 
viction depends,  therefore,  on  the  experience  of 
each  individual  Christian.     He  himself  must 
have  felt  the  efficacy  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
in  his  own  heart.     Hence  this  is  called  the  ex- 
perimental proof  of  the  divinity  of  the  Christian 
religion;  and  Christ  himself  insists  upon  it, 
John,  vii.  16,  17;  1  Thess.  ii.  13.     Every  true 
Christian  must  have  this  experience  ,•  but  it  can- 
not be  used  to  convince  one  who  is  not  a  true 
Christian,  because  he  has  never  felt  in  himself 
the  better  influence  of  the  Christian  doctrine; 
still  less  can  this  experience  be  brought  in  proof 
of  the  divinity  of  the  books  of  the  Bible.    It  only 
proves  the  divinity  of  the  doctrine  contained  in 
them.     Vide   Less,   in  the   Appendix  to  his 
"Wahrheit    der    christlichen  Religion,"    and 
Noesselt,  Diss.  de  Sp.  S.  test. ;  Halle,  1766 
Cf.  s.  7,  II.,  ad  finem. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       433 


III.  The  different  degrees  of  Faith;  the  possibility 
of  losing  Fait  ft  and  of  falling  away. 

(1)  The  knowledge,  intelligence,  and  whole 
mental  state  of  men  are  very  different,  as  well 
as  their  natural  constitution,  temperament,  and 
faculties.    Hence  we  infer  that  faith  cannot  have 
the  same  degree  of  perfection  in  all.     We  are 
not  responsible,  however,  for  the  weakness  and 
imperfection  of  faith  any  further  than  it  is  cri- 
minal; a  subject,  the  consideration  of  which  be- 
longs more  properly  to  theological  ethics.    The 
Bible  accordingly  distinguishes  between  a  weak, 
imperfect,  incipient  faith,  and  a  strong,  perfect, 
confirmed,  and  assured  faith.     It  compares  the 
state  of  one  just  beginning  to  exercise  faith,  to 
childhood,  and  that  of  the  more  confirmed  Chris- 
tian, to  manhood.     Vide  Romans,  iv.   19 ;   2 
Thess.  i.  3;  Ephes.  iv.  13,  14;  1  Cor.  iii.  1. 

(2)  But  no  Christian  can  make  pretensions 
to  the  highest  possible  degree  of  perfection  in 
faith,  although  he  should  constantly  strive  after 
it.   Great  imperfections  and  innumerable  defects 
always  remain  even  in  the  best  Christians,  part- 
ly in  respect  to  their  knowledge,  partly,  and  in- 
deed mostly,  in  respect  to  their  practice  of 
known  duties.   Vide  Ps.  xix.  13;  Phil.  iii.  12; 
James,  iii.  2.     This  ought  frequently  to  be  no- 
ticed by  the  teacher,  in  order  to  humble  the  pride 
of  men,  and  to  excite  more  zeal  and  effort  in  the 
pursuit    of   holiness,  and   more  watchfulness 
against  sin.     This  consideration  leads  us  to 
say, 

(3)  It  is  possible  that  even  the  best  and  most 
perfect  Christian  should  lose  his  faith,  and  apos- 
tatize.   The  Bible  clearly  teaches  that  one  may 
lose  his  faith,  and  therefore  fail  of  the  blessed- 
ness promised  on  condition  of  faith.     Vide  1 
Tim.  i.  19  ;  vi.  21.     Christ  himself  mentions, 
(Luke,  viii.  13,)  the  Ttposxcupovj,  who  indeed 
possessed  true  faith,  but  did  not  remain  stead- 
fast.    And  for  what  purpose  are  the  frequent 
exhortations  to  constancy  in  faith  given  in  the 
holy  scriptures,  if  there  is  no  possibility  of  its 
being  lost!     Cf.  Gal.  ii.  2;  Heb.  vi.  4,  seq. 
Still  the  way  of  recovery  stands  open  even  to 
the  apostate  while  he  lives ;   Luke,  xxii.  32 ; 
Ps.  li.  2—19.     Cf.  s.  113.     But  from  the  very 
principles  of  our  nature  it  is  plain  that  reforma- 
tion and  the  recovery  of  faith  must  be  more  dif- 
ficult the  oftener  one  who  had  begun  to  walk  in 
the  way  of  holiness  returns  to  unbelief  and  sin ; 
2  Pet.  ii.  20—22 ;  2  Timothy,  ii.  26. 

Note  1. — Many  have  held  that  true  faith  can- 
not be  lost.  Against  this  opinion  the  above  pa- 
ragraph is  directed,  (a)  Some  fanatics  have 
held  that  faith  could  not  be  lost  or  destroyed, 
even  by  living  in  sin  and  vice.  So  taught  the 
Valentinians,  according  to  Irenaeus ;  and  more 
lately,  the  enthusiastic  Anabaptists,  Munzer, 
&c.,  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation.  They  are 
55 


condemned  in  the  thirteenth  article  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  (6)  The  advocates  of  abso- 
lute decrees  also  held  that  he  who  had  once  at- 
tained true  faith  could  not  lose  it,  because  God 
could  not  alter  the  irrevocable  decree  he  had 
once  formed  respecting  his  salvation.  And  as 
faith  is  made  in  the  Bible  an  indispensable  con- 
dition of  salvation,  one  predestined  to  salvation 
could  not,  in  their  view,  lose  faith.  Cf.  s.  32, 
ad  finem.  Augustine  was  the  first  who  held 
this  doctrine.  He  was  followed  in  the  fifth 
century  by  Prosper  of  Aquitania,  and  in  the 
ninth  century  by  Gottschalk,  although  the  lat- 
ter expressed  himself  doubtfully  on  this  subject. 
Calvin  and  Beza,  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
adopted  this  doctrine,  which,  together  with  the 
doctrine  de  decreto  absoluto,  was  established  by 
the  Synod  at  Dortrecht,  1618,  as  an  article  of 
faith,  in  opposition  to  the  Arminians. 

[Note  2. — On  the  doctrine  of  the  saint's  per- 
severance there  has  been  much  needless  debate. 
To  prevent  this,  and  to  arrive  at  a  just  and  sa- 
tisfactory conclusion  as  to  this  doctrine,  it  is 
important  to  dismiss  whatever  does  not  proper- 
ly belong  to  it,  and  to  make  the  subject  of  in- 
quiry as  specific  and  simple  as  possible. 

First,  then,  it  is  no  part  of  this  question,  whe- 
ther it  is  in  itself  possible  that  believers  should 
fall  away ;  or  whether  they  are  liable,  or  exposed 
to  this,  or  are  in  danger  of  final  apostasy.  The 
advocates  of  this  doctrine  may  admit  all  this  as 
really  as  its  opponents.  Indeed,  it  is  often  as- 
serted by  them  (e.  g.,  in  the  articles  of  the  Sy- 
nod of  Dort)  that  believers  not  only  may,  but  if 
left  to  their  own  strength  certainly  will  draw 
back  to  perdition. 

Secondly.  It  is  admitted  on  both  sides  that 
Christians  are  to  be  warned  of  their  danger,  after 
the  example  of  the  scriptures ;  and  that  this  dan- 
ger should  be  set  before  them  as  a  means  of 
awakening  them  from  slumber,  inciting  to  duty 
and  watchfulness,  and  making  them  faithful 
unto  death. 

Thirdly.  It  is  admitted  also  on  both  sides 
of  this  question  that  the  belief  in  the  doctrine 
of  perseverance  will  probably  have  a  bad  influ- 
ence upon  those  who  think  themselves  Chris- 
tians when  they  are  not,  and  even  upon  true 
Christians  in  a  state  of  declension. 

Fourthly.  All,  too,  will  admit  that  many 
who  appear  for  a  time  to  have  Christian  faith, 
and  belong  to  the  visible  church,  do  in  fact 
apostatize. 

When  these  conceded  points  are  dismissed 
from  the  question,  what  remains  at  issue  be- 
tween the  advocates  and  opponents  of  this  doc- 
trine ?  Merely  this,  Whether  God  will  actually 
preserve  all  true  believers  from  final  apostasy,  and 
keep  them  through  faith  unto  salvation?  In  ar- 
guing this  point,  nothing  is  necessary  for  the 
advocates  of  this  doctrine  but  to  prove  from 
20 


434 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


scripture  that  God  has  purposed  and  promised 
to  preserve  all  whom  he  has  renewed  by  his 
Spirit.  If  this  can  be  shewn,  the  warnings  and 
exhortations  contained  in  the  scriptures,  so  far 
from  being  inconsistent  with  the  promise  and 
purpose  of  God,  are  the  most  suitable  means  of 
securing  their  fulfilment ;  since  no  motive  tends 
so  powerfully  to  keep  Christians,  as  intelligent 
and  moral  agents,  from  apostasy,  and  to  secure 
their  perseverance,  as  the  exhibition  of  their 
danger. 

As  to  the  power  of  God  to  employ  such  means 
and  exert  such  an  influence  on  Christians,  in 
perfect  consistency  with  their  moral  agency, 
as  shall  hinder  the  hurtful  tendencies  of  the 
world  and  their  own  hearts,  and  bring  them  to 
heaven,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt. 

It  may  be  proper  to  ask,  in  conclusion,  whe- 
ther the  objections  commonly  urged  against  this 
doctrine  do  not  derive  their  chief  strength  from 
misapprehension  and  mis-statement,  and  from 
a  vague  use  of  terms'?  Let  the  simple  inquiry 
be  made,  whether  believers  will  in  fact  fall 
away  and  perish ;  and  let  this  question  be  an- 
swered in  a  purely  scriptural  manner,  and  the 
common  objections  will  lose  their  force,  and  the 
doctrine  of  perseverance  be  acknowledged  to  be 
adapted  to  glorify  God,  and  to  comfort  and  ani- 
mate the  pious. — TR.] 

IV.  The  Attributes  essential  to  "Saving"  Faith. 

(1)  Constancy  to  the  end  of  life,  (perseveran- 
tia.)     This  is  called  by  Paul  vrfo^ow} ;  Heb.  x. 
36,  coll.  iii.  14 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  58.    (In  Matt.  xxiv. 
13,  the  subject  is  not  salvation,  but  temporal 
deliverance.}     This  constancy  must  extend  to 
all  the  parts  which  belong  to  faith.     One  must 
neither  renounce  the  Christian  doctrine  in  gene- 
ral, and  apostatize  from  it,  (Luke,  viii.  13;  2 
Pet.  ii.  20;)  nor  may  he  give  up  particular 
doctrines  which  are  essential  to  the  Christian 
system ;  1  John,  ii.  24.     He  must  remain  un- 
shaken in  his  reliance  upon  the  divine  promises ; 
Heb.  vi.  12;  Col.  i.  23.     He  must  avoid  most 
cautiously  all  disobedience  to  the  divine  com- 
mands; 1  Timothy,  i.  18,  coll.  Ezek.  xviii.  26. 

(2)  Growth  and  increase  infaith,  (incrementa 
fidei.)     (a)  We  must  endeavour  to  extend  and 
perfect  our  knowledge  of  Christian  doctrines 
and  duties;  Heb.  v.  12;  vi.  1,  seq. ;  Phil.  i.  9, 
seq.     (6)  We  must  make  constant  advances  in 
holiness,  and  in  the  practice  of  all  Christians 
virtues.     WTe  must  strive  daily  to  be  freed  from 
our  remaining  faults,  and  to  cherish  and  deepen 
our  hatred  to  sin  (p&nitentia  quotidiana},  1  Pet. 
ii.  1,  2.    Holiness  and  the  practice  of  Christian 
virtue  must  become  habitual  with  us ;  2  Cor.  vii. 
1.    The  observation  often  made  by  theologians, 
that  there  is  no  pausing  here,  that  we  must 
either  advance  or  recede  in  goodness,  is  true 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  human  mind. 


(3)  The  evidence  of  faith  by  good  works. 

A.  The  various  meanings  of  the  word 
in  the  holy  scriptures.  A  careful  examination 
of  these  would  have  prevented  many  mistakes 
and  controversies. 

(a)  "Epyov  denotes  an  action,  in  the  widest 
sense,  whether  morally  good  or  bad  —  e.  g.,  God 
rewards  man  according  to  his  works,  Romans, 
ii.  6,  &c.  Hence  spyoi/  also  signifie's  an  em- 
ployment, business,  office  ;  an  office  in  the  church, 
for  example,  as  in  2  Tim.  ii.  21,  seq. 

(6)  The  phrase  £pya  ayo&a  or  xahd,  or  f'pya 
simply,  frequently  denotes  particular  actions 
which  are  conformed  to  the  law  of  God,  or 
Christian  virtues,  which  God  has  promised  to 
reward,  in  opposition  to  a/tap-tiai  or  f'pya  Ttov^pa  ; 
Matt.  v.  16  ;  Rom.  ii.  7;  1  Tim.  v.  24,  25,  &c. 
In  this  sense  the  word  tpya  is  used  by  James 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  second  chapter  of 
his  epistle.  Cf.  James,  iii.  13.  With  James, 
then,  good  works  are  pious  actions,  such  as  are 
done  with  reference  to  God  —  i.  e.,  such  as  flow 
from  love  to  God  and  a  spirit  of  obedience. 
Such  actions  only  are  pronounced  by  the  scrip- 
tures to  be  true  virtues,  because  they  flow  from 
religious  motives.  They  are  Christian  good 
works  whenever  they  are  done  with  a  particular 
reference  to  Christ. 

But  this  term  came  to  denote,  in  a  narrower 
sense,  particular  works  of  love,  such  as  alms, 
&c.  ;  Acts,  ix.  36  ;  1  Tim.  vi.  18,  &c.  During 
the  middle  ages  the  Roman  church  made  this 
particular  sense  the  prominent  one,  and  accord- 
ingly ascribed  great  merit  to  almsgiving,  pre- 
sents to  cloisters,  churches,  &c.,  s.  125.  But  such 
works  are  called  good  in  the  holy  scriptures 
only  so  far  as  they  are  an  active  exhibition  of 
love  and  obedience  to  God,  and  as  they  flow 
from  religious  motives. 

(c)  Quite  different  from  this  is  the  meaning 
of  the  term  f'pya  vopov,  (sometimes  simply 
f'pya,)  when  used  by  Paul  in  opposition  to 
rttWtj,  Rom.  ii.,  iii.,  iv.  ;  Gal.  ii.,  iii.,  &c.  Vide 
Progr.  "  De  dispari  formula  docendi,  qua  Chris- 
tus,  Paulus  et  Jacobus  de  fide  et  factis  disse- 
rentes  usi  sunt,  item  que  de  discrimine  tpycov 
vofjLov  eU'pycov  oyc£W  (1803,)  in  "  Scr.  Var. 
Argum."  Num.  xii.  (Translated  in  the  Bib. 
Repository,  Jan.  1833.)  Correspondent  to  this 
phrase  is  that  in  the  writings  of  the  Rabbins, 
D"  Tinn  D^D,  which  denotes  the  fulfilment  and 
observance  of  the  divine  law  and  of  its  particu- 
lar precepts,  whether  they  are  of  a  moral  nature 
or  not,  and  whether  they  are  given  by  God 
through  Christ,  Moses,  or  by  the  law  of  nature. 
Vide  s.  113,  II.,  and  s.  123,  and  fin.  in  the  note. 

Paul  allows,  and  frequently  expressly  de- 
clares, that  whoever  should  perfectly  obey  this 
law,  in  whatever  way  made  known  to  him, 
should  actually  live  by  it,  or  enjoy  the  blessed- 
ness promised  by  God  as  a  reward,  not  because 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       435 


he  could  demand  this  as  something  which  he 
had  earned,  but  because  God  had  promised  it. 
But  no  man,  in  his  present  condition,  can  boast 
of  such  an  obedience  as  this,  and  therefore  none 
can  hope  to  be  accepted  with  God  and  blessed 
on  the  ground  of  his  obedience  to  the  divine 
commands,  (t|  epyw  vo^ou.)  Paul  expresses 
himself  very  clearly  on  this  point,  Tit.  iii.  5, 
coll.  ver.  3 ;  2  Tim.  i.  9 ;  Ephes.  ii.  8.  The 
reason,  therefore,  why  he  excludes  obedience 
to  the  divine  commandments  as  a  ground  of  our 
forgiveness,  or  why  he  holds  that  obedience  is 
not  the  meritorious  cause  of  forgiveness,  is,  that 
we  do  not  in  reality  obey  the  divine  law  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  enable  us  to  rely  on  the  divine 
promise  above  mentioned.  And  yet  God  has 
declared  that  he  will  shew  mercy  to  us  ;  this 
must  therefore  be  done  in  some  other  way,  and 
by  some  other  means — namely,  by  faith.  It  is 
on  this  account  that  he  excludes  the  t'pya  vopov, 
or  our  supposed  obedience  to  the  divine  com- 
mandments, from  faith  in  Christ,  and  from  the 
forgiveness  and  salvation  to  be  attained  through 
faith,  Rom.  iii.  20,  et  passim.  But  as  to  £pya 
ayc&a — i.  e.,  the  virtues  performed  from  love  to 
Christ,  Paul  would  no  more  exclude  them  than 
Christ  and  James  did.  On  the  contrary,  he 
derives  them,  as  they  did,  from  faith,  and  in- 
sists strenuously  upon  them,  and  in  the  very 
passages  in  which  he  denies  merit  to  spya 
VO/JLOV — e.  g.,  Rom.  ii.  7 — 10;  Ephes.  ii.  10, 
seq.  Cf.  s.  108,  123,  ad  finem. 

Paul  and  James  are  therefore  agreed  in  fact. 
And  there  is  no  difference  in  the  meaning  of  the 
words  TttWtj  and  Sixaiova^at,  as  used  by  them, 
but  solely  in  the  use  of  the  word  tpya.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  foolish  mistake,  by  which  one 
would  obtain  life  and  salvation  from  God  by  his 
supposed  fulfilment  of  the  divine  law,  while  in 
reality  he  does  not  keep  the  law.  James  speaks 
of  the  pious,  unpretending  exercise  of  virtue, 
which  is  the  first  fruit  and  the  evidence  of  faith, 
and  therefore  rewarded  by  God.  Paul  and 
James,  as  well  as  Christ,  disapprove  of  the  for- 
mer, while  both  of  them,  as  well  as  Christ,  re- 
quire the  latter,  with  great  seriousness  and  ear- 
nestness. 

B.  What  Christ  and  the  apostles  teach  as  to 
shewing  faith  by  good  works.  They  are  all 
agreed  in  saying  that  an  indolent  and  inactive 
faith  (vtxpa,  James,  ii.)  is  of  no  advantage,  and 
is  entirely  contrary  to  its  object.  For  faith  is 
designed  wholly  for  active  life,  and  must  be 
manifested  and  proved,  so  often  as  there  is  op- 
portunity, by  the  practice  of  holiness.  This  is 
what  James  so  well  insists  upon  in  the  second 
chapter  of  his  epistle.  His  doctrine  is,  that 
every  Christian  must  possess  faith  in  God,  (the 
knowledge  of  God,  and  that  trust  in  him  result- 
ing from  this  knowledge;)  but  that  this  faith 
must  be  exhibited  in  works,  (fruits,  chap,  iii.) 


What  good  does  it  do  for  one  to  say,  I  know 
and  honour  God,  and  confide  in  him,  if  he  does 
not  prove  this  by  his  pious  actions  ?  If  Abra- 
ham had  professed  faith  with  his  mouth,  but 
had  not  obeyed  when  God  commanded  him  to 
offer  up  Isaac,  would  that  have  pleased  God? 
No !  He  did  not  receive  the  divine  approbation 
and  blessing  until  he  proved  in  fact  that  he  had 
right  conceptions  of  God,  and  that  he  placed 
unlimited  confidence  in  him.  In  the  same  way 
Christ  shews  that  man  must  be  known  by  his 
works,  (xoprtot,)  and  prove  by  them  that  he 
truly  fears  God,  Matt.  vii.  16 — 24;  John,  xiv. 
15;  xv.  14.  And  Paul,  too,  teaches  that  God 
will  reward  men  for  the  uniform  practice  of  vir- 
tue, (vrto/juvri  tpyou  dyc£ov,)  Rom.  ii.  7,  and 
that,  while  Christians  are  indebted  for  their  sal- 
vation to  the  mere  grace  of  God,  and  not  their 
own  works,  they  are  yet  placed  by  the  divine 
commands  under  obligation  to  practise  these 
spya  ayc&a,  Ephes.  ii.  8 — 10.  Thus  he  calls 
the  virtues  xoprtovj  rtvsvpa'tos,  (the  fruits  of  a 
heart  renovated  by  the  influence  of  the  gospel,) 
Gal.  v.  22,  25.  In  Rom.  viii.  1,  13,  he  says, 
that  one  is  not  a  Christian  who  has  not  jtvevpa, 
Xpiff-r-ov.  Vide  other  passages  in  Morus,  p.  212, 
Note, 

The  uniform  doctrine  of  the  holy  scriptures 
is  therefore  briefly  this : — "  Faith  is  the  condi- 
tion of  salvation.  (Hence  so  high  a  value  is 
placed  upon  it,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end 
of  the  scriptures.)  But  this  faith  cannot  exist 
unless  the  heart  is  truly  renewed  and  made 
holy ;  and  this  inward  renewal  is  evidenced  by 
good  actions  or  works.  Now  this  faith,  and 
the  holiness  inseparably  connected  with  it,  and 
and  the  exhibition  of  it  by  good  works,  is  re- 
warded by  God.  This  faith  and  what  is  con- 
nected with  it  is  therefore  the  condition  of  sal- 
vation (conditio  salutis,)  but  not  the  meritorious 
cause,  (causa  meritoria ;)  for  salvation  is  an  un- 
merited favour.  Vide  Romans,  iii.  24,  25 ;  vi. 
22,  seq.  Cf.  s.  125. 

SECTION  CXXV. 

OF  THE  NATURE  OF  CHRISTIAN  GOOD  WORKS  OR 
VIRTUES;  THE  RELATION  IN  WHICH  THEY 
STAND  TO  SALVATION;  AND  THEIR  MERITORI- 

OUSNESS. 

I.  The  true  nature  of  Christian  good  works. 

THEIR  worth  or  capability  of  being  rewarded 
(not  their  merit}  consists  partly  in  their  con- 
formity to  the  rules  of  conduct  which  God  has 
given  to  Christians,  (materiale  actionis,}  James, 
ii.  11,  and  partly  in  the  end  to  which  they  are 
directed,  and  the  motive  by  which  they  are  per- 
formed, (formate.}  An  action,  therefore,  is  not 
a  good  work,  although  it  may  be  right  and  law- 
ful in  itself,  when  it  results  from  impure  and 


436 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


unworthy  motives,  such  as  vanity,  ambition,  the 
gratification  of  inclination,  &c.  The  Christian 
performs  good  works  only  when  he  acts  from 
thankful  love  to  God  and  Christ,  and  in  uncon- 
ditional obedience  to  their  requirements;  in 
short,  from  motives  drawn  from  the  Christian 
religion,  Romans,  xii.  2;  2  Cor.  v.  15;  Phil.  i. 
11 ;  John,  xiv.  15,  21,  and  almost  the  whole  of 
the  first  epistle  of  John. 

We  can  here  distinguish  three  cases — viz., 

(1)  In  acting,  the  Christian  may  be   con- 
scious of  this  motive,  and  act  solely  on  account 
of  it. 

(2)  But  it  is  neither  possible,  nor  requisite, 
that  he  should  at  all  times,  and  in  every  action, 
be  distinctly  conscious  of  this  motive.    For  one 
acquires,  from  long  exercise  in  virtue  as  well  as 
in  vice,  a  habit  of  action.     And  since  this  habit 
presupposes  a  high   degree   of  perfection,  the 
value  of  actions  performed  under  the  force  of 
this  principle  is  not  less,  but  often  greater;  for 
they  imply  a  prevailing  feeling  of  piety  and  love 
to  God. 

(3)  Filial  obedience  to  God,  or  religious  mo- 
tives, are  not  always  the  single  and  only  motives 
to  good  actions,  even  in  Christians.    Their  own 
advantage,  reward,  fear  of  punishment,  the  main- 
tenance of  a  good  reputation,  &c.,  influence  them 
to  action.    These  motives,  in  themselves,  should 
not  be  entirely  banished,  as  some  rigorous  mo- 
ralists, who  are  ignorant  of  human  nature,  would 
do.     For  God  makes  use  of  these  very  means  to 
hold  men  to  the  observance  of  his  laws.     They 
may  therefore  be  used  by  us  as  assistances.    But 
it  is  clear  that  an  action  which  results  from  such 
motives  merely,  cannot  be  called  a  pious  Chris- 
tian action,  or  a  good  work,  although  in  itself  it 
may  be  useful,  commendable,  and  even  accept- 
able to  God.    Vide  Rom.  ii.  14, 26,  27 ;  Acts,  x. 
4, 34, 35.  The  teacher,  therefore,  should  beware, 
in  Christian  education,  of  drawing  the  prinicipal 
motive  from  ambition  and  selfishness;  for  these 
principles  will  exclude  every  good  and  religious 
feeling,  and  introduce  manifold  evil  into  the 
youthful  heart. 

In  Christian  good  works,  therefore,  every- 
thing depends  upon  the  state  of  mind,  the  dis- 
position (rtvsvpa,  Gal.  v.  22)  with  which  they 
are  performed.  That  man  only  is  capable  of 
good  works  (in  the  Christian  sense)  who  has 
a  pure  and  prevailing  love  to  God  and  Christ, 
and  whose  principle  it  is  to  practise  all  known 
good  and  to  avoid  all  known  evil,  because  such 
is  the  will  of  God  and  of  Christ.  God  and 
Christ  estimate  the  worth  of  an  action,  therefore, 
not  according  to  the  external  appearance,  upon 
which  men  look,  but  according  to  the  disposition 
of  the  heart,  which  men  do  not  see.  Hence  an  ac- 
tion may  frequently  appear  to  men  to  be  trifling, 
insignificant,  or  even  blamable,  while  in  the  sight 


of  God  it  is  commendable  and  of  great  price. 
Such  was  the  act  of  Mary  in  anointing  Jesus, 
which  his  disciples  blamed,  Mark,  xiv.  Christ, 
however,  called  it  a  good  work,  because  it  was 
a  pious  deed — i.  e.,  because  it  resulted  from  sin- 
cere and  grateful  love  to  him ;  and  such  actions 
only  are,  in  his  judgment,  good  works.  Vide 
Tollner.  Ueber  die  Beschaffenheit  eines  guten 
Werkes,  in  his  "Theol.  Untersuch,"  th.  ii. 

Note  1. — Good  works  are  required  from  every 
Christian,  so  far  as  he  is  able  to  perform  them, 
Gal.  v.  25 ;  1  John,  ii.  6 ;  iii.  7.  Cf.  s.  123.  The 
last  clause  contains  a  necessary  limitation.  For 
sometimes  he  finds  no  opportunity,  or  is  placed 
in  circumstances  unfavourable  for  exhibiting,  by 
his  outward  actions,  the  pious  dispositions  con- 
cealed in  his  heart.  Moreover,  those  just  com- 
mencing a  religious  life,  and  who,  though  they 
have  real  faith,  have  it  in  a  less  degree,  (s. 
124,)  cannot  exhibit  that  perfect  and  mature 
fruit  which  is  expected  from  advanced  and  con- 
firmed Christians.  But  God  judges  of  the 
goodness  of  actions  according  to  the  inward 
disposition  and  the  sincerity  of  the  heart.  In  a 
good  work  this  rectitude  of  motive  in  indispen- 
sable. Ephes.  iv.  20 ;  1  John,  ii.  6.  We  can- 
not therefore  say  that  faith  is  always  rich  in 
virtues  ;  for  it  cannot  always  be  so.  Nor  will 
his  unfruitfulness  be  charged  against  any  one 
as  a  sin,  unless  he  himself  is  to  blame  for  it.  In 
this  matter  God  is  the  only  infallible  judge. 

Note  2. — When  the  Bible  speaks  of  the  neces- 
sity of  Christian  good  works,  it  refers  only  to 
Christians,  and  to  what  is  required  of  them  ac- 
cording to  the  Christian  doctrine.  No  one  who 
is  destitute  of  the  knowledge  of  Christianity 
without  his  own  fault  can  be  required  to  live 
according  to  its  rules,  or  be  punished  merely 
because  he  does  not.  Nothing  will  be  required 
of  any  one  which  has  not  been  given  him. 
Christian  actions  may  indeed  be  more  perfect 
and  noble  in  themselves  than  others,  because 
they  flow  from  more  perfect,  pure,  and  elevated 
motives;  but  the  good  actions  of  those  who  are 
not  Christians  do  not  cease  to  be  good  and  ac- 
ceptable to  God  because  they  do  not  flow  from 
Christian  motives.  Cf.  the  example  of  the  cen- 
turion Cornelius,  Acts,  x.,  and  the  declaration 
of  Paul,  Rom.  ii.  6 — 11.  In  the  former  passage, 
(ver.  35,)  Peter  ascribes  $6,3ov  &iov  to  the  hea- 
then centurion  Cornelius ;  and  in  the  latter, 
Paul  calls  the  actions  of  heathen  J'pyct  oyo&a  ; 
and  both  teach  that  truly  religious  actions  in 
heathen  are  acceptable  to  God,  and  will  be  re- 
warded by  him.  The  doctrine  of  Augustine, 
therefore,  virtutes  ethnicas  esse  splendida  vitia,  is 
false.  He  taught  that  all  which  man  does  as 
man,  without  supernatural  and  irresistible  grace, 
is  sin.  Hence  he  affirmed  that  the  heathen  were 
|  condemned  because  they  could  not  but  sin.  Vide 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      437 


s.   121,  II.     [Of.  "Bib.  Repos."  Jan.    1833. 
Art.  Augustine  and  Pelagius. — TB.] 

II.  The  Relation  which  exists  between  the  Good 
Works  of  Christians  and  their  Salvation. 

There  was  a  controversy  in  the  Lutheran 
church  in  the  sixteenth  century  on  the  question, 
Whether  good  works  are  essential  to  salvation  ?  Ge. 
Major,  a  theologian  of  Wittenberg,  and  some  of 
the  disciples  of  Melancthon,  held  the  affirmative ; 
Flacius  and  others,  the  negative.  Nic.  Amsdorf 
of  Raumburg  went  so  far  as  to  say  (1559)  that 
they  stood  in  the  way  of  salvation — a  horrible 
position  if  it  is  understood  to  mean,  that  obe- 
dience to  the  divine  law  is  damnable.  But  this 
was  not  his  meaning;  he  only  meant  to  affirm 
that  the  opinion  that  good  works  could  merit 
salvation  is  dangerous  to  the  soul.  And  in  this 
he  was  right;  but  so  was  Major  in  his  position. 

The  difficulty  may  be  removed  by  considering 
in  what  the  salvation  of  Christians  consists. 

(1)  It  is  begun,  the  foundation  of  it  is  laid,  in 
the  forgiveness  of  sin,  or  justification  in  the  nar- 
rower sense.     This  is  the  free  gift  of  God,  and 
cannot  be  merited  by  good  works,  s.  113,  II. 
But  this  blessing  is  forfeited  by  one  who  ornits 
good  works,  and  commits  sin.   Vide  1  John,  iii. 
6  ;  Gal.  v.  19  ;  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10.     Good  works, 
therefore,  are  necessary  for  the  continuance  (con- 
servatio)  of  this  benefit.     They  are,  when  they 
can  be  performed,  the  condition  of  pardon,  though 
not  the  meritorious  cause  of  it. 

(2)  Salvation  consists  in  the  divine  rewards, 
or   proofs   of  the  divine  favour;   partly  those 
which  are  natural,  such  as  quiet  of  soul,  peace 
with   God,  &c.,  and   partly  positive,  bestowed 
both  in  the  present  and  future  life,  as  we  are 
taught  by  the  scriptures.     These  rewards  can- 
not be  merited  by  good  works  in  themselves 
any  more   than   the  forgiveness   of  sin.     But 
faith,  and  the  good  works  connected  with  it,  are 
the  conditions  on  which  alone  these  rewards  are 
obtained,  and  the  degree  of  reward   is  regu- 
lated by  the  degree  of  zeal  in  holiness  which 
is  exhibited;   Matt.  xxv.  20 — 29;  2  Cor.  ix. 
6 ;  Gal.  vi.  7,  &c.     For  obedience  to  the  di- 
vine law  is  as  essential  a  part  of  Christian  faith 
as  to  trust  in  God  through  Christ,  s.  123.   Good 
works  are  therefore   always   described   in  the 
Bible  as  the  effects  and  fruits  of  Christian  faith, 
James,  ii.  26,  seq. 

We  may  therefore  justly  say,  as  Major  did, 
that  good  works  are  essential  to  the  attainment 
of  salvation,  as  a  condition,  and  we  may  also  say, 
as  Flacius  and  Amsdorf  did,  that  they  are  not 
to  be  regarded  as  meritorious,  or  the  procuring 
cause  of  our  salvation.  Cf.  F.  T.  Riihl,  Werth 
der  Behauptungen  Jesu  und  seiner  Apostel ; 
Leipzig,  1791,  8vo;  especially  the  4th  Essay, 
"  Seligkeit  beruht  allein  auf  Glauben,"  u.  s.  w. 


Also  Storr,  Commentar  zum  Brief  an  die  He- 
braer,  th.  ii. 

III.  History  of  opinions  respecting  the  meritorious- 
ness  of  Good  Wcrrks. 

God  has  determined  and  promised  to  reward 
the  good  actions  of  men.  But  this  reward  is  not 
something  earned  by  men,  (s.  108,  II.,)  which 
God  is  bound  to  pay  them  ;  it  is  given  to  them 
of  his  free,  undeserved  goodness.  Hence  these 
rewards  are  called  in  the  New  Testament  #aptj, 
Swpm,  tVtatvoj,  (approbation,)  56(ja,  crttfyavo?— 
terms  which  imply  gifts  and  undeserved  rewards. 
These  rewards  are  intended  to  excite  men  to  love 
God  more  sincerely  and  to  yield  a  cheerful  and 
willing  obedience  to  the  divine  commands,  not- 
withstanding the  difficulties  with  which  this  obe- 
dience is  attended. 

But  obvious  as  this  doctrine  is  to  sound  and 
unprejudiced  reason,  the  great  mass  of  mankind, 
of  all  ages  and  religions,  have  regarded  certain 
external  actions  as  meritorious  and  propitiatory. 
This  error,  as  far  as  it  is  theoretical,  results  from 
false  notions  respecting  God,  and  our  relations 
to  him.  This  is  the  reason  why  it  is  so  preva- 
lent, in  one  form  or  another,  among  the  Jews, 
the  heathen,  and  Christians.  Vide  s.  108,  II. 
But  this  theoretical  error  would  have  been  easily 
escaped  or  exploded  if  it  were  not  connected  with 
the  depraved  inclinations  of  the  human  heart. 
Love  to  sin  makes  men  quick  in  inventing  theo- 
ries which  will  allow  them  to  indulge  in  it  at 
pleasure,  and  yet  assure  them  of  the  favour  of 
God.  We  shall  here  briefly  exhibit  the  false 
opinions  which  have  prevailed  on  this  subject 
among  Christians. 

(1)  Many  Christians,  (especially  the  converts 
from  Judaism,)  even  in  the  times  of  the  apostles, 
cherished  the  opinion  that  their  acts  of  supposed 
conformity  to  the  law,  such  as  almsgiving,  sacri- 
fices, ceremonies,  circumcision,  and  obedience  to 
other  particular  precepts  of  the  ceremonial  and 
moral  law  of  Moses,  were  meritorious.  They 
even  believed  that  the  good  works  of  their  ances- 
tors were  imputed  to  them.  Hence  Paul  shews, 
in  his  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  that 
man  deserves  nothing  of  God  for  his  supposed 
obedience  to  the  divine  law  ;  that  the  opinion  of 
the  meritoriousness  of  our  own  works  is  in  the 
highest  degree  injurious;  and  that  God  forgives 
and  rewards  us  solely  on  account  of  faith,  with- 
out any  desert  on  our  part,  (Stxatovv  Swpstxv,  5ta 


But  here  again  a  mistake  was  made  on  the 
other  side,  and  Paul  was  understood  to  speak 
lightly  of  the  observance  of  the  divine  law.  He 
himself  complains  that  he  was  thus  misunder- 
stood, Rom.  iii.  8  ;  vi.  15  ;  Gal.  v.  13.  The  same 
thing  has  happened  to  Luther,  Arndt,  Spener, 
and  other  Christian  teachers  of  ancient  and  mo- 
2o2 


438 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


dern  times,  who  have  followed  in  his  footsteps. 
Even  in  the  age  of  the  apostles  there  were 
some  false  Christians,  and  even  false  teachers. 
They  lived  a  sensual,  disorderly  life,  and  justi- 
fied this  on  the  ground  that  Christians  are  free 
from  the  law.  Against  such  a  sentiment  there 
is  much  said  in  the  epistles  of  John,  Peter,  and 
Jude.  Others  believed  that  an  inactive  faith 
would  suffice,  and  that  works  are  not  important. 
They  were  content  if  they  were  only  orthodox 
in  head.  James,  in  the  second  chapter  of  his 
epistle,  is  strenuous  in  opposing  this  sentiment. 
He  shews  that  true  Christian  faith  cannot  exist 
unless  it  is  exhibited  by  Christian  virtues.  Cf.  the 
Essay  above  cited  in  "  Scripta  Varii  Argumenti." 
(2)  Notwithstanding  these  clear  instructions 
of  the  New  Testament,  these  two  mistakes  re- 
specting the  merit  of  works  and  the  sufficiency 
of  an  inoperative  faith,  have  always  prevailed 
among  Christians.  The  mistake  respecting  the 
merit  of  works  was  adopted  into  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  the  Latin  church.  This  will  now  be 
shewn  from  history. 

A.  During  the  dark  ages,  after  monastic  prin- 
ciples became  prevalent  in  the  Western  church, 
the  worship  of  God,  piety,  and  holiness,  were 
supposed  to  consist  almost  wholly  in  external 
rites.   They  believed  that  God  would  be  induced 
by  certain  external  actions  to  bestow  favour  on 
mankind.    They  thought  they  could  merit  his 
approbation  somewhat  as  the  day-labourer  earns 
his  wages  by  toil.     Much  importance  was  at- 
tached to  works  of  beneficence,  to  almsgiving  and 
presents,  especially  to  cloisters  and  churches. 
They  thus  kept  to  the  sense  in  which  i'pya  oya^a 
is  sometimes  used  in  the  New  Testament — viz., 
opera  benefica,  stopping,  however,  with  the  out- 
ward action,  and  leaving  the  disposition  of  the 
heart  out  of  account.     Vide  s.  124,  ad  finem. 
They  also  insisted  upon  self-inflictions,  fasts,  and 
other  external  punishments,  arbitrarily  imposed  ; 
just  as  the  Jews  formerly  did.     They  even  re- 
lied, like  the  Jews  again,  upon  the  virtues  of  the 
saints,  and  upon  their  treasure  of  good  works. 
These  views  led  to  great  corruption  in  morals, 
and  a  wide  remove  from  the  genuine  spirit  and 
true  nature  of  Christianity. 

B.  After  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries, 
the  schoolmen,  and  especially  Thomas  Aquinas, 
began  to  admit  these  views  into  their  theological 
systems,  and  to  defend  them  by  logical  argu- 
ments.    They  reasoned  (a)  from  the  term  jutcr- 
£05,  which  is  frequently  used  in  the  Bible  to 
denote  wages  earned,  as  1  Cor.  iii.  8,  where  the 
Vulgate  has  meritum ;  and  also  from  many  of 
the  old  Latin  fathers,  who  had  said,  MERERE  ho- 
minem  salutem,  &c.    But  by  such  language  they 
meant  nothing  more  than  consequi,  impetrare, 
in  which  sense  merere  is  used  by  Cicero  and 
other  Latin  writers.    And  in  general  in  all  the 
ancient  languages,  and    in  the  Hebrew  and 


Greek,  the  terms  which  denote  wages,  recom- 
pence,  are  used  for  reward  of  any  kind,  whether 
deserved  or  not.  The  meaning  in  every  case 
must  be  determined  by  the  context.  In  the  New 
Testament,  what  is  called  ^to^oj  is  also  called 
#apc,j  and  &op?a  in  the  same  context.  We  are 
said  to  receive  jtus^ov  Scopsav.  Thomas  Aquinas 
taught  that  when  man  of  his  own  accord  per- 
forms benevolent  actions,  gives  alms,  endows 
churches,  &c.,  God  considers  this  as  done  to 
him,  and  sees  fit  (acquum,  congruum)  to  recom- 
pense the  act.  This  he  called  meritum  de  con- 
gruo.  (6)  Again,  he  appealed  to  the  doctrine 
of  Augustine,  De  gratia  supernaturali  spiritus 
sancti.  This  grace  produces  good  works  in  the 
regenerate,  which  therefore  merit  salvation,  be- 
cause they  are  derived  from  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  called  this  meritum  de  condigno.  The  unre- 
generate  cannot  perform  any  such  meritorious 
works,  because  they  do  not  possess  this  grace. 
He  was  followed  in  his  opinions  by  other  teach- 
ers ;  and  in  the  sixteenth  century  this  doctrine 
was  confirmed  by  the  council  at  Trent. 

C.  This  false  theory,  so  greatly  injurious  to 
morals,  was  vehemently  opposed  by  the  German 
reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Luther  es- 
pecially argued  against  it  from  the  principles 
contained  in  Paul's  epistles  to  the  Romans  and 
Galatians,  which  were  directed  against  similar 
mistakes  made  by  the  Jews.  But,  in  the  heat 
of  the  controversy,  Luther  frequently  went  to 
the  other  extreme,  and  sometimes  expressed 
himself  with  toolittle  precision  and  distinctness. 
He  sometimes  appeared  not  only  to  deny  merit 
to  those  works  which  the  monks  regarded  as 
meritorious,  and  to  all  self-righteous  works, 
(Paul's  works  of  the  law,}  but  also  to  speak 
slightingly  of  Christian  virtues,  and  rather  to  de- 
preciate than  recommend  them ;  though  this 
was  far  from  his  intention.  But  afterwards, 
when  his  doctrine  was  misapplied  by  some  who 
appealed  to  his  authority,  he  became  more 
guarded,  and  expressed  himself  more  definitely. 
Melancthon  especially  took  pains  to  guard 
against  these  perversions  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession (Art.  iv.),  in  his  Apology,  and  in  his 
"  Loci  Theologici."  After  the  death  of  Luther, 
Melancthon  and  some  of  his  associates  endea- 
voured to  analyze  the  subject  still  further,  and 
to  obviate  all  mistake.  But  they  were  poorly 
rewarded  for  their  pains,  since  they  were  charged 
with  departing  from  Luther  and  adopting  the 
errors  of  the  Romish  church.  Hence  much  con- 
troversy arose  in  the  Lutheran  church  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  which  ran  out  for  the  most 
part  into  mere  logomachy,  as  in  the  case  of 
Major  and  Amsdorf.  It  was  hoped  that  the 
Formula  of  Concord  would  put  an  end  to  this 
strife,  Morus,  p.  214.  But  the  adherents  of  the 
Romish  church  still  appealed  to  the  second 
chapter  of  James,  in  opposition  to  Luther.  He 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      439 


and  his  associates  did  not  know  how  to  defend 
themselves  against  this  argument,  and  did  not 
sufficiently  understand  the  difference  between 
it'pya  dyo&a  and  the  t'pya  vopov,  which  were  re- 
•garded  as  meritorious.  This  is  the  reason  why 
I  he  and  the  authors  of  the  "Magdeburg  Centu- 
;  ries,"  and  some  other  theologians,  spoke  so  dis- 
creditably of  this  epistle. 

Note. — The  circumstances  of  the  Christian 
teacher  in  our  days  are  frequently  such,  that, 
after  the  example  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  he 
must  sometimes  insist  more  upon  faith  as  the 
ground  of  pardon  and  salvation,  and  sometimes 
more  upon  the  fruits  of  faith,  or  pious  Christian 
actions.  He  should  take  the  former  course 
when  he  has  to  do  either  with  sinners  who  are 
sorrowful  and  truly  penitent  on  account  of  their 
sins,  or  with  those  who  have  a  self-righteous 
disposition,  and  hope  that  they  shall  be  forgiven 
and  saved  on  account  of  their  supposed  obe- 
dience to  the  law,  and  their  virtuous  conduct. 
Vide  Luke,  xxiii.  40,  seq.,  xviii.  9 ;  Rom.  iv. 
5;  Acts,  xvi.  30.  He  must  do  this  in  order  to 
shew  that  salvation  depends  entirely  upon  a  dis- 
position of  sincere  and  unwavering  confidence 
in  God — (i.  e.,  upon  faith,)  since  God  and 
Christ,  who  know  the  heart,  have  regard  solely 
to  the  disposition.  In  this  way  one  who  is 
proud  of  his  virtue,  self-righteous,  and  pharisa- 
ical,  will  learn  wherein  he  is  deficient. 

He  must  take  the  latter  course — that  of  re- 
commending good  works,  or  the  fruits  of  faith — 
when  he  deals  with  those  who  undervalue  or 
neglect  the  pursuit  of  holiness  either  through 
levity,  indolence,  or  the  love  of  sin;  who  per- 
suade themselves  that  a  mere  external  pro- 
fession of  faith  will  be  sufficient;  who  say, 
Lord,  Lord  ,•  but  obey  not  his  commandments  ,- 
and  who  pervert  the  doctrine  of  justification 
through  faith  to  excuse  a  life  devoid  of  good- 
ness, perhaps  openly  sinful.  Such  persons 
must  be  made  to  see  that  their  sentiments  are 
false,  and  that  there  are  some  infallible  signs 
by  which  it  may  be  known  whether  a  person 
possesses  true  faith ;  as  a  tree  may  be  known 
by  its  fruits.  These  signs  are  pious  actions, 
which  are  the  invariable  attendants  of  faith, 
and  which  the  true  believer  will  never  fail  to 
perform  whenever  he  has  opportunity.  Matt. 
vii.  16;  xix.  21;  xxv.  31 — 46;  Rom.  ii.  6; 
1  Tim.  vi.  18 ;  James,  ii. 

SECTION  CXXVI. 

EXPLANATION  OF  THE  TERMS  WHICH  ARE  USED  IN 
THE  SCRIPTURES  TO  DENOTE  BOTH  THE  EXTER- 
NAL PROFESSION  OF  CHRISTIANITY  (FIDES  EX- 
TERNA)  AND  INTERNAL  MORAL  IMPROVEMENT 
AND  SANCTIFICATION. 

IT  is  the  general  custom  to  treat  of  repentance, 
conversion,  renewal,  regeneration,  sanctificaiion, 


in  separate  and  distinct  articles  (loci}  ;  but  this 
was  not  the  case  anciently.  Neither  the  eccle- 
siastical fathers  nor  the  schoolmen  treated  these 
topics  separately.  It  was  not  until  the  sixteenth 
century  that  this  method  was  adopted  ;  and  the 
chief  object  of  this  at  first  was  to  explain  more 
fully  these  scriptural  terms  and  obviate  different 
errors  relating  to  them.  But  afterwards  the  dis- 
tinction was  more  finely  drawn,  these  doctrines 
were  more  separated,  and  particular  proof-texts 
were  sought  for  each.  But  many  of  these  dis- 
tinctions are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible.  All 
of  these  terms  denote  the  improvement  of  men, 
and  imply  the  same  divine  agency  ;  although 
sometimes  the  gradual  progress  and  the  differ- 
ent degrees  of  moral  improvement  are  distin- 
guished. The  better  plan  is,  therefore,  to  bring 
all  these  topics  together,  and  to  treat  of  them  in 
one  and  the  same  article,  as,  indeed,  most  theo- 
logians now  do.  So  Morus,  p.  220,  seq.,  s.  6. 
The  case  is  the  same  with  respect  to  calling, 
illumination,  and  similar  expressions,  which 
will  be  explained  in  Art.  xii.,  De  operationibus 
gratise,  s.  130. 

I.  Scriptural  idea  of  the  words  denoting  Conver- 
sion, (cn-tcrrpo^jj,  iTriffTptyetv,  by  which  the  LXX. 
translate  the  Hebrew  211?.) 
'Ertiatpetyeiv  frequently  stands  alone,  some- 
times connected  with  erti  or  rtpoj  tbv  ®sov,  to 
turn  to  God.     This  term  is  derived  from  the 
very  frequent  comparison  of  the  actions  and  con- 
duct of  man  with  a  way,  and  with  walking  in 
it;  whence  the  religion  itself  which  one  adopts 
is  itself  called  ^-n.     But  this  term  is  used  in 
two  different  senses — viz., 

(1)  It  denotes  the  moral  improvement  and  ho- 
liness of  men  when  they  repent  of  their  sins  and 
forsake  them.     In  this  sense  is  the  term  com- 
monly used  in  theology,  Ezek.  iii.  19;  Joel,  ii. 
12,   13;    Matt.  xiii.  15;    Acts,  iii.   19.     This 
turning  is  produced  by  God,  or  the  Holy  Spirit, 
by  means  of  revealed  truth.     The  same  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  word  petavotiv,  by  which  also 
the  LXX.  render  the  Heb.  an?.     These  two 
forms  of  expression  are  frequently  interchanged 
as  synonymous,  as  Acts,  xv.  3,  coll.  xi.  18. 
"The  heart  is  turned  away  from  the  love  of  sin, 
and  inclined  to  efforts  after  what  is  good  and 
right,  under  the  assistance  of  God  and  the  Holy 
Spirit."    Vide  2  Cor.  vii.  11 ;  Jer.  iii.  12,  13, 
(an  exhortation  to  the  Israelites  to  return  to 
God,  from  whom  they  had  departed.) 

(2)  It  denotes  sometimes  the  external  transi- 
tion from  a  false  religion  to  the  true, — the  re- 
nunciation of  idolatry;  Hos.  iii.  5  ;  Ezek.  xiv. 
6.     Hence  it  is  applied  in  the  New  Testament 
(a)    to   Gentiles  who  enter   into   the   external 
Christian  community,  Acts,  xx.  21 ;  xxvi.  18; 
1  Thess.  i.  9  ;  (6)  to  Jews  becoming  Christians, 
Acts,  ix.  35;  xiv.  15;  2  Cor.  iii.  16. 


440 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


These  two  senses  ought  to  be  distinguished 
in  the  explanation  of  this  term.  For  though 
conversion  of  the  former  kind  is  the  object  of  the 
latter,  yet  it  is  not  always  attained.  But  some- 
times the  two  meanings  are  connected  together, 
because  the  first  is  the  object  of  the  second,  and 
with  many  is  actually  attained.  Thus  when  the 
apostles  preach  conversion  to  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, they  mean  both,  for  neither  Christ  nor  his 
apostles  encouraged  a  merely  external  introduc- 
tion into  the  Christian  church.  Still  they  re- 
quire men  to  enter  into  the  external  church  be- 
cause there  are  the  means  of  conversion  found. 

II.  Scriptural  idea  of  the  words  denoting  Regenera- 
tion, (rraXjyyei/ftna,  yei/j/aaSat  avuSev  or  favnpov, 
dvaytwaaSai.  Also  the  synonymous  terms  dvaKal- 
vuaif,  dvavsovv,  Kaivus  a'j/SpajTioj,  Kaii/rt  Kriaif,  K.  T.  A.) 

The  word  rtafayyeveaia,  denotes  frequently 
any  entire  alteration  of  state,  by  which  one  is 
brought  into  an  entirely  new  and  reformed  con- 
dition, or  placed  in  a  better  situation.  The 
change  indicated  by  this  term  is,  however,  as 
Morus  justly  observes,  in  every  case,  mutatio 
in  melius,  p.  223,  note  at  the  top.  Vide  "  Scripta 
Varii  Argumenti,"  Num.  vi.  Thus  Cicero 
(Att.  iv.  6)  calls  his  restoration  from  exile, 
rta?uyy£j/£cr/a*  and  Josephus  (Ant.  xi.  3)  calls 
the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  land  after  the  cap- 
tivity rtaTiiyyEvsaia  rtar'ptSoj.  The  stoics  spoke 
of  7ta^tyy£j>£tfta  T?WV  ohuv.  In  Roman  law,  the 
manumission  of  a  slave  was  called  his  regene- 
ration. In  Matt.  xix.  28,  it  denotes  an  intro- 
duction into  a  new  and  happy  situation,  whe- 
ther the  resurrection  or  the  establishment  of  the 
Messiah's  kingdom  be  understood. 

When  the  Israelites  spoke  of  a  person  chang- 
ing his  religion,  they  used  the  phrases  birth, 
new  birth,  &c.  When  a  Gentile  passed  over  to 
Judaism  (became  a  proselyte),  he  was  regarded 
by  the  Jews  as  new  born,  a  new  man,  a  child 
just  beginning  to  live.  As  such  he  was  re- 
ceived into  their  church,  and  obtained  civil 
rights.  Even  in  the  Old  Testament  the  term 
iSi  is  used  in  reference  to  proselytes,  Ps.  Ixxxvii. 
5,  coll.  Is.  xlix.,  li.,  liv.  This  might  be  called 
external  regeneration.  The  term  was  afterwards 
used  by  the  Rabbins  in  a  moral  sense,  since  it 
became  the  duty  of  one  who  had  been  admitted 
into  the  Jewish  church  to  live  according  to 
Jewish  laws,  and  to  have  a  better  moral  dispo- 
sition. This  is  internal,  moral  regeneration. 
The  term  was  used  in  both  of  these  senses  by 
the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles. 

Now  it  was  not  the  manner  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles  to  invent  new  terms,  but  to  borrow 
terms  from  the  ancient  Jewish  phraseology,  and 
transfer  them  to  Christianity.  Hence  we  find 
all  these  words  used  in  the  New  Testament  in 
three  different  senses — viz., 

(1)  To  denote  one's  passing  over  externally 


from  Judaism  or  heathenism  to  the  Christian 
society,  and  making  an  external  profession  of 
the  Christian,  in  opposition  to  the  Jewish  or 
heathen  religion,  which  the  Christian  renounces. 
Thus  Paul  says,  Ephes.  ii.  15,  "Christ  has 
united  Jews  and  Gentiles  into  one  church,"  (JHJ 
xawbv  <xj£pw7toj>,  which  cannot  here  denote  in- 
ternal reformation,  as  this  could  not  be  predi- 
cated of  all.)  Cf.  James,  i.  18.  Thus  Peter 
says,  1  Pet.  i.  3,  "  God  hath  brought  us  to  the 
profession  of  Christianity  (avayswrfias  ^aj),  in 
order  to  enable  us  to  obtain  salvation."  Paul 
frequently  says  of  those  whom  he  had  induced 
to  make  profession  of  Christianity,  that  he  had 
begotten  them  (y«vrav),  Philem.  v.  10;  1  Cor. 
iv.  15;  and  w5tv«i>,  Gal.  iv.  19. 

(2)  To  denote  the  internal  or  moral  renewal 
of  the  heart  and  of  the  whole  disposition  of 
man.     This  is  the  object  of  one's  becoming  a 
Christian,  to  renounce  the  love  of  sin,  and  love 
what  is  good,  and  to  practice  it  from  motives 
of  love  to  God  and  Christ.     This  state  is  ef- 
fected in  Christians  by  God,  or  the  Holy  Spirit, 
through  faith  in  Christ.     The  creation  of  a  new 
heart  (reformed   disposition)  is   mentioned   in 
this  sense,  even  in  the  Old  Testament,  Ezek. 
xxxvi.  26—28;  Ps.  li.  12.     In  other  passages 
the  term  circumcision  of  heart  is  used,  Deut.  x. 
16;  elsewhere  a  new  heart,  a  new  spirit,  a  new 
mind,  which  has  God  for  its  author,  Ezek.  xi. 
19,  20 ;  Psalm  1.,  li. ;  Is.  i.,  &c.     In  this  sense 
Paul  speaks  of  putting  on  the  new  man,  and 
putting  off  the  old  man,  of  a  new  creature,  after 
the  image  of  God,  Ephes.  iv.  22,  24,  and  Col. 
iii.  9,  10,  and  avaxaivuoi$  vo6$,  Rom.  xii.  2,  and 
ttvcu/covKj^at   to  rtvsvpati,,  Ephes.  iv.  23,  seq. 
Here  belong  all  the  texts,  in  John  and  else- 
where, which  teach  that  man  must  be  born  of 
God,  or  the  Holy  Spirit — i.  e.,  become  his  child, 
love  him,  in  disposition  and  conduct  resemble 
him,  that  he  may  be  loved  by  God  in  return; 
for  all  which  he  is  indebted  to  God  or  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  1  John,  iii.  9;  v.  1 ;  John,  i.  12, 
13.   Cf.  the  remarks  respecting  vlo&Oia,  s.  119, 
I.  1.     These  different  terms,  therefore,  refer  to 
one  and  the  same  thing. 

(3)  In  many  passages  these  two  senses  are 
combined,  because  internal  regeneration  is  the 
object  of  external  regeneration;  exactly  as  in 
the  case  of  £7tia*p£$£iv.     Among  other  texts 
is  John,  iii.  3,  5,  ««  Whoever  is  not  born  of  bap- 
tism and  the  Holy  Spirit  (i.  e.,  does  not  conse- 
crate himself  by  baptism  to  the  profession  of  my 
religion,  and  does  not  become,  through  divine 
assistance,  a  reformed  man,  a  child  of  God,  a 
friend  of  God,  like  him  in  moral  character)  can- 
not be  considered  a  member  of  the  Messiah's 
kingdom  (j3affitaia  ©sou)."     Hence  baptism  is 
called,  Tit.  iii.  5,  hovtpbv  rtaTu.yysvm'aj,  because 
we  are  not  only  solemnly  admitted  by  this  rite 
into   the   Christian   society,  but  are  likewise 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       441 


thereby  obligated,  according  to  the  precepts  of 
Christ,  to  become  reformed  in  character;  and 
on  this  condition  have  all  the  rights  and  re- 
wards of  God's  children  granted  and  assured  to 
us.  So  the  Rabbins  expressed  themselves  with 
regard  to  the  baptism  of  proselytes.  And  for 
this  reason  the  most  ancient  fathers,  Ignatius 
and  Justin,  call  baptism  a 


further  shewn,  s.  127.  This  change  always 
presupposes  an  entire  revolution  in  the  views 
and  feelings  of  the  subject  of  it;  he  begins 
thenceforward  to  love  and  practise  good  instead 
of  evil.  This  was  the  great  subject  of  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist;  Metavoeite  was 
his  continual  theme,  Matt.  iii.  2,  11 ;  Luke,  iii. 
8.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Christ,  Mark,  i. 
15.  It  here  denotes  a  radical  alteration,  or  a 
change  by  which  an  entirely  new  direction  is 
given  to  one's  life  and  efforts.  Hence  the 
phrases  which  occur  so  frequently,  prtavotiv 
artb  "cZ*v  o/tapr'twv  or  tpywv  vsxpuv,  Acts,  viii. 
22;  Heb.  vi.  1.  Hence,  too,  ^stavoetv  and  ini- 
otptysw  are  interchanged  as  synonymous,  Acts, 
iii.  19,  26;  Rom.  ii.  4. 

(3)  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  fre- 
quently connect  the  two  meanings  of  the  word 
pttoLvoiu  together,  since  the  object  of  an  exter- 
nal change  of  religion  is  always  the  improve- 
ment of  the  heart.  Acts,  xi.  18,  "  God  hath 
granted  even  to  the  heathen  pftdvoiav  elf  £urtv. 
The  ancient  ecclesiastical  fathers,  even  in  the 
Latin  church,  also  connected  with  this  word  the 
idea  of  repentance  and  reformation  in  the  moral 
sense;  and  Lactantius  proposes  well  (Inst.  Div. 
vi.  24)  to  render  it  by  the  word  resipiscentia. 
But  the  word  commonly  employed  in  Latin 
theology  was  pcenitentia,  by  which  the  Vulgate 
renders  fisTavota ;  which  is  not,  indeed,  incorrect 
in  itself,  but  often  rather  ambiguous,  and  some- 
times quite  inappropriate.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  224, 
s.  2.  After  the  fourth  century  writers  began  to 
understand  this  word  according  to  the  Latin 
etymology,  and  to  vary  from  the  usage  of  the 
Bible.  The  influence  of  Augustine  contributed 
to  the  wide  diffusion  of  this  error.  He  insisted 
upon  the  derivation  of  the  word  p&nitentia  from  • 
punio  or  pcenio ,-  because  man  himself  punishes 
his  own  sins,  and  therefore  receives  forgiveness. 
P&nitentia  est  qusedam  dokntis  VINDICTA,  semper 
PUNIENS  in  se,  quod  dolet  commisisse,  De  Pcenit., 
c.  8.  He  was  followed  by  other  Latin  teachers, 
especially  by  Peter  of  Lombardy  and  other 
schoolmen.  The  unscriptural  idea  that  pocni- 
tentia  is  not  only  repentance  for  past  sins,  but 
punishment,  self-inflicted,  on  account  of  them, 
has  prevailed  widely  not  only  in  the  Romish 
but  also  in  the  protestant  church. 

This  sort  of  pcenitentia  is  expressed  in  the 
Roman  church  by  the  German  terms,  Busse  (pe- 
nance, punishment,  in  the  shape  of  a  fine  or 
mulct),  Busse  thun  (to  do  penance"),  biissen  (to 
atone),  the  last  of  which  terms  expresses  more 
clearly  the  false  associated  idea.  Many  pro- 
testants  have  therefore  wished  that  when  the 
error  of  the  Romish  church  implied  in  this  term 
was  abandoned,  this  term  itself,  which  so  easily 
leads  into  mistake,  had  also  been  given  up. 
Christ  has  freed  us  from  the  punishment  of  sin, 
and  an  atonement  on  our  part  is  not  possible. 


442 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Even  when  we  repent  (pstavoelv) — i.  e.,  alter 
and  reform,  we  make  no  atonement,  but  we  re- 
ceive great  blessings.  Vide  the  Apology  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  c.  v.  and  vi.  But  there 
is  no  word  in  German  [and  the  same  is  true  in 
English]  which  answers  fully  to  the  Greek 
pstdvoia.  And  if  the  scriptural  idea  of  this  term 
is  explained  in  the  early  catechetical  instruc- 
tions, the  inaptness  of  the  terms  by  which  it  is 
rendered  need  not  be  so  much  regretted,  since 
people  in  common  life  are  not  accustomed  to 
take  words  in  their  etymological  sense. 

IV.  Scriptural  idea  of  terms  denoting  Holiness  or 

Sanctity,    (ayjwavi/r/,   aytafffjidf,  K.  r.  X.,   also   6<ridnjf, 

3<no{.     Heb.  trip,  with  its  derivatives.} 

The  words  oyto$,  oyta££n>,  Eh,T>  designate 
primarily  whatever  is  singled  out,  selected,  or 
best  in  its  kind.  Vide  s.  29.  It  was  first  applied 
in  the  ancient  languages  to  external  excellences 
and  privileges;  afterwards,  to  those  of  an  inter- 
nal and  moral  nature.  Hence  arose  the  twofold 
use  of  these  terms  in  the  Bible,  which  must  not 
be  overlooked;  they  denote  sanctitas  externa, 
and  interna. 

(1)  All  the  Israelites  are  called  by  Moses 
on?«p,  and  holiness  is  ascribed  to  them  without 
respect  to  their  moral  conduct,  but  merely  from 
the  circumstance  that  they  were  (externally) 
separated  from  the  Gentiles,  and  (external)  pro- 
fessors of  the  true  religion.     The  same  way  of 
speaking  became  common  in  respect  to  Chris- 
tians, who  are  frequently  called  in  the  New 
Testament  oytot,  ^yioKj^ot,  merely  from  the 
circumstance  that  they  profess  externally  the 
Christian  religion,  and  belong  externally  to  the 
Christian  community,  and  thus  are  distinguish- 
ed from  Jews  and  Gentiles.     Hence  all  who 
were  received  into  the  visible  Christian  church 
by  baptism,  were  called  oy&ot,  Christians,  with- 
out respect  to  their  moral  disposition,  as  appears 
from  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians. 

(2)  These  terms  are  also  evidently  used  by 
the  sacred  writers  in  a  moral  sense.     Lev.  xix. 
2,  "  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy."     Cf.  1  Pet.  i. 
14 — 1C.     So  dytactytos,  in  Rom.  vi.  2^2,  is  the 
same  as  Sixawavvr]  in  ver.  18,  19,  virtue,  righte- 
ousness ,•  dyuocrvvj?,  1  Thess.  iii.  13,  and  dy«x£«iv, 
v.  23.     'Ayccw/to$,  in  Heb.  xii.  14,  is  that  with- 
out which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord.     The  same 
is  true  of  6cw>$  and  osio-r^j,  Ephes.  iv.  24  ;  Luke, 
i.  75,  orftoT^s  xai  8ixaioavvr;.     It  here  denotes 
that  blamelessness  of  feeling  and  conduct  which 
is  required,  according  to  the  divine  precepts, 
from  a  true  worshipper  of  God,  and  especially 
from  a  Christian,  and  also  the  habitual  abhor- 
rence of  sin  and  love  of  moral  excellence.     Cf. 
1  John,  iii.  7,  5/xaioj  iatt,  xc&wj  exsivo$  8ixai6s 
Itfiv  Rom.  vi.  18,  Sovtevsiv  Sixaiovvvy,  coll.  ver. 
19,  "He  is  dead  to  sin,  and  lives  entirely  for 
virtue."     In  this  way  the  Christian  becomes 


like  God,  and  loves  him  from  similarity  of  dis- 
position, and  in  return  is  loved  by  God,  as  a 
dutiful  son  who  resembles  his  father  is  loved 
by  him.  Man  is  destined  for  holiness,  and  the 
happiness  proportionately  connected  with  it. 
Vide  s.  51,  II. ;  and  when  any  one  is  admitted 
into  the  community  of  the  saints,  (the  Jews  un- 
der the  old  covenant,  and  Christians  under  the 
new,)  his  holiness  is  the  great  object  aimed  at. 
The  church  is  designed  to  be  schola  sanctitatis. 
Otherwise,  his  admission  into  the  church  and 
his  fellowship  with  the  saints  will  be  of  no  ad- 
vantage to  him ;  indeed,  his  condemnation  will 
be  aggravated  in  consequence  of  these  privi- 
leges. Holiness  is  therefore  the  evidence  and 
result  of  conversion,  or  of  repentance  and  regene- 
ration. One  who  is  destitute  of  holiness,  or 
who  is  negligent  in  the  pursuit  of  it,  is  not  con- 
verted, or  born  again,  or  has  not  repented.  For 
an  account  of  the  nice  distinctions  and  techni- 
cal definitions  of  the  words  conversion,  regenera- 
tion, repentance,  renewal,  sanctification,  which 
theologians  formerly  introduced  into  their  sys- 
tems, vide  Morus,  p.  223.  [Also  cf.  Hahn,  a. 
523,  if.— TR.] 

SECTION  CXXVII. 

STATEMENT  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MORAL  REFOR- 
MATION ;  ITS  COMMENCEMENT;  ON  PUTTING 
OFF  REPENTANCE;  AND  ON  LATE  CONVERSIONS. 

I.  Scriptural  Doctrine  respecting  Repentance  and 
Conversion  /  inferences  from  it ;  and  an  Expla- 
nation of  Technical  Terms. 

(1)  Two  things  are  justly  considered  as  es- 
sential to  the  commencement  of  reformation — 
viz.,  the  knowledge  of  sin  as  sin,  and  the  sor- 
row of  soul  arising  from  it,  or  bitter  penitence 
on  account  of  sin  and  abhorrence  for  it.  Chris- 
tian repentance  is  therefore  a  lively  knowledge, 
agreeably  to  the  precepts  of  the  gospel,  of  the 
sin  which  we  have  committed,  as  a  great  evil. 
This  knowledge  is  called  lively  when  it  is  effi- 
cacious and  influences  the  will,  in  opposition  to 
a  dead  knowledge,  which  has  no  influence  upon 
the  determinations  of  the  mind.  These  two 
things  must  belong  to  reformation  of  every 
kind,  and  to  whatever  object  it  relates,  for  they 
are  founded  in  the  very  nature  of  the  human 
soul.  Whenever  a  change  takes  place  in  human 
views  and  feelings,  whether  entire  or  partial,  it 
is  always  effected  by  the  same  laws,  and  in- 
volves the  same  general  feelings.  In  order  that 
a  man  may  renounce  a  particular  vice,  (suppose 
drunkenness,)  his  understanding  must  first  ap- 
prehend it  as  a  fault,  and  must  see  its  injurious 
consequences.  The  first  effect  is  therefore  pro- 
duced upon  the  understanding,  and  next,  through 
that,  upon  the  will.  The  lively  conception  of 
the  evil  consequences  of  past  transgression  or 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       443 


of  habitual  vice  awakens  sorrow  for  sin,  aver- 
sion to  it,  and  a  determination  henceforward  to 
avoid  it.  But  Christian  reformation  does  not 
consist  in  the  giving  up  of  particular  sins  and 
vices,  but  in  renouncing  sinful  dispositions  and 
principles,  in  the  turning  of  the  heart  from  the 
love  of  sin  to  the  love  of  goodness.  Particular 
outbreakings  of  sin  may  be  compared  with  par- 
ticular symptoms  of  a  dangerous  disease;  at- 
tempting to  remove  these  will  be  in  vain,  unless 
the  disease  itself  is  entirely  cured.  If  this  is 
done,  these  symptoms  of  course  disappear.  In 
the  same  way  we  should  strive,  not  only  to  be 
rid  of  particular  sins,  but  to  be  renewed  in  the 
whole  temper  of  our  souls. 

The  same  things  are  essential  to  every  kind 
of  reformation — e.  g.,  Jer.  iii.  12,  13,  where  the 
Israelites  are  exhorted  to  renounce  their  idola- 
try;  and  2  Cor.  vii.  8- — 11,  which  describes  the 
feelings  produced  among  the  Corinthians  by  the 
rebuke  which  Paul  administered  to  them  on  ac- 
count of  their  indulgence  to  the  incestuous  per- 
son; and  these  feelings  were  the  cause  of  their 
reformation,  or  of  their  putting  away  the  offence. 
Here  pstdvoM  is  said  expressly  to  consist  main- 
ly in  hvrtri  xata  ®sov,  godly  sorrow,  which  was 
very  beneficial  to  them  after  they  became  con- 
scious of  their  guilt.  Cf.  Ezek.  xviii.  21,  seq. ; 
Luke,  iii.  10 — 14. 

Now  since  the  nature  and  operations  of  the 
human  soul  are  the  same  at  all  times,  it  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at  that  the  manner  of  moral  re- 
formation is  described  in  the  Old  Testament  as 
essentially  the  same  as  in  the  New.  And,  in- 
deed, the  process  of  reformation  could  not  be  dif- 
ferent in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  since 
it  depends  upon  the  unaltered  constitution  of  the 
human  soul,  of  which  God  himself  is  the  author. 
The  experience  of  David,  (after  his  affair  with 
Bathsheba,)  recorded  in  Ps.  li.,  is  full  of  in- 
struction on  this  point.  It  consists  of  the  know- 
ledge of  his  sin  and  desert  of  punishment,  sor- 
row, repentance,  desire  of  forgiveness,  the  ear- 
nest wish  for  reformation  and  for  confirmed 
goodness;  also  of  love,  confidence,  and  sincere 
gratitude  to  God.  Cf.  Ps.  xxxii. 

The  nature  of  reformation,  and  especially  of 
its  commencement,  are  clearly  described  by 
Christ  in  two  parables. 

(a)  The  parable  of  the  pharisee  and  the  pub- 
lican, Luke,  xviii.  9 — 14.  The  pharisee  is  very 
proud  of  his  virtues  and  merits,  and  thinks  no 
man  is  better  than  himself,  and  is  fluent  in 
praise  of  his  own  good  works.  The  publican 
acknowledges  his  sins,  is  troubled,  and  peni- 
tent. He  utters  the  simple  feeling  of  his  heart 
in  the  few  words,  «*  God  be  merciful  to  me,  a 
sinner."  And  Jesus  decides,  that  the  latter  went 
down  to  his  house  forgiven  by  God,  the  other 
not.  Here  the  man  who  believes  that  he  shall 


obtain  the  grace  of  God  on  account  of  his  own 
works  or  worthiness,  through  pride  and  selfish 
blindness  remains  ignorant  of  himself  and  his 
great  imperfections,  and  does  not  see  God  as 
holy  and  just.  He  is  not  therefore  inclined  to 
embrace  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  through 
grace  without  personal  merit,  and  accordingly 
he  is  not  forgiven.  This  mistake  is  called  self- 
righteousness,  from  Rom.  x.  3.  Cf.  Dan.  ix. 
18 ;  Is.  Ixiv.  6.  This  mistake  is  one  of  the  most 
injurious  and  dangerous,  because  the  man  who 
makes  it  persuades  himself  that  he  does  not 
need  reformation. 

(£>)  The  excellent  parable  of  the  prodigal  son, 
Luke,  xv.  The  object  of  this  parable  is  two- 
fold. First,  to  shew  in  what  way  a  man  comes 
to  the  knowledge  of  sin,  and  to  the  feeling  of 
guilt;  how  he  must  humble  himself,  and  ac- 
knowledge his  unworthiness  of  the  divine  fa- 
vours, and  yet  have  confidence,  and  lay  hold  of 
and  embrace  the  undeserved  forgiveness  of  God. 
Secondly,  this  parable  shews  how  gracious  and 
kind  the  feeHngs  of  God  are,  and  how  ready  he 
is  to  forgive  the  repentant  sinner.  Vide  Luke, 
xv.  7, 10.  Cf.  Tollner's  Essays  in  his  "  Theol. 
Unters."  Bd.  i.  th.  2,  s.  390,  seq. ;  "  Busse 
und  Glauben ;"  also,  "  Ueber  die  Parabel  vom 
verlornen  Sohn." 

(2)  Sorrow  for  the  sins  we  have  committed, 
(7w;t»7,  2  Cor.  vii.  9,  10,)  which  is  also  an  es- 
sential part  of  reformation,  is  called  by  theolo- 
gians contrition,  brokenness  of  heart,  (Germ. 
Zerknir scfiung.)  Our  older  theologians  justly 
render  and  explain  this  term  by  the  phrase  Reue 
und  Leid,  (penitence  and  sorrow.)  The  term  is 
taken  from  the  Hebrew  nn  NST  and  13&;J  ^S  (lit. 
wounded  heart),  Ps.  xxxiv.  19  ;  Is.  Ivii.  19  ;  Ps. 
li.  19.  Both  of  these  terms  are  applied  to  a  de- 
sponding, contrite,  troubled  mind,  whatever  the 
cause  of  the  distress  may  be.  Cf.  Is.  Ixi.  1, 
and  other  passages  cited  by  Morus,  p.  218,  h.  9. 
The  lively  knowledge  of  sin  as  a  great  evil,  ne- 
cessarily involves  unhappy  feelings  and  sorrow, 
(dolor  animi,  A/urt};,)  Ps.  li.  19;  Jer.  xxxi.  19; 
Luke,  xviii.  13.  And  since  we  are  drawn  away 
to  sin  by  the  strength  of  our  passions,  and  cold 
reason  is  far  too  weak  to  afford  the  necessary 
resistance,  other  feelings  must  be  opposed  to 
those  which  incline  us  to  sin,  in  order  to  coun- 
teract their  influence;  for  man  is  not  merely  a 
rational  being,  but  is  composed  of  sense  and 
reason,  (Germ.  Verniinftig-sinnliches  Wesen.) 
Now  it  is  a  great  object,  and  one  of  the  chief 
advantages  of  religion,  to  excite  and  maintain 
these  penitential  feelings.  Sorrow  for  sin  is 
highly  beneficial  in  its  influence,  and  is  essen- 
tially involved  in  true  and  radical  reformation. 
Hence  Paul,  2  Cor.  vii.  9,  calls  this  penitence 
and  sorrow,  iwjtqv  xa-ta  ®s6v,  acceptable  to  God, 
agreeable  to  his  will  and  purpose — because  it 


444 


CHRISTIAN 


contributes  to  our  salvation,  (a?  owr^ptav.)  And 
because  it  does  so,  it  is  a  repentance  not  to  be 
repented  of,  (d^fta^t^^oj/.) 

But  this  sorrow  for  sin  is  very  different  in  de- 
gree both  as  to  strength  (intensive)  and  continu- 
ance, {extensive.'}  Men  differ  exceedingly  from 
each  other  in  respect  to  constitution,  tempera- 
ment, and  the  entire  mental  disposition.  Ac- 
cordingly, their  feelings,  and  the  manner  in 
which  they  express  them,  are  very  different. 
No  general  rule  can  therefore  be  prescribed  for 
all,  respecting  the  degree  of  sorrow  which  it  is 
necessary  to  feel,  and  the  manner  in  which  it 
must  be  expressed.  We  have  no  definite  mea- 
sure of  human  feeling,  no  mathesis  ajfectuum. 
Let  this,  then,  be  the  only  rule  by  which  we  try 
ourselves  and  others  :  Sorrow  for  sin  is  then  only 
sufficiently  great  (for  the  purpose  of  reformation) 
when  it  produces  in  us  a  constant  aversion  to  sin, 
remaining  through  our  whole  lives.  It  implies 
the  sincere  wish,  Would  that  I  had  not  trans- 
gressed the  divine  commands,  and  also  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  desert  of  punishment  on 
account  of  such  transgression.  But  while  one 
is  inclined  from  his  very  temperament  to  sorrow 
and  despondency,  or  to  violent  outbreakings  of 
feeling,  another  is  naturally  disposed  to  cheer- 
fulness, is  more  considerate  and  reserved,  and 
gives  little  vent  to  his  emotions.  Besides,  there 
are  different  degrees,  both  of  actual  sin  and  of 
inward  corruption,  in  different  men;  and  their 
feelings  of  sorrow  will  of  course  vary  accord- 
ingly. 

Sincerity  of  heart  is  the  great  requisite  here; 
Ps.  xxxii.  2.  It  is  on  this  only  that  God  looks 
with  approbation.  The  accurate  recollection  of 
each  particular  sin  we  have  ever  committed  is 
neither  necessary  nor  possible.  Still  less  are 
the  external,  visible  signs  of  penitence  and  sorrow 
essential  to  reformation,  unless  they  arise  from 
the  deep,  sincere  sorrow  of  the  heart.  Whether 
the  feelings  of  the  heart  shall  be  expressed  by 
external  signs  depends  wholly  upon  the  differ- 
ence of  men  as  to  natural  temperament  and  or- 
ganization. As  to  tears,  lamentations,  and 
sighs,  they  are  of  very  little  consequence  in  this 
matter.  Provided  the  heart  be  renewed,  whe- 
ther it  be  with  or  without  tears  is  a  point  of  in- 
difference. The  tearless  repentance  of  a  man 
of  a  sedate  cast  of  mind  may  be  more  sincere 
and  acceptable  to  God  than  the  penitence  of  a 
person  of  a  more  effeminate  mould,  which  is 
attended  with  sighing  and  weeping,  but  which 
often  passes  soon  away  and  leaves  no  abiding 
effects.  Cf.  124,  I.  II.  We  should  beware, 
however,  of  considering  persons  to  be  hypocrites 
because  they  make  these  violent  demonstrations 
of  feeling — a  rash  decision  too  often  made!  On 
this  point  we  are  liable  to  mistake,  and  religious 
teachers  have  often,  from  the  earliest  times, 
been  in  fault  here.  Many  made  too  much  of  the 


THEOLOGY. 

term  contrition,  and  undertook  to  lay  down  de-  | 
finite  rules  on  this  subject,  and  appealed  to 
some  examples  and  passages  in  the  Bible, 
which  are  not,  however,  universally  applica- 
ble— e.  g.,  the  repentance  of  David,  Mary  Mag- 
dalene, Peter,  and  the  repentance  in  sackcloth 
and  ashes  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  *• 
Which,  however,  does  not  describe  reformation 
of  heart,  but  the  public  external  rites  employed 
in  case  of  pestilence  and  other  great  calamities. 
Such  vehement  expressions  of  feeling  are  not 
required  of  all  men.  The  example  of  David, 
who  spent  three  quarters  of  a  year  in  trouble  on 
account  of  his  sins,  is  frequently  mentioned 
here.  But  he  had  himself  to  blame  for  this ; 
since  he  himself  confesses,  Psalm  xxxii.  3,  4, 
that  he  endeavoured  to  keep  silence  respecting 
his  sins — i.  e.,  to  exculpate  himself  before  God, 
to  palliate  his  guilt,  and  to  avoid  the  necessity 
of  humble  confession  and  penitence.  As  soon 
as  he  acknowledged  his  sin  and  repented  of  it, 
God  forgave  him,  ver.  5. 

Christianity  does  not  lay  down  any  definite 
rule,  or  prescribe  any  artificial  efforts  by  which 
this  moral  change  must  be  effected.  It  requires 
from  each  nothing  but  what  is  adapted  to  his 
nature.  Peter  wept,  and  considering  his  cha- 
racter and  his  crime,  this  was  natural.  The 
publican  only  sighed.  Zacchaeus  does  not  ap- 
pear to  have  done  either  the  one  or  the  other. 
And  yet  the  penitence  and  reformation  of  all 
was  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God. 

According  to  the  precepts  of  Christianity  this 
change  must  result  in  the  suppression  of  the 
reigning  desires  of  the  flesh,  and  in  restoring 
dominion  to  those  principles  of  reason  which 
are  conformable  to  the  will  of  God ;  and  thus 
renovating  the  whole  man,  and  making  him, 
before  carnal  (cropxtxoj),  to  be  spiritual  (jtvevpa,' 
•ftxoj),  obedient  to  the  precepts  of  Christianity, 
and  in  a  state  prepared  to  enjoy  the  guidance 
and  assistance  of  God,  or  the  Holy  Spirit.  Cf. 
Romans,  vii.  25;  viii.  1,  seq. 

Theologians  call  the  reformation  of  men  who 
were  before  entirely  rude  and  savage,  pceniten- 
tiam  primam,  or  magnum ;  that  of  those  who 
are  in  a  better  moral  condition,  but  still  need 
reformation,  posnitentiam  stantium,  or  secundam, 
or  quotidianam.  And  all,  even  the  greatest 
saints  on  earth,  stand  in  need  of  this  daily  re- 
pentance, though  in  different  degrees.  None 
can  justly  consider  themselves  perfect.  Alt 
must  acknowledge  themselves  sinners,  deficient 
and  imperfect.  So  the  whole  scriptures  require 
us  to  feel ;  and  everywhere  insist  upon  sincere 
and  unpretending  humility,  and  condemn  the 
opposite  dispositions. 

(3)  Sorrow  or  penitence  for  sin  must  flow 
from  the  knowledge  of  sin — i.  e.,  from  a  con- 
sciousness that  we  have  acted  contrary  to  the 
divine  law,  and  therefore  deserve  divine  punish- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       445 


ments.  Hence  it  follows  that  we  should  impar- 
tially examine  our  actions  according  to  the  law 
of  God.  Now  when  one  sees  that  he  has  been 
ungrateful  and  disobedient,  and  rendered  him- 
self unworthy  of  the  divine  favour;  when,  in 
view  of  this,  he  feels  sorrow  and  sincere  peni- 
tence, and  begs  God  to  pardon  his  sins  and 
avert  deserved  punishment;  this  is  called  mak- 
ing confession  of  sin  to  God,  (confessio.")  This 
is  not,  then,  as  some  would  have  it,  a  particular 
part  of  repentance.  It  is  the  opposite  of  con- 
cealing, exculpating,  palliating  one's  sins  before 
God,  (refusing  to  acknowledge  them  as  such, 
and  to  seek  forgiveness  for  them.)  Proverbs, 
xxviii.  13,  "  He  that  covereth  his  sins  shall  not 
prosper;  but  whoso  confesseth  and  forsaketh 
them  shall  have  mercy."  So  Christ  represents 
it  in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  Luke,  xv. 
Vide  Psalm  xxxii.  3— »-6;  Dan.  ix.  4;  1  John, 
i.  8,  where  saying  we  have  no  sin  is  opposed  to 
o/iotoy«c£afc  apaptiwj  ver.  9,  to  acknowledge 
and  repent  of  sin. 

The  Bible  says  nothing  of  the  necessity 
which  the  Romish  church  teaches  of  making 
confession  to  men  as  to  representatives  of  God. 
It  recommends,  however,  the  practice  of  con- 
fessing our  faults  to  experienced  Christians,  and 
of  opening  to  them  the  state  of  our  hearts,  as 
conducive  to  vital  religion.  Cf.  James,  v.  16. 

(4)  Sorrow  for  sin  and  hatred  and  abhorrence 
of  it  are  always  founded  on  a  previous  know- 
ledge of  sin;  but  they  are  produced  in  two 
ways — viz., 

(a)  By  contemplation  of  the  divine  precepts 
and  the  penalty  threatened  in  the  law  against 
transgressors.  The  divine  laws  were  given  for 
our  highest  good.  Every  violation  of  them  both 
destroys  the  happiness  flowing  from  obedience 
and  incurs  the  punishment  annexed  to  disobe- 
dience. When  the  sinner  seriously  revolves 
such  considerations  as  these,  he  must  necessa- 
rily feel  mingled  emotions  of  shame,  terror, 
anxiety  on  his  own  account,  and  abhorrence  for 
sin  itself.  We  find  that  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles made  use  of  these  considerations  in  order 
to  awaken  a  salutary  fear  in  the  minds  of  their 
hearers.  Vide  Matt.  in.  7,  10;  Luke,  iii.  3, 
seq.;  Heb.  x.  29,  seq.  This  is  called  by  the 
schoolmen  and  in  the  Romish  church,  attritio, 
or,  as  Thomas  Aquinas  has  it,  contritio  informis 
— i.  e.,  imperfecta,  inchohata,  (dolor  de  peccato  e 
metu  pcenarum.) 

(6)  By  contemplation  of  the  divine  promises 
contained  in  the  gospel.  When  we  consider, 
on  one  side,  the  undeserved  love  and  kindness 
of  God,  exhibited  in  so  many  ways,  and  espe- 
cially through  Christ,  and  which  has  sought 
in  every  possible  manner  to  lead  us  to  true  hap- 
piness in  this  life  and  the  life  to  come,  and  has 
invited  and  encouraged  us  by  the  greatest  pro- 
mises, (John,  iii.  16;)  and  when  we  consider, 


on  the  other  side,  our  own  levity  and  negligence, 
our  wilful  rejection  of  the  means  of  good  offered 
us  by  God  ;  when  we  consider  all  this,  we  must 
be  constrained  to  feel  the  deepest  penitence  and 
shame,  abhorrence  for  sin,  and  love  to  God  and 
Christ  who  have  done  so  much  for  us.  These 
motives  have  a  great  and  mighty  efficacy  in 
promoting  radical  reformation.  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  use  these  motives  more  frequently  than 
any  others.  Their  whole  heart,  as  it  were,  lives 
in  them.  Vide  John,  iii.  16;  xxi.  15,  seq.;  1 
Pet.  iv.  1—3  ;  Tit.  ii.  10,  11.  The  schoolmen 
and  the  Romish  church  call  this  contritionem 
(dolorem  de  peccato  e  dilectione  oriundum.}  Thus 
this  very  consideration  of  the  great  blessings 
for  which  we  are  indebted  to  Christ  leads  to 
faith  in  him.  He  who  knows  that  much  has 
been  forgiven  him,  loves  much,  Luke,  vii.  47. 
Since  Christ  has  done  so  much  for  us,  and  has 
even  died  for  us,  we  are  led  to  place  our  whole 
trust  in  him,  and  look  to  him  for  all  our  happi- 
ness, and  to  obey  his  commands  from  grateful 
love,  John,  iii.  5,  14 — 21.  We  see  that  by  our 
sins  we  are  rendered  unhappy,  that  by  our  own 
merit  we  cannot  obtain  the  favour  of  God,  not 
even  by  our  best  works.  Hence  we  confide  in 
Christ,  and  seek  through  faith  in  him  to  obtain 
forgiveness  of  God,sx  itl<Miv>$  Stxauo^jjvcu,  Gal. 
iii.  24.  In  this  way  we  become  children  of  God, 
(Tloi  ®£ov  Sta,  TtiWswf  ev  Xpttfr^,  ver.  26,)  be- 
loved of  God,  and  blessed  by  him. 

Many  of  the  schoolmen  and  theologians  of 
the  Romish  church  reject  altogether  the  motives 
first  mentioned,  asserting  that  they  are  not  at  all 
promotive  of  our  moral  improvement.  The  An- 
tinomians  of  the  sixteenth  century  expressed 
themselves  in  a  similar  manner  with  many 
others.  It  is  true  that  this  attrition  may  be  so 
abused  as  to  lead  to  a  despair  which  will  abso- 
lutely prevent  instead  of  promoting  reformation. 
But  still  when  it  is  cautiously  made  use  of,  espe- 
cially in  the  case  of  rude  and  uncultivated  men, 
it  produces  a  very  good  effect,  and  is  therefore 
employed  in  the  Old  Testament,  by  John  the 
Baptist,  and  Jesus  himself,  with  many  classes 
of  hearers.  Some  are  entirely  incapable  of  the 
tender  emotions  to  which  the  appeal  is  made  in 
this  second  class  of  motives.  Their  heart  must 
be  broken  and  softened  before  it  can  become 
susceptible  of  the  motives  of  the  gospel.  There 
is  in  this  respect  the  same  difference  even  in 
adult  persons  that  there  is  between  children, 
some  of  whom  are  ill-mannered  and  rude,  and 
others  docile  and  well-disposed.  The  wise 
teacher  will  employ  different  means  with  these 
different  cases ;  and  so  must  also  the  teacher 
of  religion.  Vide  Tollner's  Essay  (No.  1) 
"Busse  und  Glauben." 

When  one  is  reformed,  the  love  of  sin,  now 
renounced,  is  succeeded  in  his  mind  by  holiness, 
diligence  in  duty,  or  pious  Christian  dispositions 
2P 


446 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


and  a  holy  Christian  walk.  Cf.  s.  126,  IV. 
Hence  some  theologians  of  the  Lutheran  church 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  took  pcenitentia  in  so 
wide  a  sense  as  to  include/art^  and  diligence 
in  good  works. 

Morus  (p.  216,  217,  s.  2)  has  given  a  good 
summary  statement  of  the  different  parts  of  re- 
formation here  separately  considered.  The  in- 
ward man  is  principally  regarded  in  Christian 
reformation.  The  object  is  not  merely  to  re- 
strain the  gross  outbreakings  of  sin,  but  to  rec- 
tify the  whole  disposition  and  heart,  so  that 
the  subject  of  it  will  henceforth  act  from  entirely 
different  motives  and  principles.  The  holy 
scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, insist  everywhere  that  the  vovs,  xapSt'a, 
Ttvev/ta,  6  £ff«  av^pwrtoj,  must  be  renovated.  The 
terms,  circumcision  of  the  heart,  new  heart,  reno- 
vation, regeneration,  new  creature,  all  express 
this  truth.  Vide  John,  iii.  1 — 21 ;  also  No.  vi. 
in  "  Scripta  Varii  Jlrgumenti,"  above  cited.  If 
any  one  expects  to  succeed,  by  attempting  to 
amend  externally,  or  in  any  other  way  than  by 
a  radical  change  of  heart,  he  will  be  disapoint- 
ed.  Vide  No.  i.  1. 

II.  Delay  of  Repentance ;  and  late  Conversion. 

This  subject  is  treated  more  fully  in  Chris- 
tian ethics. 

(1)  The  danger  and  evil  of  delaying  reforma- 
tion,    (a)   The  danger  and   difficulties.     The 
longer  one  continues  in  sin  the  more  fixed  be- 
comes his  habit  of  sinning,  and  of  course  the 
more  difficulty  will  he  find  in  breaking  loose 
from  it.     He  will  thus  become  more  and  more 
the  slave  of  sin,  and  be  constantly  bound  with 
stronger  chains.     The  longer  therefore  reforma- 
tion is  deferred,  the  more  difficult  it  becomes. 
Besides,  external  circumstances  are  not  in  our 
power.     Many  die  suddenly ;  others  lose  the 
use  of  their  reason,  or  in  their  last  moments  are 
entirely  unfitted  for  the  mental  efforts  which  are 
requisite  for  attending  to  the  important  concerns 
of  religion,  &c.     (6)  There  must  always  be  an 
evil  and  injury  attending    late    reformations, 
however  thorough  and  sincere  they  may  be. 
God  proportions  the  rewards  he  bestows  to  the 
degree  of  zeal  which  one  shews  in  goodness, 
and  to  the  length  of  time  during  which  he  has 
exhibited  it.     Vide  s.  125,  II.     One  who  has 
just  commenced  a  virtuous  course,  and   has 
made  but  little  advancement  in  it,  cannot  expect 
a  great  reward.     In  the  future  life,  he  must  re- 
main inferior  to  others,  and  thus  suffer  for  his 
remissness  and  negligence. 

(2)  The  opinions  of  theologians  have  always 
been  very  much  divided  on  the  question  as  to 
the  possibility  of  late  repentance,  and  the  worth 
of  it.    Vide  the  history  of  these  opinions  in  He- 
gelmeyer's  Diss.  "de  sera  pcenitentia,"  p.  i. ; 
Tubingen,  1780. 


First.  Most  hold,  with  truth,  that  late  reform- 
ation is  possible,  and  that  God  may  pardon 
(though  with  the  limitations  mentioned,  No.  1) 
even  those  who  defer  repentance  to  the  last,  if 
it  is  then  thorough  and  sincere.  They  hold, 
however,  for  the  reasons  above  given,  that  such 
late  conversions  are  very  doubtful,  and  that 
great  caution  should  be  used  in  speaking  confi- 
dently of  the  salvation  of  those  who  put  off  reli- 
gion to  the  last,  lest  this  should  tend  to  confirm 
others,  to  their  great  injury,  in  their  prevailing 
errors.  It  is  unsafe  for  men  to  pronounce  any 
opinion  in  such  a  case.  For  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  true  faith  but  the  works  of  the  life. 
None  but  God  can  look  into  the  heart.  But 
since  God  can  look  into  the  very  soul ;  since  he 
will  forgive,  without  exception,  all  who  sin- 
cerely repent  of  their  sins,  and  ask  forgiveness 
through  Christ,  in  the  way  which  he  has  pre- 
scribed, (1  Tim.  ii.  4;  2  Pet.  iii.  9;)  and  since 
the  grace  of  God  is  limited  to  no  time,  to  no  ter* 
minum  gratiae  peremptorium,  (s.  1 13, 1. 3 ;)  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  in  abstracto,  but  that  God  will 
really  forgive  those  who  seek  for  pardon,  though 
it  may  be  late,  if  their  desire  be  only  sincere 
and  earnest.  He  will  bestow  even  upon  such 
that  happiness  and  reward  of  which  they  are 
susceptible.  The  example  of  the  malefactor  on 
the  cross  (Luke,  xxiii.  40 — 43)  is  justly  refer- 
red to  in  behalf  of  this  opinion.  The  Christian 
doctrine  justifies  us  in  promising  pardon  and 
mercy  to  all,  even  the  greatest  sinners,  at  all 
limes,  provided  they  will  only  accept  these 
offers.  To  cut  off,  therefore,  an  unhappy  dying 
man  from  all  hope,  and  to  thrust  him  into  de- 
spair, is  without  scriptural  warrant,  and  highly 
presumptuous  and  cruel. 

Secondly.  Others  regard  late  repentance  as 
impossible,  and  hold  that  one  who  has  deferred 
it  to  the  last  cannot  hope  for  pardon;  because, 
they  say,  late  repentance  never  can  be  true  or 
sincere,  and  this  is  a  condition  indispensable  to 
forgiveness.  They  appeal  to  the  example  of 
many  who  in  prospect  of  death  gave  signs  of 
repentance,  but  who,  as  soon  as  danger  was 
past,  became  worse  than  before. 

But  (a)  there  are  also  examples  of  a  different 
kind — examples  of  those  who,  like  the  thief  on 
the  cross,  became  repentant  and  believing  in 
circumstances  of  imminent  danger,  and  who  yet 
have  afterwards  manifested  an  unshaken  fidelity. 
(b)  Those  who  advocate  this  opinion  often  mis- 
take the  want  of  perseverance  in  faith  for  the 
want  of  sincerity  in  it.  (c)  The  examples  men- 
tioned do  not  prove  that  late  repentance  is  never 
sincere  and  thorough,  but  only  that  it  is  not 
always  so ;  which  indeed  is  true. 

The  great  argument,  however,  which  is  used 
on  this  side  is,  that  conversion  is  not  the  work  of 
a  moment,  (not  subitanea  or  instantanea,}  but 
requires  time,  earnestness,  zeal,  practice.  This 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       447 


is  true  from  the  very  nature  of  the  human  mind. 
But  this  only  proves  the  great  difficulty,  the 
uncertainty  and  danger  of  such  late  conver- 
sions, and  not  the  entire  impossibility  of  them. 
Many  men,  in  whom  the  work  of  conversion  is 
not  completed,  are  still  not  entirely  evil  and 
destitute  of  all  good.  The  seed  of  goodness 
frequently  lies  in  their  hearts,  while  its  growth 
and  fruitfulness  are  impeded  and  prevented  by 
various  internal  and  external  hindrances.  But 
this  work  may  have  been  silently  and  unob- 
servedly  going  on  in  the  midst  of  these  difficul- 
ties. And  now  unexpectedly  some  external 
circumstance  occurs  as  a  means  of  awakening. 
The  person  hears  a  moving  exhortation,  is  re- 
minded of  some  promise  or  threatening  from 
the  Bible,  is  placed  in  imminent  danger,  or  in 
some  such  manner  is  aroused,  and  impelled  to 
attend  more  earnestly  to  the  concerns  of  his 
soul.  These  circumstances  depend  on  Divine 
Providence,  and  God  makes  use  of  them  as 
means  for  the  conversion  of  men.  This  appears 
o  have  been  the  case  with  the  malefactor  on  the 
cross.  Probably  there  had  been  a  long  prepa- 
ration in  his  mind  for  the  result  to  which  he 
hen  came.  The  passage,  Heb.  vi.  4 — 6,  'A8v- 
vatov — rtapartsaovtas — cwaxcuvi^fiv  fi$  /Aftdvoiav, 
has  no  relation  to  this  point.  This  passage 
refers  to  those  who  persevere  in  apostasy,  and 
the  rejection  of  religion.  The  phrase,  u&vva.'tov 
Itfft,  means  only  that  it  is  impossible  for  men. 
Cf.  Matt.  xix.  26. 

Those  theologians  who  differ  so  widely  from 
the  Bible  as  to  hold  that  the  forgiveness  of  men 
depends  altogether  upon  their  holiness  or  obedi- 
ence to  the  divine  commandments,  and  not  upon 
faith  in  Christ  and  his  atonement,  are  indeed 
hard  pressed  in  this  point.  If  they  would  be 
consistent,  they  must  deny  salvation  to  those 
who  delay  repentance  till  just  before  the  close 
of  life,  and  who  therefore  do  not  exhibit  the 
fruits  of  this  change.  So  even  Steinbart 
thought.  The  holy  scriptures,  on  the  contrary, 
teach  that  God  forgives  men  on  account  of  their 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ;  that  holiness  is  the  con- 
sequence of  this  faith,  and  that  without  this 
faith  in  Christ  man  is  not  able  to  live  holy. 
Now  if  a  man,  whose  reformation  begins  with 
faith,  is  prevented  by  death  from  exhibiting  the 
fruits  of  this  faith,  (which,  however,  he  would 
have  exhibited  had  he  lived  longer,)  he  cannot, 
on  this  account,  be  excluded  by  God  from  hap- 
piness ;  although  his  happiness  will  be  less  than 
that  of  others  who  have  pursued  a  long  course 
of  active  virtue.  Thus  we  might  conclude  in 
abstracto ;  the  determination  in  particular  given 
cases  must  be  left  with  God. 

Note. — The  work  of  Noesselt,  "  Ueber  den 
Werth  derMoralundspatenBesserung,"  (Halle, 
1777,  8vo,  Ausg.  2,  1783 ;  especially  s.  220, 
seq.,)  contains  much  on  this  subject  which  is  ex- 


cellent. This  work  was  occasioned  by  the  unset- 
tled, partial,  and  indefinite  views  contained  in 
many  works  on  this  subject,  especially  in  those 
which  held  up  the  opinion  that  late  repentance 
is  impossible  or  of  no  avail ;  such,  for  example, 
as  that  of  Saurin,  "  On  the  Delay  of  Conver- 
sion;" Edward  Harwood,  "On  the  Invalidity 
of  Repentance  on  the  Death-bed ;"  and  Stein- 
bart, on  the  question  «*  What  Value  can  be  al- 
lowed to  Sudden  Conversions,  especially  on  the 
Death-bed  ;  and  what  is  it  advisable  publicly  to 
teach  on  this  subject?"  Berlin,  1770,  8vo. 

SECTION  CXXVIII. 

REMARKS  ON  THE  FALSE  OPINIONS  AND  PERVER- 
SIONS CONCERNING  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REPENT- 
ANCE, WHICH  HAVE  BEEN  GRADUALLY  ADOPTED 
IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

MOST  of  these  mistakes  have  arisen  from  false 
ideas,  agreeing  with  the  depraved  inclinations  of 
the  human  heart,  respecting  forgiveness  of  stn, 
propitiating  God,  and  the  merit  of  good  works. 
Cf.  s.  108,  and  s.  125,  III. 

I.  Penance  of  the  Excommunicated. 

The  apostles  and  other  ancient  Christian 
teachers  held  that  it  is  the  prerogative  of  God 
alone  to  forgive  sin,  and  that  men  are  bound  to 
confess  their  sins  to  him,  and  to  seek  forgiveness 
from  him.  So  taught  Justin  the  Martyr  (Apol. 
2),  and  others.  But  even  as  early  as  the  times 
of  the  apostles  the  custom  (which  had  before 
prevailed  among  the  Jews)  of  excommunicating 
gross  offenders  from  the  church  (d^opto^oj)  was 
adopted  by  Christians,  and  was  indeed  necessary 
at  that  time.  The  rites  attending  restoration  to 
the  church  became  constantly  more  numerous 
and  complex  during  the  second,  third,  and  fourth 
centuries.  Those  who  were  restored  were  com- 
pelled to  perform  pub  lie  penance,  (pcenitentia  pub- 
/z'ca.)  The  excommunicated  person  (lapsus)  was 
bound  (1)  to  labour  to  convince  the  church  of 
the  reality  of  his  penitence  and  reformation. 
He  appeared  therefore  in  public  in  a  mourning 
dress ;  he  fasted,  wept,  and  begged  for  prayers, 
(contritio.)  (2)  He  was  bound  to  make  a  pub- 
lic confession  of  sin,  and  to  ask  forgiveness  of 
the  church;  and  this,  in  order  to  humble  him  and 
to  warn  others,  (confessio.}  (3)  His  undergo- 
ing these  and  other  trials  and  punishments  im- 
posed upon  him  as  the  condition  of  his  being 
readmitted,  was  called  satisfactio ,•  and  he  ob- 
tained pacem.  Vide  Morini  Tractatus  de  poeni- 
tentise  sacramento.  This  was  originally  only 
church  discipline,  and  nobody  pretended  that  it 
was  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  by 
God,  who  looks  not  upon  the  outward  man,  but 
upon  the  heart.  Indeed,  Montanus  in  the  se- 
cond century,  and  Novatian  in  the  third,  though 
they  were  so  rigorous  in  church  discipline  that 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


they  were  unwilling  to  readmit  a  person  who 
had  been  once  excluded,  did  not  deny  that  he 
might  obtain  forgiveness  from  God. 

II.  Penance  supposed  the  means  of  obtaining  the 
Forgiveness  of  God. 

We  find  that  the  great  body  of  Christians 
since  the  second  century  have  entertained  very 
erroneous  apprehensions  respecting  this  excom- 
munication. Many  believed  (although  the  doc- 
trine was  not  as  yet  formally  sanctioned  by  the 
authority  of  the  church)  that  a  person  by  being 
excommunicated  from  the  church  is  also  ex- 
cluded from  communion  with  God.  But  they 
also  held  that  when  the  church  forgives  a  person 
and  admits  him  again  to  their  fellowship,  God 
also  forgives  him  and  admits  him  to  his  favour. 
And  this  opinion  was  more  dangerous  in  its  ten- 
dency than  the  former.  The  church,  and  espe- 
cially those  who  ruled  over  it,  who  had  the  most 
to  say  in  this  matter,  came  to  be  regarded  more 
and  more  as  the  representatives  of  God.  Vide  s. 
135, 1.  Hence  great  importance  was  attached  to 
the  external  rite  in  the  read  mission  of  the  excom- 
municated. The  idea  became  prevalent,  that 
God  is  influenced,  and  moved  as  it  were  to  com- 
passion, by  fasting,  weeping,  kneeling,  begging, 
and  sighing.  In  short,  it  was  believed  that  a  per- 
son could  obtain  forgiveness  of  God  by  the  same 
external  means  by  which  the  favour  and  forgive- 
ness of  the  church  and  its  rulers  could  be  obtained. 
And  the  teachers  of  religion  often  contributed  to 
the  increase  of  such  errors  by  insisting  injudi- 
ciously upon  these  external  rites.  Even  Origen 
sometimes  expressed  himself  in  this  unguarded 
manner — e.  g.,  in  Homil.  15  in  Levit.  After 
the  fourth  century,  the  service  of  God  was  made 
to  consist  more  and  more  in  mere  outward  cere- 
monies. 

III.  Auricular  Confession. 

When  the  Christian  church  was  much  en- 
larged, the  Grecian  church  in  the  third  century, 
and  the  Western  church  in  the  third  and  fourth, 
commuted  the  public  confession  of  the  excom- 
municated for  private  confession  to  be  made  to 
a  presbyter  appointed  for  that  purpose.  Vide 
Sozom.  ix.  35.  This  too  was  soon  abolished  in 
the  Grecian  church,  but  it  was  retained  in  the 
Latin  church.  Hence  arose  by  degrees  the  prac- 
tice of  auricular  confession,  and  then,  slowly,  the 
whole  system  of  public  penance.  At  first  the 
lapsi  only  were  bound  to  confess  their  grosser 
offences  to  spiritual  guides,  before  they  could  be 
reinstated  and  allowed  to  approach  the  holy  sup- 
per. But  in  process  of  time,  every  Christian 
was  required  to  confess  to  the  clergy  all  his 
sins,  even  the  least  of  them,  before  he  could  be 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  table.  The  clergy  and 
the  monks  confirmed  the  populace  in  the  persua- 
sion, to  which  it  was  itself  predisposed,  that  con- 


fession to  the  priest  was  the  same  as  confession 
to  God ;  and  that  the  priests  gave  absolution  in 
God's  stead. 

This  much-abused  principle,  that  confession 
must  be  made  to  spiritual  teachers  and  the  heads 
of  the  church,  is  found  very  early,  even  in  the 
third  century — e.  g.,  in  the  writings  of  Origen 
(Homil.  in  Levit.),  and  especially  of  the  Latin 
fathers,  Cyprian,  Hieronymus,  and  Augustine. 
They  compared  the  presbyter  with  a  physician, 
who  cannot  heal  a  disease  if  he  is  not  made 
acquainted  with  it.  In  all  these  rites,  there  is 
much  which  is  good,  and  which  might  be  prac- 
tised to  great  advantage,  and,  indeed,  was  so  in 
the  early  church.  But  afterwards,  when  the 
priesthood  and  laity  had  both  very  much  dege- 
nerated, they  were  greatly  perverted  and  mis- 
applied. 

IV.  Penance  imposed  by  the  Clergy. 

At  first  the  church  imposed  the  satisfaction  to 
be  made  by  offenders.  This  was  now  done  by 
the  ecclesiastic,  to  whom  confession  was  made. 
The  penalties  imposed  by  him  were  now  no 
longer  considered  merely  as  satisfaction  given  to 
the  church.  It  was  believed,  that  by  these  same 
means  God  is  rendered  propitious  and  his  judg- 
ments are  averted.  It  was  also  believed  that 
the  teachers  and  ministers  of  the  church  are  the 
representatives  of  God.  These  ministers  were 
now  frequently  compared,  as  indeed  they  had 
been  during  the  third  century,  with  the  Leviti- 
cal  priests,  who,  in  God's  stead,  imposed  pu- 
nishments for  the  purpose  of  atoning  for  sin, 
such  as  prayers,  fasts,  almsgiving,  and  other  rites 
and  gifts,  which  were  now  looked  upon  as  me- 
ritorious good  works,  s.  125.  The  ecclesiastics 
and  monks  had  books  of  penance,  in  which  the 
penalties  were  assigned  for  each  particular  sin. 
Vide  Joh.  Dallaus,  De  prenis  et  satisfactionibus 
humanis;  Amst.  1649. 

V.  The  Doctrine  of  Indulgences. 

At  last  the  doctrine  of  indulgences  was  intro- 
duced. This  was  destructive  of  all  morality. 
The  practices  of  penance  and  confession  which, 
at  least  during  the  darker  periods  of  the  middle 
ages,  maintained  to  some  degree  an  external 
discipline  and  order,  fell  at  once  into  neglect 
and  disuse.  For  by  means  of  indulgences  the 
people  obtained  remission  of  the  penances,  and 
freedom  from  the  canonical  or  ecclesiastical  pu- 
nishments of  sin,  which  were  imposed  by  their 
father  confessors.  These  indulgences  were  first 
granted  by  the  bishops,  when  an  individual  of- 
fered of  his  own  accord  to  perform  some  good 
work,  to  give  alms,  to  found  charitable  institu- 
tions, to  build  churches,  &c.  They  were  after- 
wards sold  for  mere  money.  After  some  time 
the  pope  appropriated  the  trade  in  indulgences 
to  himself,  and  durino-  the  thirteenth  and  four- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       449 


teenth  centuries  carried  on  a  wide  extended  mo- 
nopoly in  this  business.  Indulgences  could 
now  be  purchased  even  for  future  sins.  It  was 
the  prevailing  belief  that  these  indulgences  de- 
liver not  only  from  canonical  punishments — 
i.  e.,  from  those  imposed  by  the  laws  of  the  vi- 
sible church,  but  also  from  the  divine  punish- 
ments, since  the  pope  is  the  vicar  of  God  and 
of  Christ.  After  the  thirteenth  century  this 
practice  was  sustained  by  the  doctrine  de  thesauro 
bonorum  operum,  which  the  church,  and  espe- 
cially the  pope,  the  head  of  the  church,  were 
supposed  to  hold  at  their  disposal,  s.  125.  The 
abuses  attending  this  practice  gave  occasion  to 
the  reformation  in  Germany  and  Switzerland  in 
the  sixteenth  century. 

VI.  Scholastic  System  of  Penance. 

These  erroneous  opinions,  which  had  gra- 
dually arisen,  were  brought  into  a  formal  scho- 
lastic system  by  the  schoolmen,  and  especially 
by  Peter  of  Lombardy  in  the  twelfth,  and  Tho- 
mas Aquinas  in  the  thirteenth  century.  The 
whole  doctrine  of  the  Bible  respecting  moral 
reformation  and  a  change  of  heart  was  thus 
changed  into  a  matter  of  external  penance.  This 
became  the  prevailing  system  of  the  Romish 
church,  and  all  these  principles  of  the  school- 
men were  sanctioned  by  the  Council  at  Trent, 
Sess.  14. 

The  following  are  the  main  principles  of  the 
schoolmen — viz., 

(1)  Poenitentia  is  derived  from  punio,  accord- 
ing to  Augustine,  and  therefore  denotes  the  pu- 
nishment of  oneself .     Hence  originally  the  Ger- 
man Busse,  Avhich  signifies,  punishment,  atone- 
ment, &c.     Vide  s.  126,  IV. 

(2)  Each  particular  sin  must  be  atoned  for  by 
particular  satisfactions. 

(3)  Therefore  every  Christian  must  confess 
all  his  sins  to  the  minister  of  the  church,  as  a 
priest  and  judge,  placed  in  God's  stead. 

(4)  Conversion,  therefore,  consists  of  three 
things — viz.,  contritio,  or  compunctio  cordis,  con- 
fessio  oris,  (to  the  priest  in  God's  stead,)  and 
satisfactio  operis,  (satisfaction  rendered  by  per- 
forming the  penances  imposed.)     All  this  was 
borrowed  from  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  disci- 
pline.    Vide  No.  I.,  on  the  distinction  between 
attritio  and  contritio.     Cf.  s.  127, 1.  3. 

(5)  This  satisfaction,  or  atonement,  must  be 
made  by  prayer,  alms,  fasts,  and  other  external 
rites  and  bodily  chastisements.     Accordingly, 
Peter  of  Lombardy  says,  Oratio  dominica  delet 
minima  et  quotidiana  peccata.    Suffkit  oratio  do- 
minica cum  eleemosynis  et  jejunio.    Vide  s.  108. 

(6)  This  pwna  satisfactoria,  which  must,  in 
the  usual  course,  be  endured,  may  be  somewhat 
remitted,  says  Thomas  Aquinas,  by  means  of 
indulgences.    But  this  principle  was  afterwards 
very  much  extended.     Vide  No.  v. 

57 


(7)  One  who  is  not  absolved  of  his  pardon- 
able sins  by  rendering  such  satisfactions  goes 
at  death  into  purgatory,  where,  in  the  midst 
of  torments,  he  must  make  atonement  for  them. 
The  doctrine  de  purgatorio  was  propagated  dur- 
ing the  fourth  century  in  the  West,  and  univer- 
sally prevailed  from  the  ninth  to  the  eleventh 
centuries.  It  was  believed,  however,  that  souls 
could  be  freed  from  purgatory,  or,  at  least, 
that  their  continuance  there  could  be  shortened 
by  having  masses  said  for  their  souls.  Vide 
s.  150. 


ARTICLE  XII. 

ON  THE  OPERATIONS  OF  GRACE ;  OR  THE  DI- 
VINE INSTITUTIONS  FOR  PROMOTING  RE- 
PENTANCE AND  FAITH;  S.  12S-133,  INCLU- 
SIVE. 


SECTION  CXXIX. 

EXPLANATION  OF  THE  TERMS  "  GRACE,  OPERA- 
TIONS OF  GRACE,  MEANS  OF  GRACE,"  AND 
OTHER  PHRASES  EMPLOYED  IN  THEOLOGY  ON 

THIS  SUBJECT;  AND  THE  CONNEXION  OF  THIS 
DOCTRINE  WITH  THE  PRECEDING. 

« 

I.  Connexion  of  this  Doctrine  with  the  foregoing  ,• 
and  the  Import  of  it. 

THE  whole  Christian  doctrine  is  given  by 
God  to  men  in  order-to  bring  them  to  faith  and 
repentance,  and  consequently  to  eternal  happi- 
ness. For  they  are  not  capable  of  this  happi- 
ness until  they  perform  the  conditions  described 
in  Article  xi.  But,  as  the  scriptures  teach  us, 
we  are  not  at  present  in  a  condition  to  amend 
ourselves,  and  by  our  own  powers  to  fulfil 
these  conditions,  without  some  higher  assistance 
and  guidance  of  God.  This  incompetency  is 
owing  to  the  power  of  sense,  and  its  preponder- 
ance over  reason,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing, 
to  natural  depravity.  Vide  sec.  77 — 80.  Now, 
though  man  needs  a  moral  change,  his  will,  / 
according  to  both  scripture  and  experience, 
being  in  a  high  degree  depraved,  he  is  yet 
unable,  without  divine  help  and  assistance, 
either  to  awaken  within  himself  earnest  desires 
after  holiness,  or  to  execute  the  good  purposes 
he  may  form,  and  persevere  in  them,  or  to 
perform  the  other  conditions  upon  which  his 
salvation  depends.  All  the  arrangements,  there- 
fore, which  God  has  made,  in  order  to  produce 
in  those  who  live  in  Christian  lands  faith  in 
Christ  and  a  change  of  heart,  and  to  secure 
their  continuance,  and  thus  to  bring  men  to  the 
enjoyment  of  the  promised  salvation,  are  called 
by  the  general  name  of  grace,  or  the  operations 
2  p2 


450 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


of  divine  grace,  (operationes  gratis?,  German, 
Gnudenwirkungcn. ) 

II.  The  Various  Names  by  which  these  Operations 
are  commonly  designated  in  Theology. 

(1)  Gratia.  By  this  term  is  understood,  in 
theology,  the  divine  operations  or  power  (assist- 
ance} exerted  in  producing  repentance  or  con- 
version. It  is  contrasted  with  nature,  and  by 
this  is  meant,  the  natural  powers  of  man,  which, 
on  account  of  his  depravity,  are  regarded  as  too 
weak  and  insufficient  to  effect  this  moral  reno- 
vation, and  therefore  need  to  be  elevated  and 
strengthened  by  God.  The  state  of  one  who  is 
enlightened  by  Christian  doctrine,  and  by  a 
faithful  use  of  it,  under  divine  assistance,  is  re- 
newed, is  called  a  state  of  grace,  (status  gratiae.} 
This  is  opposed  to  the  natural  state,  (status  na- 
turae, or  naturalis,')  by  which  is  meant  the  state 
of  one  who  is  not  as  yet  enlightened  by  the 
Christian  doctrine,  or  renovated  by  its  influ- 
ence, and  has  not  yet  experienced  the  assist- 
ance of  God.  Morus,  pages  234,  235.  Augus- 
tine first  used  the  word  gratia  to  denote  the  su- 
pernatural agency  of  God  in  conversion.  He 
held  this  agency  to  be,  in  reality,  miraculous, 
and  therefore  irresistible.  Vide  sec.  132.  This 
use  of  the  termfhas  since  been  retained  in  theo- 
logy, even  by  those  who  have  discarded  the  er- 
roneous opinions  of  Augustine. 

Xaptj  is  used  in  the  Bible  to  denote  (a)  the 
undeserved  divine  favour  towards  men  in  general  ; 
(6)  the  result  and  proof  of  this  favour  in  the  par- 
ticular blessings  bestowed ;  and  (c)  more  espe- 
cially the  blessings  for  which  we  are  indebted  to 
Christ,  pardon,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  all 
the  Christian  privileges  connected  with  forgive- 
ness. Hence  all  the  operations  of  God  on  the 
hearts  of  men,  in  promoting  repentance  and  holi- 
ness, are  comprehended  by  the  sacred  writers 
under  the  term  ^aptj,  as  being  the  most  distin- 
guished favours;  although  these  are  not  the 
only  favours  intended  by  this  term  in  its  scrip- 
tural usage,  but  the  others  now  mentioned  are 
also  often  designated  by  it.  Vide  s.  88,  II., 
note. 

The  whole  series  of  operations  and  means 
which  God  employs  to  bring  men  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  blessedness  procured  by  Christ  is 
called  in  theology,  ceconomia  gratiae,  the  oscono- 
my  or  dispensation  of  grace,  (Germ.  Gnadenan- 
stalt,  or  Einrichtung.}  Theologians  distinguish 
here  (a)  actus,  or  operationes  gratix — i.  e.,  the 
gracious,  salutary  influences  (also  called  auxilia 
gratiae}  by  which  men  are  brought  to  salvation, 
and  (|8)  the  media  gratisc — i.  e.,  the  means 
which  God  employs  in  exerting  these  influ- 
ences on  the  hearts  of  men ;  the  means  of  rer 
pentance  or  holiness.  These  means  are,  the 
Word  of  God — the  divine  doctrine,  especially 
that  made  known  through  Christ.  The  theolo- 


gians of  Tubingen  have  sometimes  ^iven  the 
name  gratia  applicatrix  to  these  divine  opera- 
tions, because,  through  them,  God  applies  to  us 
the  merit  of  Christ  to  be  embraced  by  faith — 
i.  e.,  he  places  us  in  a  condition  in  which  we 
actually  realize  the  fruits  of  Christ's  merits. 

(2)  These  operationes  gratisc  are  sometimes 
called  the  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  (officium,  or 
munus  Spiritus  Sancti,  or  better,  his  opus,  busi- 
ness, work,  cf.  s.  105,  I.  2,)  because  the  sancti- 
fying divine  influences  are  frequently  ascribed 
in  the  scriptures  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Some  the- 
ologians have  ascribed  a  fourfold,  and  others  a 
fivefold  office  to  the  Spirit,  in  renewing  the 
heart  of  man — viz.,  elencticum,  didacticum,  pas- 
deuticum,  paraclcticum,  and  others,  epanorthoti- 
cum.  A  different  division  is  made  by  others. 
This  form  of  the  doctrine  is  derived  from  the 
passage,  John,  xvi.  7 — 15.  But  there  the  thing 
principally  intended  is  the  instruction  which 
the  apostles  should  receive  from  the  Holy 
Spirit,  by  which  they  themselves  should  be 
enabled  to  teach  men,  to  exhort  them  to  repent- 
ance, and  to  convince  (Jxeygetv)  them  of  their 
unbelief.  This  passage,  then,  does  not  speak 
of  the  renewing  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
on  the  hearts  of  all  Christians ;  though  all  these 
renewing  influences  are,  beyond  a  question,  as- 
cribed everywhere  in  the  scriptures  to  God,  and 
especially  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Vide  s.  131. 

Note. — The  various,  and  mostly  fruitless, 
controversies  which  have  prevailed  among  the- 
ologians, especially  since  the  time  of  Augus- 
tine, respecting  the  manner  in  which  the  agency 
of  God  is  exerted  in  renewing  the  heart  of  man, 
and  likewise  the  various  technical  terms  and 
fine  distinctions  which  have  been  introduced, 
have  rendered  this  article  one  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult and  involved  in  the  whole  system  of  theo- 
logy. These  subtleties,  however,  should  have 
no  place  in  the  religious  instruction  given  to  the 
unlearned  Christian.  It  is  sufficient  for  him  to 
know  (1)  that  he  owes  his  renewal  not  to  him- 
self and  his  own  powers,  but  (2)  that  it  is  the 
result  of  that  powerful  divine  assistance  which 
God  denies  to  none  for  this  purpose;  (3)  that 
faith  and  repentance  are  not  produced  by  an  ir- 
resistible influence,  but  that  man  can  resist 
them  ;  (4)  that  in  the  case  of  those  who  enjoy 
the  Word  of  God  (revealed  religion),  the  sav- 
ing change  is  effected  by  God,  through  this 
Word,  as  a  means ;  and  that  (5)  those,  there- 
fore, who  enjoy  the  Word  of  God  are  to  expect 
no  divine  assistance  entirely  disconnected  from 
it,  though  they  may  look  for  this  assistance  in 
connexion  with  the  faithful  use  of  the  Word  of 
God ;  and  that,  accordingly,  (6)  man  must  not 
be  passive  and  supine  in  this  work,  but  care- 
fully use  all  the  opportunities  and  means  which 
divine  grace  affords  him. 

Erasmus    remarked   in   his   work,   "Contra 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       451 


librum  Lutheri  de  servo  arbitrio,"  that  it  is  not 
essential  that  one  should  be  able  to  determine 
accurately  and  logically  the  manner  in  which 
grace  operates  on  the  heart,  if  he  only  inwardly 
experiences  these  renewing  influences.  Not 
every  one  who  imagines  that  he  understands 
the  manner  in  which  the  divine  agency  is  ex- 
erted has  himself,  of  necessity,  actually  expe- 
rienced it,  and  the  reverse.  Nor  is  it  either  ne- 
cessary or  possible,  in  particular  cases,  to  deter- 
mine definitely  how  much  man  himself  (natura) 
has  contributed  to  his  own  improvement,  and 
how  much  grace  has  done  for  him,  provided  he 
sincerely  believes  that  he  owes  his  entire  re- 
newal to  the  unmerited  divine  compassion. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  229,  note,  and  p.  236,  237. 

SECTION  CXXX. 

WHAT  ARE  THE  OPERATIONS  OF  DIVINE  GRACE 
FOR  PROMOTING  THE  REPENTANCE  AND  SALVA- 
TION OF  THOSE  WHO  LIVE  IN  CHRISTIAN  LANDS  ; 
AND  WHAT  MEANS  DOES  GOD  EMPLOY  IN  EXERT- 
ING THESE  INFLUENCES  ON  THEIR  HEARTS? 

I.  In  what  the  Operations  of  Divine  Grace  consist ; 
and  in  what  order  they  follow. 

WE  shall  first  exhibit  this  doctrine  in  the  form 
in  which  it  is  commonly  treated  in  theological 
systems,  and  then  shew  how  it  may  be  more 
simply  and  intelligibly  represented. 

(1)  The  common  method  in  theological 
schools  is  to  describe  these  various  divine  ope- 
rations by  figurative  terms  drawn  from  the 
Bible,  often  using  them,  however,  in  a  differ- 
ent sense  from  that  in  which  they  are  there 
used,  and  then  to  treat  particularly  and  sepa- 
rately of  calling^  illumination,  regeneration, 
union  with  God,  sanctification,  and  renovation. 
The  result  of  this  has  been,  that  these  particu- 
lar parts  are  conceived  of  as  different  and  dis- 
tinct, while  in  truth  they  are  most  intimately 
connected.  Vide  s.  126,  in  prin.  Theologians 
make  the  following  division  of  these  influences, 
and  suppose  them  to  follow  in  this  order: — (a) 
Man  is  invited  by  the  truths  of  the  Christian 
religion  to  repent  and  accept  the  salvation  of- 
fered him,  (vocatio.}  (6)  He  now  attains  a  pro- 
per, lively,  and  salutary  knowledge  of  Chris- 
tian truth,  (illuminatio.^)  (c)  When  the  under- 
standing entertains  just  views,  then  the  will  is 
renewed.  Good  feelings  and  dispositions  arise 
in  place  of  sinful  ones,  (regeneration)  (c?)  This 
work  of  illumination  and  regeneration  must  be 
carried  on  by  ever-increasing  divine  influences ; 
and  thus  progressive  sanctification,  or  entire 
holiness,  will  be  effected ;  and  the  higher  the 
degrees  of  divine  influence,  the  more  closely 
will  man  become  united  with  God,  (unto  mys- 
tical] The  proper  scriptural  import  of  most  of 
these  terms  was  explained  s.  126 ;  and  the  unio 


mystica  in  s.  119,  I.  3.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  232. 
Calling  and  illumination  still  remain  to  be  ex- 
plained. 

(a)  Illumination.  This  word  is  commonly 
explained  in  theology  in  such  a  way  as  to  ren- 
der it  applicable  only  to  the  true  believer.  It 
denotes  that  true  and  living  knowledge  of  the 
doctrines  of  salvation  which  has  a  powerful  effi- 
cacy upon  the  will,  which  is  not  the  case  with 
the  knowledge  which  unregenerate  men  pos- 
sess. So  that,  as  theologians  explain  it,  illu- 
minare  aliquem  is  the  same  as  cum  effectu  salu- 
tari  docere  aliquem.  Of  such  a  kind,  indeed, 
must  our  knowledge  be,  in  order  to  be  salutary 
and  saving;  and  to  make  it  so  is  the  object  of 
the  divine  influences.  In  the  Bible,  however, 
this  term  is  differently  used  in  a  wider  and  nar- 
rower sense.  To  enlighten,  tyuti^etv,  'VNn, 
means,  (a)  to  instruct,  teach.  It  is  used  by  the 
LXX.  as  synonymous  with  Siodaxsw,  x.  t.  &. 
And  human  teachers  are  said  to  enlighten  men 
as  well  as  God.  Thus,  Eph.  i.  18,  "The  eyes 
of  the  understanding  being  enlightened ;"  and 
iii.  9,  $u*%£w',  and  2  Cor.  iv.  6;  Heb.  vi.  4, 
(jKorKtyioj.  For  $105  is  intelligence,  clear  know- 
ledge, and  the  opposite,  oxotos,  is  ignorance. 
Of  the  same  import  is  the  phrase,  cwolytw  tov$ 
o^atytovj,  Acts,  xxvi.  18,  &c. .  All  this  is  the 
same  as  the  phrase,  fiovfot  yi/uxytv  tfwr'jjptaf, 
Luke,  i.  77.  ()3)  Light  and  darkness  also  sig- 
nify prosperity  and  adversity.  Hence,  in  the 
scriptural  use,  (y)  both  meanings  are  some- 
times united  in  these  words,  (in  the  widest 
sense) — instruction,  and  the  happiness  which 
results  from  it.  Thus  Christ  is  said  ^uti^ew 
"tbv  XOG/AOV,  and  to  be  $w$  xoop.ov,  a  teacher  and 
benefactor  of  the  world,  John,  i.  4;  viii.  12.  In 
the  scriptures,  therefore,  illumination  signifies, 
instruction  in  those  truths  which  God  gives  to 
men  for  their  salvation.  It  is  always  the  end 
of  this  illumination  to  influence  the  will  and  to 
promote  holiness ;  but  through  the  fault  of  man 
this  end  is  not  always  attained.  Those  with 
respect  to  whom  the  design  of  God  is  attained 
are  savingly  enlightened.  But  in  a  wider  sense 
even  the  wicked  may  be  said,  according  to  the 
scripture  use  of  this  term,  to  be  enlightened — i. 
e.,  converted.  Hence  q>utiG$ivt£$  is  frequently 
a  general  name  of  those  who  live  in  Christian 
lands,  because  they  are  better  instructed,  al- 
though they  are  not  all  savingly  enlightened. 

(6)  Calling,  gracious  calling.  Theologians 
understand  by  this  term  the  offer  of  the  bless- 
ings purchased  by  Christ  which  is  made  to 
men,  whether  they  accept  the  offer  or  not.  This 
use  of  the  term  has  its  origin  principally  in 
some  of  the  parables  of  Christ,  in  which  he  de- 
scribes the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom, 
or  Christian  privileges,  under  the  image  of  a 
great  feast,  to  which  many  guests  (xsxx^fvot) 
are  invited,  many  of  whom  despise  the  invita- 


452 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


tion,  and  only  a  few  accept  it,  as  Matt.  xxii.  3, 
seq.  Now  some  have  undertaken  to  apply  this 
beautiful  figure  employed  by  Christ  to  all  the 
cases  in  which  xtojiofij,  x^toi,  xateiv  occur  in 
the  apostolical  writings,  by  which  the  greatest 
violence  is  done  to  these  terms.  In  most  of  the 
passages  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which 
xaXftv  stands  without  any  further  qualification, 
it  signifies,  not  merely  to  offer  Christian  privi- 
leges to  any  one,  but  actually  to  impart  them. 
It  denotes  admission  into  the  Christian  church, 
and  the  enjoyment  of  Christian  rights.  K7n?fot 
are  those  who  have  not  only  received  an  invita- 
tion to  become  Christians,  but  are  real  Chris- 
tians, (such  as  are  admitted;)  and  x&qat;  is,  in 
general,  that  divine  favour  conferred  on  any  one 
by  which  God  counts  him  worthy  of  the  privi- 
leges of  Christianity.  It  is  therefore  frequently 
a  blessing  bestowed  only  upon  actual  Chris- 
tians. Kk^tftj  therefore  frequently  signifies  the 
particular  advantages  which  any  one  obtains  by 
means  of  Christianity.  Vide  Romans,  i.  7;  2 
Thess.  ii.  14;  2  Peter,  i.  3;  Eph.  iv.  4,  ejiTtt'j 
xXrjtffcof.  Heb.  iii.  1,  xhi-<u$  ETtorpavtoj,  &c. ; 
and  when  Christ  says,  Matt.  xx.  14,  many  are 
called,  (enjoy  the  advantages  of  Christian  in- 
struction,) few  belong  to  the  chosen,  (those  who 
are  truly  good  and  acceptable  to  God.) 

But  what  is  the  origin  of  this  use?  From  the 
ancient  use  of  the  words  sip  and  xateiv.  They 
were  used  to  denote  calling — i.  e.,  accepling,re- 
ceiving  ;  designing  or  nominating  any  one  to  a 
particular  service,  employment,  office,  privilege, 
&c.  Hence  it  was  said  of  priests  and  prophets 
whom  God  took  into  his  service,  that  they  were 
called;  and  so  of  Abraham,  whom  he  chose  to 
be  his  peculiar  friend;  and  of  the  Israelites, 
whom  he  received  and  selected  from  others,  as 
his  own  people — e.  g.,  Is.  xlviii.  12.  The 
particular  members  of  the  Christian  society  to 
whom  this  benefit  happened  are  called  xfaj'toi. 
Thus  Paul  uses  the  words  x^onj,  and  xate LV  of 
the  external  election  of  the  Israelites  to  be  the 
people  of  God,  Rom.  xi.  29,  and  ix.  11.  This 
phraseology  was  now  applied  to  Christians, 
denoting  partly  their  external  reception  in  the 
Christian  community,  (Rom.  ix.  24,)  and  partly 
all  the  advantages  and  blessings  which  they  re- 
ceive through  Christianity.  We  are  able,  there- 
fore, according  to  Morus,  to  distinguish  three 
different  uses  of  the  word  xatetv  in  the  New 
Testament,  when  it  is  used  in  reference  to  reli- 
gion— viz.,  (a)  to  admonish  or  counsel  any  one 
for  his  best  good ;  (6)  to  instruct  him  as  to  his 
welfare,  to  point  out  to  him  and  furnish  him  the 
means  of  attaining  it,  (faith  in  Christ,  which  is 
active  in  good  works ;)  (c)  to  offer  and  promise 
this  good  to  any  one.  So  in  the  parables  of 
Christ.  When,  therefore,  God  is  said  to  call 
any  one,  the  meaning  is,  in  the  theological 
sense,  that  he  teaches  him,  or  causes  him  to  be 


instructed  in  the  truths  of  salvation,  that  he  may 
embrace  them,  and  act  accordingly,  and  that  he 
promises  him  all  the  blessings  and  privileges 
connected  with  the  Christian  doctrine. 

(2)  The  method  best  adapted  to  the  nature 
of  the  subject  is  to  divide  all  which  God  does 
to  assist  us  in  obtaining  the  blessings  promised 
in  the  gospel  into  three  principal  classes — viz., 

FIRST.  The  first  divine  influences  are  in- 
tended to  communicate  to  man  the  knowledge 
of  the  truths  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  of 
the  blessedness  purchased  by  Christ  for  man- 
kind, (illuminatio,  in  the  wider  sense.)  This 
must  necessarily  come  first;  for  how  can  a  man 
be  disposed  to  desire  or  accept  a  divine  favour 
of  which  he  knows  nothing?  Paul  therefore 
says,  very  justly,  Rom.  x.  14,  "How  should 
they  serve  God  in  whom  they  do  not  believe  ? 
And  how  should  they  believe  in  him  of  whom 
they  know  nothing  (ov  ovx  rjxovaar}  1  And  how 
should  they  know  anything  of  him  without  be- 
ing instructed  ?"  By  this  instruction  man  be- 
comes acquainted  with  the  divine  decree,  (pre- 
destinatio,}  that  the  happiness  promised  through 
Christ  is  intended  even  for  him,  and  that  ho 
must  appropriate  it  to  himself;  that  Christ  has 
redeemed  him,  died  for  him ;  and  that  he  there- 
fore may  obtain  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  eter- 
nal salvation,  &c.  In  this  way  man  is  invited 
to  receive  and  obey  the  Christian  doctrine,  that 
his  heart  may  be  thus  disposed ;  and  this  is 
called  vocatio,  in  the  widest  sense. 

This  calling  is  sometimes  said  to  be  universal. 
If  by  this  is  meant  that  the  Christian  religion 
and  the  blessedness  attainable  by  it  is  actually 
offered  to  all,  and  that  all  have  opportunity  to 
become  acquainted  with  it,  and  that  those  who 
do  not  know  and  receive  it  can  blame  only 
themselves,  the  statement  is  false,  and  contrary 
to  historical  fact.  For  the  blessings  of  Chris- 
tianity are  not  published,  even  to  the  present 
day,  to  all  nations,  to  say  nothing  of  all  men ; 
because  God  must  know  that  at  present  all  are 
not  prepared  to  receive  these  blessings,  though 
doubtless  he  does  not  wholly  neglect  even  such, 
but  in  a  different  way  conducts  them  to  all  that 
happiness  of  which  they  are  capable,  and  will 
doubtless  continue  to  do  so  throughout  the  future 
world.  Vide  s.  121,  II.  Cf.  s.  88,  II. 

In  another  sense,  however,  this  gracious  call- 
ing is  truly  and  scripturally  said  to  be  univer- 
sal ;  in  the  sense,  namely,  («)  that  all  people 
and  individuals  have  free  access  to  the  grace  of 
God  in  Christ  as  soon  as  they  have  opportunity 
to  become  acquainted  with  it ;  and  (£)  that  every 
real  Christian,  without  exception,  may  enjoy  the 
whole  sum  of  blessedness  procured  by  Christ, 
by  complying  with  the  prescribed  conditions, 
(yttWij  xai  jUft'ttfota,  Art.  xi.) 

SECOND.  The  next  class  of  operations  go  to 
secure  our  actual  enjoyment  of  the  blessedness 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       453 


promised  us  and  procured  for  us  by  Christ. 
These  operations  take  effect  when  man  no 
longer  acts  in  opposition  to  the  knowledge 
which  his  understanding  has  received ;  but 
faithfully  complies  with  it,  follows  what  he 
knows  to  be  right,  and  allows  his  will  to  be 
governed  by  it;  so  that  his  knowledge  is  no 
longer  dead,  but  living.  It  is  in  fact  the  same 
divine  agency  which  enlightens  the  understand- 
ing and  renews  the  will.  Whatever  is  done  in 
the  understanding  has  the  renewal  of  the  will  for 
its  object,  and  is  for  this  end  effected.  This 
divine  agency  has  for  its  aim  the  production  of 
faith  and  repentance,  the  excitement  of  Chris- 
tian dispositions,  and  the  salutary  consequences 
thence  resulting ;  Rom.  v.  5,  rtvcv/ta  aytov ;  xiv. 
17,  bixaioavvrj,  fiprtvrj,  ^apa,  £v  TtvfVjUa-r't.  ayt-^. 
Tit.  iii.  4 — 7.  The  pouring  out  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is,  in  this  passage,  producing  and  com- 
municating the  Christian  temper  of  which  God 
is  the  author,  and  by  which  we  become  xtypovo- 
[toi  £co?;>$  aluvtov* 

This  is  calling  in  the  stricter  sense,  [or  effec- 
tual calling,]  and  regeneration  (convcrsio  transi- 
tiva)  in  the  theological  sense;  s.  126. 

When  any  one  feels  a  firm  and  lively  convic- 
tion of  the  truths  of  salvation  with  which  he  is 
acquainted,  God  grants  him  power  to  subdue  his 
sinful  desires,  and  cheerfully  to  obey  the  divine 
precepts.  Thus  (a)  the  internal  hindrances  to 
faith  and  repentance,  by  which  we  are  kept  from 
the  enjoyment  of  spiritual  happiness,  are  re- 
moved ;  and  ignorance,  error,  prejudice,  and  the 
prevailing  bias  to  sense,  are  weakened.  Vide 
Morus,  p.  226,  n.  1,  where  the  texts  of  scripture 
are  cited.  (6)  On  the  contrary,  man  is  led  by 
God  to  entertain  better  views,  is  inclined  to 
faith  and  repentance,  and  is  brought  into  a  state 
in  which  he  is  ready  and  able  to  repent  and  be- 
lieve. Both  of  these  particulars  are  comprised 
in  the  expression  of  Christ,  God  draws  (ehxvtiv') 
men  to  believe  in  him — i.  e.,  he  convinces  them, 
and  renders  them  disposed  to  this  duty,  John, 
vi.  44.  Vide  Morus,  p.  227,  Note  2. 

THIRD.  The  third  class  of  divine  operations 
relates  to  the  preservation  of  faith,  and  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  entire  happy  condition  resulting 
from  it.  Faith  is  saving  only  on  certain  condi- 
tions. These  are,  its  firmness,  growth,  and  in- 
crease, and  the  shewing  of  it  by  good  works, 
or  Christian  virtues.  Vide  s.  124,  IV.  This 
class  comprehends,  therefore,  (a)  those  divine 
operations  and  institutions  which  tend  to  in- 
crease our  knowledge  of  the  great  truths  of  sal- 
vation, and  perfect  our  acquaintance  with  them. 
The  state  resulting  from  these  influences  is 
commonly  called  illuminatio  regenitorum.  (6) 
Those  influences  by  which  the  Christian  is  ad- 
vanced in  holiness  and  fitted  for  the  practice  of 
Christian  virtue,  so  as  to  attain  a  habit  of  good- 
ness, (renovatio  and  sanctificatio,  in  the  theolo- 


gical sense;  s.  126.)  Both  of  these  influences 
are  noticed  2  Thess.  ii.  17,  0*6? — ot^pi'tca  fytoj 
iv  rtovT't  Xoy9  xai,  £py<£  ay  0,^9.  The  latter 
is  mentioned  1  Thess.  v.  23,  0*6? — dyiacrat  fytaj 
dtort&ftf.  Cf.  iii.  13. 

Note. — When  the  enlightening  of  the  mind 
into  the  knowledge  of  the  truths  of  salvation 
and  the  learning  of  these  truths  is  spoken  of,  it 
is  only  so  far  as  these  truths  are  practical,  and 
stand  in  connexion  with  the  plan  of  salvation 
(Art.  xi.),  and  so  have  an  influence  on  the  holi- 
ness or  moral  improvement  of  men.  These 
illuminating  divine  influences  are  not  intended 
to  convey  learned  theological  science  to  the 
mind,  or  to  teach  the  holy  scriptures  theoreti- 
cally. All  this  must  be  done  by  each  individual 
by  his  natural  efforts.  The  divine  influences 
are  directed  only  to  moral  ends,  producing  faith 
and  repentance,  and  renewing  the  heart.  It 
is  therefore  possible  for  an  unregenerate  and 
wicked  man,  who  has  not  therefore  experienced 
these  renewing  influences,  to  possess  a  funda- 
mental theoretic  knowledge  of  religion,  which 
he  may  have  acquired  by  his  own  diligence. 
And  if  he  is  a  teacher,  he  may  clearly  explain 
to  others  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  and  convince 
them,  and  thus  be  the  means  of  good.  Cf.  Phil, 
i.  16 — 18.  This  good,  however,  will  be  very 
much  prevented  by  the  fact  that  hearers  give 
much  more  regard  to  the  example  than  to  the 
doctrines  of  their  teacher,  and  that  what  does 
not  go  from  the  heart  does  not  commonly  reach 
the  heart.  Again ;  these  divine  influences  have 
different  degrees,  since  the  capacity  for  them 
is  different  in  different  men.  Vide  s.  124,  III. 

II.  The  Means  which  God  employs  in  producing 

these  effects. 

The  doctrine  of  the  protestant  church  has 
always  been,  that  God  does  not  act  immediately 
on  the  heart  in  conversion,  or,  in  other  words, 
that  he  does  not  produce  ideas  in  the  under- 
standing and  effects  in  the  will,  by  his  absolute 
divine  power,  without  the  employment  of  exter- 
nal means.  This  would  be  such  an  immediate 
illumination  and  conversion  as  fanatics  contend 
for,  who  regard  their  own  imaginations  and 
thoughts  as  effects  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Morus, 
p.  231,  note.  The  doctrine  of  the  protestant 
church  is,  that  God  exerts  these  reforming  in- 
fluences mediately  ,•  and  that  the  means  which 
he  employs  with  those  who  have  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, is  the  divine  doctrine  taught  in  them,  espe- 
cially the  truths  of  Christianity,  in  their  full  ex- 
tent, comprising  law  and  gospel,  (precept  and 
promise.}  On  this  subject,  cf.  s.  123,  III.  It 
is  only  through  the  medium  of  these  truths  that 
these  effects  are  produced,  and  not  in  a  direct 
manner. 

The  sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, are  enumerated  among  the  means  of  grace, 


464 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


and  are  so  called.  This  is  proper,  if  we  remem- 
ber that  these  sacraments  do  not  exert  an  in- 
fluence through  themselves  alone,  as  external 
rites  of  religion,  but  only  as  connected  with  the 
word  of  God,  or  so  far  as  the  truths  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  are  connected  with  them,  are  sen- 
sibly exhibited  and  impressively  set  forth  by 
them,  and  so  through  their  means  are  personally 
appropriated  by  men.  Everything  here  comes 
back  to  the  Word  of  God,  or  the  revealed  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  which  is  the  medium 
through  which  God  exerts  his  influence,  even 
in  the  sacraments, 

The  fact  that  God  exerts  these  influences  in 
the  conversion  of  men,  through  the  doctrines  of 
revelation,  is  established, 

(1)  By  such  passages  of  scripture  as  ex- 
pressly declare  that  faith,  repentance,  and  holi- 
ness, are  excited  and  produced  in  the  human 
heart  by  God,  through  the  influence  of  Christian 
truth;  as  2  Pet.  i.  3,  "The  divine  power  hath 
given  us,  by  means  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
(jbcvyvutf*;),  all  the  means  which  we  need  in 
order  to  live  piously  and  godly."     Rom.  x.  17, 
IS,  ^  TttWt?  E'£  axoqst  cf.  ver.  14.     James,  i.  18, 
«*  God  has  renewed  us  Aoyp  dx^Etaj."     Con- 
nect with  these  all  the  texts  in  which  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  is  compared  with  seed  sown  by 
God,  falling  upon  the  human  heart,  and  bear- 
ing fruit,  Luke,  viii.  11,  seq. ;   1  Pet.  i.  23, 
(Sttapd.     I  John,  iii.  9,  Grttppa,  Avtov  nivtt,  lv 
ovr>     1  Thess.  ii.  13;  2  Tim.  iii.  16;  John, 
viii.  31,  32. 

(2)  The  texts  which  declare  that  through  this 
divine  doctrine  Christians  are  brought  to  the  en- 
joyment of  blessedness,  and  are  preserved  in  it. 
John,  xvii.  17,  20 ;  2  Cor.  iii.  6,  rtvtvpa,  ^coortowt, 
1  Tim.  iv.  16,  "If  thou  rightly  teachest  the 
Christian  doctrine  azavtov  (tcxtus  xo,l  axovovtd$ 
0ov."     Ephes.  vi.  13 — 17,  where  it  is  shewn  in 
figures  that  by  the  right  use  of  the  Christian 
doctrine  one  may  advance  far  in  all  Christian 
virtues,  and  may  secure  himself  against  apos- 
tasy.    1  John,  v.  4,  "  By  your  faith  in  the  Son 
of  God  you  overcome  the  world."     James,  i. 
21,  the  Christian  doctrine  is  called  epfyvtos  Ao- 
yoj — i.  e.,  the  doctrine  implanted  in  Christians, 
in   which   they  are  instructed ;   as   Paul   uses 

,  1    Cor.  iii.  6,  seq.,  adding  8vvdpevos 
v%a.s  V/AUV.     Morus  cites  other  passages, 
p.  225,  s.  1,  note  1. 

Note. — It  has  become  common  in  theological 
schools  to  denominate  the  divine  doctrine,  the 
sum  of  which  is  contained  in  the  holy  scriptures, 
the  Word  of  God,  from  a  literal  translation  of 
OTiSs  -\iy,  /ji^a,  or  Aoyo$  ®tov,  or  Xptcrtov.  This 
term  denotes  the  declarations,  oracles,  revela- 
tions made  in  the  Bible,  and  hence  the  divine 
doctrine,  or  instruction  in  general,  as  Psalms 
cxix.,  civ.,  cv.,  &c.  Thus  in  the  New  Testa- 


ment the   Christian  doctrine  is    denominated 
simply  Aoyoj.     In  later  times  it  has   become 
common  to  call  the  Bible  itself,  considered  as  a 
book,  the  Word  of  God,  and  many  have  ascribed 
a  divine  and  supernatural  power  to  the  Bible  as 
a  book.     In  this  way  occasion  has  been  given 
to  the  mistake  of  ascribing  to  the  book,  as  such, 
what  belongs  to  the  truths  or  doctrines  contained 
in  it.     This  is  never  done  in  the  holy  scriptures 
themselves.     There  the  Word  of  God  is  the  di- 
vine doctrine  itself,  with  which  we  are  made 
acquainted  by  this  book,  but  which  can  be  effi- 
cacious without  the  book,  as  it  was  in  the  first 
ages  of  Christianity,  before  the  writings  com- 
posing the  New  Testament  were  written.     For! 
the  power  lies  not  in  the  book  itself,  but  pro-! 
perly  in  the  doctrine  which  is  contained  in  the) 
book.     Vide  Toellner,  Ueber  den  Unterschiedl 
der  heiligen  Schrift  und  des  Wortes  Gottes,  in 
his  "  Vermischten  Aufsatzen,"  2te  Samml.  s.j 
88,  f. 

SECTION  CXXXI. 

HOW  IS  THE  DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  THESE  GRACIOUS! 
RENEWING  INFLUENCES  PROVED  FROM  THE  HOLY  > 
SCRIPTURES?  AND  REMARKS  IN  EXPLANATION 
OF  THE  SCRIPTURAL  PHRASEOLOGY  ON  THIS 
SUBJECT. 

I.  Scriptural  Proof  of  the  Divine   Origin  of  the\ 
Influences  of  Grace. 

MANY  texts  are  frequently  cited  here  which  i 
do  not  belong  to  this  subject,  but  which  refer, 
only  to  miraculous  gifts,  which  the  apostles  andj 
some  of  the  first  Christians  received,  and  not) 
at  all  to  the  renewing  influences  which  are  im-j 
parted  to  all  Christians.  Such  are  1  Cor.  xv. 
10;  2  Cor.  iii.  18.  Still  there  are  many  texts! 
which  relate  directly  to  this  subject,  a  few  only! 
of  which  will  be  here  cited,  under  two  principal 
classes. 

(1)  The  texts  which  teach  that  God,  or,  what! 
is  the  same  thing,  the  Holy  Spirit,  works  by  hisi 
power  in  the  hearts  of  Christians,  1  Thess.  ii. 
13;  Ephes.  i.  19  ;  Rom.  viii.  1 — 6.  Hence  the 
whole  renewed  and  sanctified  state  of  the  true 
Christian  is  denominated  rcv^v^o,  and  ^poi^p* 
rtvsvpato$,  as  in  the  passages  cited.  Vide  s.| 
123,  II.  1,  and  s.  124,  II.  Through  this  influ-i 
ence,  the  flesh  or  sense  (^pov^ta  aopxo$,  crap£)j 
loses  its  dominion  over  reason,  and  the  will  is 
renewed ;  all  which  results  from  God,  or  from" 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  dwells  and  works  in  the, 
hearts  of  Christians. 

Now  in  the  same  way  as  the  influence  of  Godj 
or  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (fvfpyfia,  tvtpyti* 
takes  place  in  true  Christians,  the  sVf' 
Safava,  <japx6$,  x.  r.  k.,  works  in  unbelievers  and| 
sinners— e.  g.,  Ephes.  ii.  2;  cf.  i.  19,  20.  Fo 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       455 


is  Satan  is  regarded  and  described  as  the  author 
)f  evil  and  wickedness  in  depraved  and  unbeliev- 
ng  men,  so  is  God  the  author  of  goodness  and 
rirtue  in  enlightened  Christians.  So  Rom.  v. 
>;  Ephes.  iv.  30,  bvrtftv  rtvsv/jia  oiytov,  to  coun- 
eract  by  sin  his  salutary  influences. 

(2)  The  texts  in  which  all  the  specific  spiri- 
ual  benefits  which  Christians  enjoy  are  ascribed 
o  God,  or  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  author,  or 
fficient  cause.  There  is  not  one  among  all 
hese  benefits  which  is  not  somewhere  described 
I  as  produced  by  divine  influence.  Thus  (a)  in- 
struction in  Christianity  (illuminatio),  John,  vi. 
45,  65 ;  Ephes.  i.  17,  18,  "  God  gives  us  rtvsvpa 
oofyias  by  the  Christian  doctrine;"  1  Thess.  iv. 
9;  1  Cor.  xii.  3,  8.  (6)  Conversion  and/at^, 
and  the  entire  sum  of  Christian  blessedness 
(x^tftj),  Phil.  i.  6;  Ephes.  i.  11 ;  ii.  5,  10;  iii. 
16;  Acts,  xvi.  14  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  25.  (c)  The  ef- 
fects and  consequences  of  faith  ;  such  as  good  in- 
tentions^ readiness  to  good  works,  and  skill  in 
doing  them,  Ephes.  iii.  16 ;  2  Pet.  i.  3 ;  2  Thess. 
ii.  17;  Rom.  xv.  5.  Indeed,  the  very  execution 
of  our  good  purposes  is  represented  as  the  work 
of  the  Spirit,  1  Cor.  i.  8;  1  Pet.  v.  10;  Rom. 
viii.  13,  14;  ix.  1;  xiv.  7;  Phil.  ii.  12,  13, 
"  The  Christian  who  is  in  earnest  about  his  own 
salvation  should  exhibit  all  diligence  and  zeal ; 
and  yet  he  should  cast  himself  upon  the  divine 
guidance  and  assistance,  since  he  can  do  nothing 
of  himself.  For  it  was  God  who  had  awakened 
in  the  Philippians*(when  Paul  was  among  them) 
a  serious  desire  for  salvation,  and  who  aided  in 
the  execution  of  this  desire,  (although  Paul 
was  absent  from  them.)  And  this  he  did  vjtep 
tvooxias — i.  e.,  for  all  this  the  Philippians  were 
indebted  to  the  mere  mercy  of  God,  to  his  free, 
gracious  will." 

H.  Remarks  Explanatory  of  the  Scriptural  Phrase- 
ology on  this  subject. 

(1)  There  are  many  passages  in  the  Bible 
I  which,  taken  by  themselves,  appear  to  affirm  an 
I  immediate  influence  of  God  in  the  renewal  of 
men — an  influence,  therefore,  which  is  miracu- 
lous and  irresistible,  and  involving  an  exertion 
of  his  bare  omnipotence.  And  so  there  are  pas- 
sages, where,  on  the  other  hand,  it  seems  to  be 
taught,  that  God  denies  and  withholds  from  men 
the  means  for  their  improvement,  and  renders 
them  hard,  obdurate,  &c.  In  other  passages, 
however,  it  is  expressly  said  that  God  employs 
means,  and  that  these  are  accessible  to  all  men. 
Vide  s.  130,  II.  These  influences  are  described 
in  these  very  passages  as  resistible.  It  is  dis- 
tinctly taught  that  man  is  not  to  be  compelled; 
that  he  himself  must  not  be  inactive  about  his 
own  moral  welfare;  that  he  is  free  to  will  and 
choose  good  or  evil.  Hence  good  and  evil  ac- 
tions are  ascribed  to  man  himself,  and  considered 


as  imputable  to  him.  We  find  these  two  ways 
of  representing  this  subject  connected  together 
in  the  same  manner  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
in  other  ancient  writings— e.  g.,  those  of  the 
Arabians  and  Greeks.  Cf.  the  texts  cited  s. 
85,  II.  3.  According  to  these,  God  puts  good 
and  evil,  wisdom  and  folly,  into  the  hearts  of 
men,  and  is  the  author  both  of  their  prosperity 
and  their  overthrow.  And  yet,  according  to 
these  same  writers,  the  good  actions  of  men  are 
rewarded  by  God,  and  their  wicked  actions  pu- 
nished by  him,  as  their  own  actions  ;  whereas  if 
they  came  from  God,  they  would  not  be  imput- 
able to  those  by  whom  they  were  performed. 

(2)  Art  not  these  two  representations  really 
contradictory  ?  Such  they  may  appear  to  t/s, 
who  are  accustomed  to  different  distinctions  and 
expressions  from  those  which  were  formerly  com- 
mon respecting  divine  influences,  the  freedom  of 
the  human  will,  and  its  relation  to  Divine  Pro- 
vidence. Those  especially  who  are  scientifically 
educated  are  apt  to  bring  these  subjects  into  a 
philosophical  form,  and  to  express  them  in  scho- 
lastic terms.  Hence  in  modern  languages  we 
have  appropriate 'expressions  with  regard  to  free- 
dom, &c.,  even  in  common  discourse.  Such  was 
not  the  case  in  ancient  times.  And  for  this  rea- 
son we  frequently  find  difficulties  and  contradic- 
tions where  they  saw  none.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  ancient  world  acknowledged,  with  us,  that 
God  governs  everything,  and  that  nothing  can 
take  place  without  his  co-operation;  on  the 
other  hand,  they  knew  that  the  human  will 
must  at  the  same  time  remain  free,  because  the 
actions  of  men  would  otherwise  cease  to  be  their 
own  actions.  If  men  were  moved  like  machines, 
and  wrought  upon  like  statues,  their  actions 
could  not  be  imputed  to  them.  But  in  the  an- 
cient world,  the  means  by  which  God  acts  were 
not  always  so  carefully  distinguished  as  is  com- 
mon at  present.  And  even  when  these  means 
were  known,  they  were  more  seldom  mentioned. 
The  sacred  writers,  indeed,  well  understood 
them,  for  they  frequently  mention  them,  but  not 
in  every  case  distinctly.  Thus  it  happens  that 
many  things  were  generally  described  by  the  an- 
cients as  the  immediate  effects  of  divine  power, 
which  actually  took  place  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  means  which  were  either  unknown 
to  them,  or  which  they  left  unmentioned.  And 
so,  many  effects  of  the  divine  agency  which 
have  a  miraculous  aspect  were  really  produced 
by  natural  means.  To  those  who  are  unac- 
quainted with  the  ancient  phraseology,  the  de- 
scription given  of  those  effects  in  the  ancient 
manner  of  thinking  and  speaking  seems  to  im- 
ply that  God  brought  them  to  pass  by  an  imme- 
diate and  irresistible  agency.  Vide  s.  70,  Note 
ad  fin. 

Now  what  did  Augustine  and  his  followers 


456 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


do  1  They  took  only  one  class  of  these  texts, 
and  interpreted  them  as  they  would  the  lan- 
guage of  accurate  philosophers,  without  paying 
any  regard  to  the  extreme  simplicity  of  style  in 
which  the  Bible  was  written.  They  drew  con- 
clusions and  general  doctrines  from  these  texts, 
which  were  never  drawn  by  the  authors  them- 
selves from  these  premises;  and  all  this  from 
ignorance  of  the  ancient  manner  of  thinking  and 
speaking.  Vide  s.  85.  Illiterate  persons  have 
generally  understood  this  scriptural  phraseology 
better  than  others. 

From  these  passages,  Augustine  and  his  fol- 
lowers deduced  the  doctrine  of  the  irresistible 
grace  of  God  as  something  which  is  miraculous 
in  its  nature,  and  which,  according  to  his  uncon- 
ditional decree,  he  bestows  upon  some  menrand 
withholds  from  others.  Without  this  grace,  man 
could  not  recover  himself  to  holiness,  because, 
since  the  fall,  he  possesses  no  freedom  of  will  in 
spiritual  things.  Man  can  do  nothing  which  will 
contribute  to  this  end.  He  is  entirely  passive 
under  these  operations  of  grace.  Augustine  de- 
pended much  on  the  passage.  John,  vi.  44,  "  No 
man  can  come  to  me  unless  the  Father  draw 
him,"  (de  gratia  irresistibili  etparticulari.}  The 
meaning  of  this  passage  is,  "No  man  can  come 
to  me  unless  the  conviction  of  the  great  love  of 
the  Father  (in  giving  me  to  the  world  from 
love  to  it)  induces  him,  under  divine  guidance 
and  co-operation,  to  come  to  me,  and  believe  on 
me." 

Even  Origen  (rttpl  ap#wv,  iii.  19)  noticed  both 
these  classes  of  texts,  and  said  that  they  should 
not  be  separated,  but  taken  together,  that  they 
might  not  contradict  one  another,  and  that  one 
sense  might  be  deduced  from  them  both.  And 
in  fact,  the  two  things,  the  earnest  efforts  of  man 
and  the  assistance  of  God,  are  connected  in  the 
holy  scriptures.  Morus  therefore  observes,  very 
justly,  p.  225,  s.  1,  that  the  following  result  may 
be  deduced  from  the  various  texts  of  scripture 
taken  together : — "  God  leads  us,  by  means  of  his 
truth,  to  faith  and  repentance."  Truth  is  the 
means  which  God  employs  for  this  end.  So  the 
symbols  and  the  protestant  theologians.  Vide 
ubi  supra,  note  5. 

(3)  The  following  ideas,  though  variously  mo- 
dified, are  found  to  have  prevailed  generally  in 
the  ancient  world — viz.,  that  all  life,  activity,  and 
motion  throughout  the  universe,  proceed  from 
spirits  or  invisible  beings.  And  even  the  extra- 
ordinary and  unusual  mental  excitements,  the 
talents,  acquisitions,  courage,  and  magnanimity 
which  appear  among  men,  were  derived  from  the 
inspiration  of  higher  spirits,  and  viewed  in  con- 
nexion with  them.  They  believed,  too,  very 
generally,  in  evil  spirits,  to  whose  influences 
(under  the  divine  permission)  they  ascribed  the 
wicked  purposes,  the  errors,  faults,  and  calami- 


ties of  men.  Cf.  s.  58,  II.  With  this  mode  of 
representation  the  holy  scriptures  plainly  agree 
throughout.  Vide  the  article  on  the  Angels. 
They  however  take  no  part  in  the  superstitious 
notions  which  heathen  antiquity,  and  even  the 
great  mass  of  the  Jews,  connected  with  this  re- 
presentation. From  all  these  they  keep  aloof. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Bible  is  equally  far 
from  agreeing  with  that  modern  mechanical 
philosophy  which  tends  to  set  aside  the  influ- 
ence of  spiritual  beings,  and,  as  far  as  possible, 
that  of  God  himself.  According  to  the  Bible, 
there  are  good  and  evil  spirits,  which  in  various 
ways  operate  on  the  earth  and  on  man.  But 
there  is  especially  a  divine  Spirit  (trnjp  nn),  in 
an  eminent  sense,  which  operates  in  and  upon 
true  Christians,  as  it  did  in  the  times  of  the  Old 
Testament  upon  the  Israelites.  Christians  are 
indebted  to  Christ  for  this  Spirit,  whence  he  is 
called  Tivtv/j-a  Xpt^or,  the  Paradetus,  the  coun- 
sellor of  the  pious,  whom  Christ  sends  in  his 
own  stead  from  the  Father,  John,  xv.  16.  As' 
soon  as  any  one  believes  in  Christ,  this  divine 
Spirit  begins  to  influence  his  heart,  and,  as  it 
were,  to  dwell  with  him.  And  all  the  good 
which  such  an  one  now  thinks  or  does — hia 
knowledge,  his  holiness  and  happiness — he 
owes  solely  to  him.  He  it  is  whom  Christ 
truly  enlightens  in  his  understanding  and  guides 
into  all  the  truth.  Nor  can  he  accomplish  any- 
thing good  without  his  agency.  He  does  not, 
however,  exert  his  influence  upon  all  in  the  same 
manner.  He  renews  the  heart  and  all  the  dis- 
positions of  every  true  Christian  (dona  spiritus 
sancti  ordinaria) ;  but  upon  some  in  the  first 
Christian  church  he  exerted  a  peculiar  agency, 
enduing  them  with  the  gifts  of  teaching,  of 
working  miracles,  &c.  (dona  extraor dinar ia.} 
Cf.  i  Cor.  xii.  4—11,  also  s.  39,  coll.  s.  19,  II., 
and  s.  9,  III.,  IV. 

To  the  great  bulk  of  mankind,  who  are  unac- 
customed to  the  arbitrary  and  mechanical  philo- 
sophy of  the  schools,  and  who  are  unperverted 
by  it,  this  simple  and  truly  animating  represen- 
tation, which  is  everywhere  given  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  more  intelligible,  clear,  and  con- 
soling, and  has  more  influence  on  their  heart, 
and  is  more  conducive  to  their  moral  improve- 
ment, than  all  the  philosophical  and  metaphysical  j 
reasonings  on  Divine  Providence  and  co-opera- 
tion, how  deep  soever  they  may  apparently  be. 

(4)  The  uniform  doctrine  of  the  holy  scrip- 
tures is,  therefore,  that  God  effects  the  moral 
change  and  renovation  of  the  human  heart,  not , 
immediately,  but  mediately,  and  that  the  means  | 
which  he  employs  is  the  Christian  doctrine  in  all  i 
its  extent,  its  doctrines,  precepts,  and  promises.  • 
Vide  No.  2,  ad   finem.     But  the   Bible   also  ' 
teaches,  that  the  cause  of  the  effect  which  is 
produced  by  this  divine  doctrine  lies  not  merely 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       457 


in  the  power  and  weight  of  the  arguments  by 
which  Christianity  is  proved,  or  of  the  truths 
which  it  exhibits,  but  principally  in  the  power 
and  agency  of  God,  who,  by  means  of  this  doc- 
trine, acts  in  the  souls  of  men.  Theologians 
say,  "Divina  efficientia  a  doctrina  ipsa,  ejusque  vi 
et  efficacia  discernitur"  This  clearly  appears 
from  the  passages  before  cited,  especially  from 
1  Cor.  iii.  6,  7;  Phil,  ii,  12,  13;  2  Thess.  ii. 
15—17;  i.  11;  Ephes.  i.  16—20;  iii.  16—20; 
1  Pet.  i.  15;  Acts,  xvi.  14,  and  many  of  the 
discourses  of  Jesus,  especially  those  recorded  in 
John — e.  g.,  iii.  13—17,  &c. 

This  now  entirely  agrees  with  the  promise  of 
Christ,  (a)  that  after  his  departure  from  the 
earth  he  would  support  by  his  constant  and  spe- 
cial assistance  all  those  who  should  believe  on 
him,  even  to  the  end  of  life;  and  (6)  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  God  should  always  work  among 
them,  through  the  Christian  doctrine.  This  the 
apostles  everywhere  repeat.  And  so  they  de- 
scribe the  whole  moral  renovation  and  perfection 
of  man  as  the  work  of  God,  or  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  Ephes.  i.  19;  James,  i.  5,  18;  where, 
however,  this  work  is  said  to  be  accomplished 

taf,  iii.  17,  seq. ;  Heb.  xiii.  20,  21. 
When  this  doctrine  is  rightly  understood— 
(i.  e,,  in  such  a  way  that  human  freedom,  or 
the  moral  nature  of  man,  is  not  violated)— 
sound  reason  cannot  object  to  it.  For  it  affirms 
no  new  revelations  or  irresistible  influences. 
The  manner,  however,  in  which  this  influence 
is  exerted  cannot  be  understood  by  reason,  be- 
cause the  subject  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  things 
above  sense.  This  we  are  taught  by  Christ 
and  the  apostles.  When  Christ  (John,  iii.) 
had  told  Nicodemus  that  the  Holy  Spirit  effects 
a  moral  regeneration  in  men,  the  latter  thought 
the  doctrine  incredible,  and  was  unwilling  to 
believe  it.  Christ  replied,  (ver.  8,)  that  it 
would  be  unreasonable  to  consent  to  believe 
only  what  is  directly  perceived  by  the  external 
senses,  and  the  whole  manner  of  whose  exist- 
ence and  operation  we  could  see,  as  it  were, 
with  our  own  eyes.  He  illustrates  this  by  a 
comparison  with  the  wind,  which  we  cannot 
see  and  follow  with  our  eyes,  but  of  whose  ac- 
tual existence  we  may  be  convinced  by  its  ef- 
fects ;  as,  for  example,  by  the  sound  which  it 
makes.  And  such  is  the  fact  here.  And  there 
are  a  number  of  important  passages  of  the  same 
import,  in  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
chap.  i. — iii.,  and  especially  ii.  14.  Cf.  Morus, 
p.  237.  Here  $v%ixb$  av>pwrto$  is  not  the  natu- 
ral man,  for  which  <j>vcrixd?  would  be  the  word; 
but  the  carnal  man — i.  e.,  (where  objects  of 
knowledge  are  spoken  of,)  one  who  will  ac- 
knowledge and  receive  in  religious  matters  no 
higher  divine  instruction  and  guidance,  who 
will  believe  nothing  but  what  he  perceives  by 
58 


his  external  senses,  (crapsetxoj,)  one  who  has  no 
perception  of  the  truths  revealed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  (tan  'fov  rtvsvfia.'tos  aytoin)  No  wonder, 
therefore,  that  he  does  not  yield  his  assent  to 
these  truths,  and  that  they  even  appear  foolish- 
ness (juwpttt)  to  him.  For  such  doctrines  require 
to  be  differently  discerned  from  those  which  are 
merely  of  human  discovery ;  they  must  be  dis- 
cerned TCvsvpaaixus.  We  reject  human  doc- 
trines, or  renounce  them,  when  they  do  not  in- 
struct or  satisfy  us.  But  since  God  cannot  err, 
the  truths  which  he  has  revealed,  and  which  we 
know  from  our  own  convictions  to  be  such, 
may  not  be  judged  of  by  us  in  the  same  man- 
ner. We  are  not  at  liberty  to  oppose  or  re- 
nounce them  because  they  may  chance  to  be 
displeasing  to  us,  or  because  they  may  be  hard 
and  unintelligible. 

(5)  But  the  scriptural  views  of  the  agency  of 
God  in  producing  the  moral  renovation  of  man, 
when  carefully  examined,  are  by  no  means  in- 
consistent with  the  philosophy  of  the  day. 
They  agree  in  all  essential  points  with  the  doc- 
trine which  is  confirmed  by  experience  and 
reason,  respecting  the  providence  and  agency 
of  God.  For  (a)  all  ability  and  power  which 
man  possesses  for  perceiving  the  truth,  and  for 
choosing  either  good  or  evil,  is  derived  solely 
from  God.  (i)  But  God  must  also  concur  by 
his  agency  in  the  use  and  exercise  of  these 
powers,  and  preserve  them  to  us  in  the  moment 
of  action.  Vide  s.  69.  (c)  We  owe  it  to  God, 
too,  that  we  have  opportunities  to  exert  our  fa- 
culties, and  objects  about  which  we  may  em- 
ploy them.  Through  the  divine  ordering  and 
government,  we  have  teachers,  and  all  the  other 
internal  and  external  assistances  for  acquiring 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  for  making  progress 
in  goodness.  If  we  are  deprived  of  these  aids, 
we  are  not  in  a  case  either  to  understand  the 
truth,  to  practise  virtue,  or  to  do  anything  great 
and  useful.  Vide  s.  70.  Everything  from 
without  which  contributes  to  our  moral  good  is 
ordered  by  Divine  Providence  and  is  employed 
by  God  for  the  promotion  of  his  designs ;  so 
that  to  him  alone  are  we  indebted  not  only  for 
all  temporal,  but  also  for  all  spiritual  good ; 
although  by  all  this  our  freedom  of  will  is  not 
n  the  least  impaired.  Vide  s.  70, 1.  But  being 
unable  to  fathom  or  comprehend  the  manner  of 
the  divine  government,  we  cannot  presume  to 
determine  positively  how  God  can  or  must  con- 
rol  us,  and  in  what  way  he  may,  or  may  not, 
exert  an  agency  in  promoting  our  moral  improve- 
ment. On  this  subject  we  must  confine  our- 
selves wholly  to  experience,)  and  especially  to 
the  instructions  of  the  holy  scriptures,  if  we 
nake  them  the  ground  of  our  knowledge.  Nor 
must  we  renounce  this  doctrine  because  we  can- 
not understand  the  internal  modus  of  it. 
2Q 


458 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


SECTION  CXXXII. 


A  SKETCH  OF  SOME  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  THEORIES 
RESPECTING  THE  OPERATIONS  OF  GRACE,  AND 
THE  FREEDOM  (OR  ABILITY)  OF  MAN  IN  SPI- 
RITUAL THINGS  J  AND  THE  CONTROVERSIES  ON 
THIS  SUBJECT  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

I.  Opinions  of  the  early  Greek  Fathers. 

IN  the  earliest  ages,  shortly  after  the  time  of 
the  apostles,  there  was  no  controversy  on  this 
subject,  as  Augustine  himself  acknowledges. 
In  the  exhibition  of  this  doctrine  most  of  the 
first  teachers  contented  themselves  with  that 
simplicity  which  prevails  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. They  so  express  themselves,  that  while 
they  affirm,  on  one  side,  that  man  receives  as- 
sistance (auxilia)  from  divine  grace,  they  still 
allow  to  him,  on  the  other  side,  freedom  of  ac- 
tion. Nothing  was  said  from  the  first  to  the 
third  century  about  irresistible  grace.  Vide  s. 
79,  in  the  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  Original 
Sin.  So  Irenaeus  says  in  many  passages,  "  that 
God  compels  no  man ;  that  we  are  free,  and  can 
choose  good  or  evil."  Clement  of  Alexandria 
says,  "  that  God  indeed  guides,  but  never  binds 
our  free  wills ;  and  that  hence  to  believe  and  to 
obey  is  in  man's  power."  In  the  third  century, 
Origen  expressed  his  opinion  still  more  defi- 
nitely than  the  fathers  who  had  preceded  him. 
In  his  work  ritpi  dp^wv,  (1.  iii.  c.  I.)  he  says, 
we  are  indebted  for  faith  to  God  alone.  He 
gave  us  the  means  of  faith.  From  him  come 
both  the  faculties  which  man  has  of  doing  right, 
and  the  preservation  of  these  faculties.  But 
the  use  of  these  faculties  bestowed  upon  us  de- 
pends upon  ourselves.  When  therefore  in  some 
passages  of  the  New  Testament  the  improvement 
of  man  is  ascribed  solely  to  God,  and  in  others 
to  man  himself,  there  is  no  contradiction.  For 
even  that  which  depends  upon  our  own  free  will 
cannot  take  place  without  the  divine  assistance ; 
and  God  does  not  work  in  us  without  our  own 
co-operation.  For  he  does  not  bind  the  free 
human  will.  With  these  sentiments,  Athana- 
sius,  Basilius  the  Great,  Chrysostom,  and  other 
fathers  of  the  Greek  church,  perfectly  agree. 

[Note. — The  early  Greek  fathers  were  led  to 
insist  thus  strongly  upon  avtt^ovGiov,  iMt$epfcMt 
rtpocupftHv,  (the.  self-determination,  freedom  of  the 
will,)  by  standing  in  immediate  conflict  with 
the  views  of  man  prevailing  throughout  the  hea- 
then world,  and  especially  among  the  contem- 
porary Gnostic  sects.  Before  Christianity  was 
promulgated,  it  had  become  almost  universal  to 
regard  man  as  acting  under  the  same  necessity 
to  which  material  nature  is  subjected.  Evil 
was  supposed  either  to  belong  to  matter,  and  to 
be  inherent  in  the  human  organization,  or  to  re- 
sult from  an  irresistible  fate  and  necessity. 
Thus  the  free  and  accountable  agency  of  man 


was  theoretically  obscured,  and  practically  also, 
as  far  as  the  image  of  God,  which  is  never 
wholly  effaced,  can  be  obscured  by  theoretic 
error  and  moral  corruption. 

The  publication  of  Christianity  cast  new  light 
upon  the  condition  and  relations  of  man.  While, 
by  revealing  a  remedy,  it  implied  his  helpless- 
ness and  need,  on  the  other  hand,  by  offering 
pardon,  it  implied  his  guilt  and  exposure  to  pu- 
nishment, and  by  appealing  to  the  divine  por- 
tion in  man  it  awakened  him  from  his  apathy 
as  to  moral  obligation  and  effort.  The  whole 
nature  of  the  Christian  remedy,  consisting  not 
of  magical  or  physical  influences — which  would 
have  been  requisite  had  man  been  under  a  na- 
tural necessity  of  sinning — but  of  moral  means, 
calling  our  moral  faculties  into  exercise,  con- 
tained an  implied  contradiction  to  the  pagan  and 
Manichean  philosophy,  and  struck  at  the  root 
of  every  view  which  derives  evil  from  a  neces- 
sity of  nature  rather  than  from  the  perverted  use 
of  our  moral  powers. 

From  these  considerations  it  may  be  explain-' 
ed  that  the  early  Greek  fathers  should  have  in- 
sisted so  disproportionately  upon  the  freedom 
of  the  human  will,  though  they  by  no  means 
went  into  the  Pelagian  excess  of  ascribing  to  it 
an  independency  on  divine  grace.  Had  they 
been  placed  in  as  immediate  contact  with  the 
stoical  or  pharisaical  doctrine  of  human  self-suf- 
ficiency, as  with  the  Pagan  and  Gnostic  idea  of 
natural  necessity,  they  would,  doubtless,  have 
given  to  man's  inability  and  dependence  on 
God  that  place  which  human  freedom  and  power 
now  hold  in  their  system. 

As  it  was,  the  excess  to  which  the  Greek 
fathers  carried  this  point  laid  the  foundation  for 
the  divergency  between  the  Eastern  and  West- 
ern churches,  which  will  appear  in  the  sequel 
of  this  sketch. 

With  regard  to  the  anthropological  views  of 
the  Greek  fathers  of  this  period,  cf.  Neander, 
Kirchengeschichte,  b.  i.,  Abth.  iii.  s.  1049 — 
1060 TR.] 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      459 


natural  powers  of  men,)  De  Anirna,  c.  21.  He, 
however,  allows  to  man  Libert  arbitrii  put  estate  rn. 
Cyprian,  in  the  third  century,  comes  still  nearer 
to  the  opinions  of  Augustine.  And  indeed 
there  must  have  been  many  in  Africa  before 
and  at  the  time  of  Augustine  who  held  the  es- 
sentials of  his  system. 

This  induced  Pelagius,  (who  was  a  native  of 
Britain,  but  who  was  extensively  read  in  the 
works  of  the  Greek  fathers,)  in  the  beginning 
of  the  fifth  century,  to  analyze  and  collate  the 
doctrines  of  the  Greek  fathers,  and  especially 
of  Origen,  and  to  draw  consequences  from  them 
which  they  themselves  had  not  authorized.  He 
taught  that  three  things  should  be  distinguished 
in  man,  the  posse,  velle,  and  agere.  For  the 
faculty  or  power  to  do  good  men  are  indebted 
to  God  alone  (gratise),  who  had  granted  it  to 
human  nature.  To  will  and  to  act  depends  upon 
man  himself.  Still  men  are  so  assisted  by  the 
grace  of  God  that  their  willing  and  acting  is 
facilitated.  But  the  means  which  God  makes 
use  of  in  affording  his  aid  are  doctrina  and  reve- 
latio.  He  made  this  last  point  more  prominent 
than  any  of  the  teachers  who  had  preceded 
him  ;  and  this  was  well.  But  in  other  points 
he  deviated  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible — 
viz.,  (a)  by  denying  natural  depravity  ,•  (6)  by 
deriving  our  ability  to  do  good  solely  or  princi- 
pally from  the  power  with  which  our  nature 
was  originally  endowed  by  God;  (c)  and  by 
allowing  to  God  no  real  instrumentality  in  the 
conversion  and  sanctification  of  men.  Accord- 
ing to  this  system,  God  works  only  by  means 
of  the  Christian  doctrine — i.  e.,  he  is  the  author 
of  this  doctrine,  which  contains  more  powerful 
motives  than  any  other. 

Against  this  system  Augustine  contended.  In 
Africa,  councils  were  held  in  opposition  to  Pe- 
lagius, in  which  his  doctrine  was  condemned. 
The  Christians  of  the  Eastern  church,  of  Pales- 
tine and  elsewhere,  did  not,  however,  assent  to 
this  decision;  and  the  same  is  true  of  many  in 
the  Latin  churches  beyond  the  bounds  of  Africa, 
and  at  first  even  of  the  Roman  bishop  himself. 
This  was  owing,  partly  to  the  extravagant  zeal 
of  Augustine,  and  to  the  mixture  of  many  erro- 
neous opinions  in  his  system;  and  partly  to  the 
guarded  and  ambiguous  phraseology  of  Pela- 
gius, by  which  he  concealed  his  departures 
from  the  scriptural  doctrine.  But  at  length 
Augustine  succeeded  so  far  in  his  efforts,  that 
the  doctrine  of  Pelagius  was  condemned,  and 
the  condemnation  confirmed  by  the  Emperor. 
And  thus  the  theory  of  Augustine  obtained  the 
predominance,  at  least  in  the  West. 

III.  Augustine's  Doctrine  respecting  Grace. 
(1)   He  held  that  human  nature  is  so  de- 
praved (s.  79)  that  it  no  longer  possesses  free- 
dom of  will  in  spiritual  things  (carere  libero 


arbitrio  in  spiritualibus] — i.  e.,  is  unable  to  un- 
derstand spiritual  things,  (the  truths  of  salva- 
tion contained  in  the  scriptures,)  or  to  act  con- 
formably with  them,  without  the  divine  instruc- 
tions contained  in  the  scriptures,  and  the  gracious 
assistance  of  God,  although  he  may  possess  free- 
dom in  natural  things  (liberum  arbitrium  kabere 
in  naturalibus) — i.  e.,  he  may  learn  God  from 
nature  and  reason,  and  fulfil  many  of  his  duties. 
The  Bible,  too,  teaches  that  the  wicked  come 
at  length  to  such  a  habit  of  sinning  that  they 
become  the  slaves  of  sin,  (John,  viii.  32,  36; 
Rom.  vii.  23,)  and  that  they  can  be  delivered 
from  this  slavery  only  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ 
and  by  divine  assistance.  Since  now  Augus- 
tine was  led,  by  opposition  to  Pelagius,  to  ex- 
aggerate the  doctrine  of  natural  depravity,  (vide 
s.  79,  80,)  he  represented  the  assistance  afford- 
ed by  God  in  the  improvement  of  man  as  truly 
compulsory,  and  of  such  a  nature  as  to  infringe 
upon  human  freedom.  The  ancient  fathers,  on 
the  other  hand,  held  to  to  avts^ovaiov,  under- 
standing by  this  term,  or  the  term  liberum  arbi- 
trium, (which  Tertullian  first  borrowed  from  a 
term  in  Roman  law,)  the  power  of  man  to 
choose  good  or  evil  freely  and  without  compul- 
sion. This  view  was  universally  held  in  the 
East,  and  in  the  West,  too,  before  the  Pelagian 
controversies. 

(2)  Augustine  made  a  careful  distinction  be- 
tween nature  and  grace.     Vide  s.  129,  II.,  and 
Morus,  p.  234,  note  2.     Grace  alone  can  renew 
man;   he  can  do  nothing  for  this  end  by  the 
powers  of  mere  nature.   And  it  is  true,  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  according  to  the  Bible,  that  man 
alone  cannot  deliver  himself;  that  by  his  own  un- 
aided powers  he  cannot  renew  himself.     But  Au- 
gustine went  further  than  this,  and  the  additions 
which  he  made  are  not  scriptural.     Man,  he 
said,  can  do  nothing  which  will  at  all  contribute 
to  his  spiritual  recovery.     He  is  like  a  lump 
of  clay,  or  a  statue,  without  life  or  activity. 
Hence,  he  denied  virtue  and  salvation  to  the 
heathen,  and  to  all  who  are  not  enlightened  by 
grace.     Vide  s.  121. 

(3)  This  divine  grace,  which  alone  is  able  to 
renew  the  heart,  is  described  by  Augustine  as 
efficax  and  sufficiens — i.  e.,  alone  sufficient  to 
overcome  the  power  of  sin,  (in  which  Augus- 
tine was  right,)  and  also  as  irresistibilis.     For 
he  conceived  grace  to  be  the  direct  operation  of 
divine    omnipotence,   acting    in  a  miraculous 
manner,  qua  voluntatem  hominum  indeclinabili 
vi  ad  bona  trahat. 

(4)  Augustine  made  a  threefold  division  of 
grace,  founded  on  the  doctrine  which  he  held  in 
opposition  to  Pelagius,  that  to  will,  to  be  able, 
and  to  perform,  depend  solely  on  divine  grace — 
viz.,  (et)  gratia  excitans  or  incipiens,  that  grace 
which  renders  the  human  will  inclined  to  faith, 
excites  good  emotions,  and  produces  the  begin- 


4GO 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


nings  of  faith.  Other  names  given  to  this  in- 
cipient grace  are,  prseveniens,  puhans,  tiahens, 
vocans,  prseparans.  (6)  Operans  or  efficiens,  that 
grace  which  imparts  faith  and  new  spiritual 
powers  for  the  performance  of  duty.  God  pro- 
duces good  desires  and  determinations  in  man 
by  the  truths  of  the  Christian  religion,  (c)  Co- 
operans,  perficiens,  or  assistant,  that  by  which 
the  believer  is  assisted  after  his  conversion,  so 
that  he  will  be  able  to  perform  good  works,  and 
to  persevere  in  faith. 

Augustine  differed  from  all  the  theologians 
who  had  preceded  him,  in  teaching  that  grace 
anticipated  the  human  will,  (prsevenire  volunta- 
tem.)  This  may  be  understood  in  a  very  just 
and  scriptural  sense.  But  Augustine  meant  by 
it  nothing  less  than  that  the  first  good  desires 
and  determinations  to  amend  are  miraculously 
produced,  or  infused  into  the  heart  by  divine 
grace;  whereas  the  earlier  theologians  had  uni- 
formly taught  that  God  gives  man,  in  the  use 
of  means,  opportunity  to  repent,  and  that  he 
guides  and  assists  in  this  work  by  his  own 
agency;  but  that  man  himself  must  be  active, 
and  must  form  the  resolution  to  repent,  and 
have  a  disposition  to  do  so ;  in  which  case  di- 
vine mercy  will  come  to  his  relief,  (quod  volun- 
tas  hominum  prasveniat  auxilia  gratix.)  To  this 
view,  however,  Augustine  could  not  consent, 
because  he  denied  all  power  to  the  human  will. 
In  this  work,  man,  in  his  view,  is  entirely  pas- 
sive. But  many  of  his  followers  in  the  West 
differed  from  him  in  this  particular,  and  adhered 
to  the  more  ancient  representation.  Afterwards 
they  were  frequently  numbered  with  the  Semi- 
Pelagians,  and  in  the  sixth  century  their  doc- 
trine was  condemned. 

(5)  With  respect  to  the  manner  in  which 
saving  grace  operates,  Augustine  believed  that 
in  the  case  of  those  who  enjoy  revelation,  grace 
commonly  acts  by  means  of  the  word,  or  the 
divine  doctrine,  but  sometimes  directly,  because 
God  is  not  confined  to  the  use  of  means.     On 
this  point  there  was  great  logomachy.     Real 
conversions,  even  in  such  extraordinary  cases 
as  that  of  Paul,  are  effected  by  the  word  of  God, 
and  the  believing  reception  of  it;  although  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  word  is  brought 
home  to  the  heart  may  be  extraordinary. 

(6)  Augustine  connected  all  these  doctrines 
with  his  theory  respecting  the  unconditional  de- 
cree of  God;  respecting  which  vide  s.  32.     He 
taught  that  the  anticipating  and  efficient  grace 
of  God  depend  not  at  all  upon  man  and  his 
worthiness,  (susceptibility,)  but  solely  on  the 
decree  of  God.    God,  according  to  his  own  will, 
elected  some,  from  all  eternity,  from  the  whole 
mass  of  mankind,  in  order  to  make  them  vessels 
of  mercy,  (susceptible  of  his  grace ;)  while  from 
others  he  withholds  this  renovating  grace,  that 
they  may  be  vessels  of  wrath.     He  imparts,  in- 


deed, to  all  the  anticipating  grace;  but  efficient 
grace  only  to  a  few — viz.,  the  elect.  Of  this 
procedure  none  can  complain;  for  God  is  not 
bound  to  bestow  his  grace  upon  any.  Thus  the 
efficacy  (efficacia)  of  grace  on  the  heart  is  made 
by  him  to  depend  on  the  unconditional  decree 
of  God,  (ab  electione  Dei,~)  and  also  the  opposi- 
tion (resistentid)  of  men :  the  latter  on  the  de- 
cretum  reprobationis.  For  God  does  not  will  to 
exert  the  whole  power  of  his  grace  upon  the 
heart  of  those  who  prove  reprobate.  Why  he 
does  not  we  are  unable  to  determine;  this  is 
one  of  the  unfathomable  mysteries  of  the  divine 
decrees.  Such  doctrines  as  these  are  distinctly 
expressed  in  many  of  the  writings  of  Augus- 
tine,— as  in  his  work,  De  predestinations  Sanc- 
torum. He  is  not,  however,  at  all  times  con- 
sistent with  himself;  and  feeling  how  hard  his 
doctrine  is,  sometimes  expresses  himself  less  se- 
verely. [For  a  more  complete  view  of  the  sys- 
tem of  Augustine,  cf.  the  Jan.  No.  of  Bib.  Repo- 
sitory, for  1833,  Art.  Augustine  and  Pelagius.] 

IV.  Controversies  on  Particular  Points  in  the 
Augustinian  System. 

The  system  of  Augustine  respecting  grace 
was,  taken  as  a  whole,  made  fundamental  in 
the  Western  church  in  the  ages  succeeding  his. 
Some  adopted  it  entire,  others  only  in  part; 
most,  however,  dissented  from  it  in  some  parti- 
culars, and  lowered  it  down,  so  to  speak.  They 
retained  many  of  his  terms, -but  employed  them 
in  a  more  just  and  scriptural  sense.  Others,  on 
the  contrary,  adopted  the  system  of  Pelagius,  or 
endeavoured  to  compose  a  new  system  by  com- 
bining his  opinions  with  those  of  Augustine. 
The  principal  points  on  which  a  difference  of 
opinion  existed  in  the  Latin  church  were  the 
following — viz., 

(1)  The  doctrine  of  predestination.  Although 
Augustine  believed  in  unconditional  decrees, 
this  doctrine  never  became  universal  in  the 
Latin  church.  Most  of  the  members  of  this 
church,  until  the  ninth  century,  held  only  to 
those  passages  in  his  works  in  which  he  ex- 
pressed himself  with  less  rigour.  But  in  the 
ninth  century,  when  Gottschalk  began  to  advo- 
cate unconditional  decrees  strenuously,  a  vehe- 
ment controversy  arose.  Vide  s.  32,  note.  His 
principal  opponents  were  Rabanus  Maurus, 
Hinkmar,  and  others,  who  justly  derived  pre- 
destination from  God's  foreknowledge  of  the 
free  actions  of  men.  In  this  opinion  they  had 
many  followers,  though  a  large  number  still 
adopted  the  theory  of  Augustine,  after  mode- 
rating and  modifying  it  in  various  ways.  To 
this  party  Peter  of  Lombardy  and  other  school- 
men belonged.  Luther  and  Melancthon  (as 
well  as  Calvin  and  Beza)  were  at  first  strong1 
Augustinians;  but  they  afterwards  abandoned 
his  doctrine  of  predestination,  while  Calvin  and 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       461 


Beza  still  adhered  to  it,  and  made  it  a  doctrine 
of  their  church.  Vide  the  sections  above  cited. 
Between  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centu- 
ries the  most  violent  controversies  on  this  sub- 
ject raged  in  the  Romish  church,  between  the 
Jansenists,  who  were  zealous  Augustinians, 
and  the  Jesuits  in  the  Netherlands  and  France. 
The  latter  agreed  very  nearly  in  sentiment  with 
Rabanus,  and  had  many  supporters. 

(2)  The  doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  the  human 
will  and  its  relation  to  the  operations  of  grace. 
On  this  subject  there  are  three  principal  systems. 

First.  The  Jlugustinian,  which  allows  to 
man  no  freedom  of  will  in  spiritual  things,  ac- 
cording to  the  statement  above  made ;  No.  iii. 
The  strenuous  adherents  of  Augustine  above 
named  entirely  agreed  with  him  in  this  particu- 
lar; and  the  doctrine  of  the  entire  inability  of 
man  in  spiritual  things,  in  the  sense  of  Augus- 
tine, was  zealously  advocated  by  the  Domini- 
cans, who  in  this  followed  Thomas  Aquinas. 
Out  of  this  arose  the  violent  controversy  which 
prevailed  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies, de  auxiliis  gratiae,  between  the  Domini- 
cans and  Netherland  theologians  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  Jesuits  and  their  adherents  on  the 
other,  and  afterwards,  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  between  the  Jesuits  and 
Jansenists.  Luther,  with  Carlstadt  and  some 
others  of  his  coadjutors,  belonged  at  first  to  this 
high  party.  The  former  defended  this  doctrine 
in  his  book,  De  servo  arbitrio,  against  Erasmus. 
Afterwards,  however,  his  views  became  very 
much  more  moderate,  and  he  retained  but  little 
more  of  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  than  the 
terms  in  which  it  was  expressed.  He  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  large  number  of  the  theologians  of 
his  church. 

Secondly.  The  scholastic  system.  Most  of  the 
schoolmen  endeavoured  to  moderate  the  theory 
of  Augustine.  They  taught  that  grace  is  indeed 
powerful  and  efficacious,  but  that  man  is  not 
compelled  by  it,  and  can  resist  it.  The  assent 
of  the  human  will  must  accompany  grace,  with- 
out which  it  is  inefficacious.  They  allowed, 
therefore,  the  freedom  of  the  will  in  a  certain 
sense.  They  held  that  the  will  of  man  can 
either  follow  or  resist  grace ;  while  still  they 
admitted  that  grace  has  a  certain  influence  in 
the  renovation  of  man,  not  indeed  miraculous, 
but  yet  acting  physically  in  connexion  with  the 
divine  word.  They  were  followed  afterwards 
in  the  Romish  church  by  the  great  body  of  the 
Jesuits,  who  on  this  account  were  involved  in 
much  controversy  with  the  Dominicans,  Jansen- 
ists, and  others,  who  were  strict  Augustinians, 
and  by  whom  they  were  accused  of  inclining 
to  Pelagianism.  At  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, in  the  sixteenth  century,  this  theory 
prevailed  far  and  wide  in  the  Romish  church, 
and  was  defended  by  Eck  and  Erasmus  against 


Luther.  It  was  adopted  by  Melanclhon,  and 
expressly  avowed  by  him  after  the  death  of  Lu- 
ther, and  by  the  theologians  of  his  school  in  the 
sixteenth  century.  Others,  however,  would  not 
swerve  from  the  earlier  system  of  Luther,* 
though  the  difference  which  now  existed  be- 
tween the  two  parties  was  more  in  words  than 
in  reality.  This  doctrine  was  called  by  the  lat- 
ter syncrgism,  and  its  advocates  syner gists,  be- 
cause they  taught  that  the  operations  of  grace 
are  accompanied  by  the  action  of  the  human 
will.  The  principal  advocate  of  this  synergism 
was  Victorin  Strigel,  and  its  principal  oppo- 
nent Flacius.  Since  that  period  the  opinions  on 
both  sides  have  assumed  a  much  more  mode- 
rate shape,  and  a  great  deal  of  logomachy  has 
ceased;  but  there  still  remains  a  difference  of 
opinion  on  this  point  in  the  protestant  as  well 
as  in  the  catholic  church. 

Thirdly.  The  system  of  Pelagius.  Many  think 
that  this  system  is  better  than  any  other  to  re- 
move the  contradiction  between  human  freedom 
and  the  influences  of  grace.  Pelagius  entirely 
denies  any  physical  influence  of  grace,  and  any 
alteration  of  the  will  effected  by  means  of  it. 
God,  indeed,  operates  on  men,  but  merely 
through  the  (natural)  power  of  the  truths  of  re- 
ligion, of  which  he  is  the  author.  Man  has 
ability  both  to  understand  these  truths  and  live 
according  to  them,  and  also  ability  to  sin.  And 
this  is  the  freedom  of  will  essential  to  man. 
God  causes  the  renovation  of  the  heart,  but 
merely  through  the  influence  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, inasmuch  as  this  doctrine,  of  which  God 
is  the  author,  contains  more  powerful  motives 
to  improvement  than  any  human  systems.  Vide 
the  Estimate,  No.  ii.  ad  fin.  Many  modern 
theologians  have  received  this  system  entirely, 
and  some  have  undertaken  to  interpret  the  com- 
mon ecclesiastical  formulas  and  the  Augusti- 
nian  phraseology  in  conformity  with  it.  Re- 
specting these  controversies  and  systems  vide 
the  works  of  Vossius,  Sirmond,  Mauguin, 
Serry,  Norisius ;  also  the  works  of  Semler, 
Walch  (Ketzergeschichte),  Rosier  (Bibliothek 
der  Kirchenvater),  and  others.  [Cf.  Neander, 
Kirchengesch.  b.  ii.  Abth.  iii.  Bretschneider,  b. 
ii.  s.  606.— TR.] 

V.  Later  History  of  this  Doctrine. 

Since  the  seventeenth,  and  especially  since 
the  eighteenth  century,  many  theologians  of  the 
protestant  church  have  laboured  to  cast  light  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  operations  of  grace  and  the 
efficacy  of  the  divine  word,  and  to  exhibit  this 
doctrine  in  a  manner  correspondent  with  the 
principles  of  modern  philosophy.  Some  have 
declared  themselves  decidedly  in  favour  of  the 
Pelagian  system.  Others  have  adopted  it  only 
in  part,  or,  while  they  have  held  it,  have  dis- 
guised their  belief  by  using  the  terms  of  the 


462 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Augustinian  or  scholastic  theory  in  an  entirely 
different  sense  from  what  belongs  to  them,  in 
reality  denying  physical  influence.  In  this 
point,  however,  the  protestant  church  is  agreed, 
*  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  act  immediately, 
but  mediately,  through  the  word,  s.  130,  II. 
So  clearly  do  the  symbols  teach.  Morus,  p. 
231,  n,  1.  Still  there  is  a  great  diversity  of 
opinion  on  the  question  about  the  manner  in 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  acts  through  the  word, 
and  on  the  question  whether  these  operations 
may  be  denominated  supernatural,  and  in  what 
sense.  On  these  points  there  are  two  principal 
theories  prevalent  in  the  protestant  church. 

(1)  Many  hold  that  although  grace  operates 
through  the  word,  there  is  still  connected  with 
the  word  a  special  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
enlighteningand  converting  men.  This  power, 
however,  is  never  exerted  without,  but  always 
in  connexion  with  the  word.  Cnnjunctum  cum 
usu  doclrinse  auxilium  Dei,  quod  tile  fert  utenti- 
bus  ea,  Morus,  p.  228,  note.  The  greater  part, 
though  not  all  of  the  early  protestant  and  Lu- 
theran theologians,  were  of  this  opinion.  So 
Melancthon.  Some  gave  such  a  turn  to  this 
doctrine  that  tbey  were  suspected  of  fanaticism. 
This  was  the  case  with  Herm.  Rathmann,  a 
Lutheran  preacher  in  Dantzig,  who  affirmed  in 
his  work,  "Gnadenreich  Christi"  1621,  that  man 
is  so  depraved  that  the  Word  of  God  can  by 
itself  exert  no  power  on  his  heart,  unless  the 
almighty  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  connected 
with  it.  Upon  this  a  great  controversy  arose 
in  the  seventeenth  century.  Some,  too,  of  the 
party  of  the  pietists,  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
expressed  themselves  so  vaguely  on  this  point 
that  they  were  suspected  of  fanaticism.  But, 
in  fact,  neither  their  opinions,  nor  that  of  Rath- 
mann, can  properly  be  called  fanatical.  Fana- 
tics and  enthusiasts  believe  in  an  illumination 
and  renovation  of  man  effected  immediately  by 
God,  without  the  use  of  the  word,  or  the  truths 
of  the  holy  scriptures,  of  which  consequently 
they  speak  with  disregard.  So,  e.  g.,  the 
Quakers.  Vide  Morus,  p.  231,  s.  5,  for  a  brief 
view  of  their  system. 

Many  modern  theologians  have  entirely  de- 
parted from  these  views,  (vide  No.  2 ;)  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  many  have  adhered  to  the 
more  ancient  theory,  and  defended  it  against  all 
attacks.  E.  g.,  C.  A.  Bertling,  Vorstellung 
was  die  Lutherische  Kirche  von  der  Kraft  der 
heiligen  Schrift  lehre ;  Dantzig,  1756,  4to.  The 
author  of  the  "Freundschaftliche  Unterredun- 
gen  iiber  die  Wirkungen  der  Gnade,"  2te  Ausg. 
4  thl.;  Halle,  1774,  8vo.  Also  the  "  Briefe 
uher  die  Wirkungen  der  Gnade,"  by  the  same 
author,  which  is  the  best  work  in  favour  of  this 
theory.  Gottl.  Christ.  Storr,  "  De  Spiritus 
Sancti  in  mentibus  nostris  efficient™,  et  de  mo- 
mento  ejus  doctrinae;"  Tubingen,  1777,  4to. 


Cf.  Gehe,  Diss.  inaug.  de  argumento  quod  pro 
divinitate  religionis  Christians  ab  experientia 
ducitur;  Gottingen,  1796. 

This  theory,  however  little  it  may  accord 
with  the  prevailing  principles  of  modern  philo- 
sophy, is  strongly  supported  by  many  passages 
of  scripture,  s.  130,  s.  131,  II.  4. 

(2)  Others,  on  the  contrary,  hold  that  the 
divine  and  supernatural  (though  they  do  not 
like  to  make  use  of  this  word)  power  of  the 
word  of  God,  by  which  man  is  converted,  is  not 
to  be  looked  for  in  connexion  with  the  word, 
but  as  belonging  to  the  word  itself.  They  thus 
consider  the  power  by  which  man  is  renewed 
and  made  holy,  to  be  in  no  sense  a  physical, 
but  rather  a  logico-moral power.  This  opinion, 
which  is  fundamentally  Pelagian,  was  ingeni- 
ously defended  in  the  seventeenth  century  by 
Claud  Pajon,  a  reformed  theologian  of  Orleans; 
it  led,  however,  to  much  controversy.  This 
opinion  was  first  fully  exhibited  in  the  Lutheran 
church,  after  the  eighteenth  century,  by  Joh. 
Ernest.  Schubert,  in  his  "TTnterricht  von  der 
Kraft  der  heiligen  Schrift;"  Helmstadt,  1753, 
4to.  It  was  against  this  work  that  Bertling 
wrote.  Cf.  No.  I.  It  was  afterwards  defended 
by  Spalding,  "  Ueber  den  Werth  der  Gefuhle 
in  Christenthum,"  and  by  Eberhard,  "  Apologie 
des  Sokrates,"  thl.  i.,  iii.  The  most  copious 
and  learned  work  on  this  subject  is,  Junkheim, 
"Von  dem  Uehernaturlichen  in  den  Gnadeu- 
wirkungen;"  Erlangen,  1775,  8vo.  This  the- 
ory has  been  adopted  by  most  modern  theolo- 
gians of  the  protestant  church,  and  essentially 
even  by  Morus.  They  frequently  employ,  in- 
deed, the  ancient  phraseology  and  formulas, 
but  in  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  they 
were  originally  used — a  sense  which  is  consi- 
dered by  them  more  rational,  i.  e.,  more  con- 
formed to  the  philosophical  system  adopted  by 
these  modern  theologians.  We  shall  now  give 
a  brief  historical  account  and  illustration  of  this 
theory,  which  at  present  is  the  most  popular  and 
current  among  protestant  theologians,  adding, 
however,  a  critique  as  we  pass  along. 

SECTION  CXXXIII. 

EXHIBITION  OF  THE  MODERN  THEORY  RESPECTING 
THE  DIVINITY  OF  THE  OPERATIONS  OF  GRACE, 
AND  THE  POWER  OF  THE  WORD  OF  GOD.* 

I.  How  does  God  act  in  promoting  the  Moral  Im- 
provement and  Perfection  of  Men?  and  in  what\ 
consists  the  Divinity  of  the  Operations  of  Grace  ? 

(1)  GOD  does  not  act  in  such  a  way  as  to\ 


*  How  far  I  assent  to  this  theory,  either  on  scrip-, 
tural  or  other  grounds,  will  appear  from  the  previous  j 
sections.  Where  I  agree  with  it  entirely,  I  shall  • 
state  it  as  rny  opinion ;  wherever  it  appears  to  me  i 
erroneous — i.  e.  not  demonstrable  from  the  Bible — 
I  shall  give  it  as  the  opinion  of  others. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       463 


infringe  upon  the  free  will  of  man,  or  to  inter- 
fere with  the  use  of  his  powers.  Vide  Phil.  ii. 
12,  13.  Consequently,  God  does  not  act  on 
man  immediately ',  producing  ideas  in  their  souls 
without  the  preaching  or  reading  of  the  scrip- 
tures, or  influencing  their  will  in  any  other  way 
than  by  the  understanding.  Did  God  operate 
in  any  other  way  than  through  the  understand- 
ing, he  would  operate  miraculously  and  irresisti- 
bly. And  the  practice  of  virtue  under  such  an 

nfluence  would  have  no  internal  worth ;  it 
would  be  compelled,  and  consequently  incapa- 
ile  of  reward.  But  experience  teaches  that  the 
work  of  reformation  and  holiness  is  not  effected 
violently  and  at  once,  but  by  degrees;  which 
could  not  be  the  case  if  God  acted  irresistibly 
and  miraculously.  Experience  teaches,  too, 

hat  man  can  resist;  and  so  the  Bible  says  ex- 
>ressly,  Matt,  xxiii.  37 ;  Heb.  iii.  S,  seq. ;  John, 
vii.  17;  Acts,  vii.  51.  We  find,  also,  that  the 
moral  reformation  of  man  cannot  take  place  with- 
out earnest  and  zealous  effort,  (the  working  out 
of  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  Phil,  ii.,) 
or  the  vigorous  exercise  of  one's  own  powers  ; 

nd  that  man  must  be  anything  rather  than  pas- 
sive and  inactive  in  this  matter.  The  Bible 
;eaches  the  same  thing,  and  so  requires  of  men 
;hat  they  should  reform,  change  their  heart, 
Acts,  ii.  38 ;  viii.  22.  It  exhorts  them  to  in- 
crease in  knowledge  and  virtue,  Ephes.  ii.  10; 
Tit.  ii.  17  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  1,  2,  seq.  And  for  what 
)urpose  has  God  given  to  man  the  direct  reve- 

ation  of  his  will,  if  it  is  not  to  be  used  and 
employed  by  God  himself  in  promoting  the  sal- 
vation of  men?  Hence  all  genuine  protestant 
theologians,  on  whatever  other  points  they  may 
differ,  are  agreed  in  this. 

(2)  The  divinity  in  the  operations  of  grace 
consists, 

(a)  In  the  doctrine  revealed  by  God.  For  by 
means  of  this,  faith  is  excited  and  preserved  in 
men.  This  doctrine  could  not  have  been  dis- 
covered by  man  without  a  divine  revelation; 
and  God  is  the  author  of  all  the  effects  which 
result  from  it.  In  the  same  way  we  properly 
ascribe  to  a  discourse,  or  to  a  great  writer,  all 
the  beneficial  effects  which  may  result  from  his 
discovery  or  writings,  and  regard  him  as  the 
author  of  these  effects.  All  this  is  true;  but 
this  is  not  all  which  the  Bible  teaches  on  this 
subject.  The  Bible  teaches  that  besides  this 
there  is  an  agency  of  God  connected  with  divine 
truth  and  accompanying  it;  or  that  there  is  con- 
nected with  the  divine  word  an  operation  of 
God  on  the  hearts  of  men,  having  for  its  end 
their  improvement  and  holiness.  Vide  s.  131, 
II.  4. 

(6)  In  the  wise  and  beneficent  external  institu- 
tions which  God  has  established,  by  which  man 
is  led  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  his 
heart  is  prepared  and  inclined  to  receive  it. 


Who  can  fail  to  recognise  the  divine  hand  in 
these  external  circumstances,  by  which  so  pow- 
erful an  influence  is  exerted  upon  us ;  and  which 
are  often  entirely  beyond  our  own  control? 
How  much  does  the  moral  culture  and  improve- 
ment of  man  depend  on  birth,  parentage,  early 
instruction,  education,  society,  example,  na- 
tural powers,  adversity,  or  prosperity  !  Vide  s. 
131,  II.  4.  These  circumstances  are  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  Bible,  Rom.  ii.  4,  seq.  Hence  it 
follows  that  God  has  made  wise  arrangements  for 
the  good  of  man,  which  may  properly  be  called 
grace.,  inasmuch  as  they  are  proofs  of  his  unde- 
served goodness.  It  follows  also  that  God 
withholds  his  assistance  from  none,  and  that 
the  work  of  moral  renovation  is  effected  in  a 
manner  entirely  adapted  to  our  moral  nature, 
not  forcibly,  irresistibly,  instantaneously,  but 
gradually.  Vide  s.  126,  seq. 

Now,  so  far  as  the  end  which  God  has  in 
view,  in  wisely  ordering  these  circumstances 
and  appointing  these  means,  is  attained — i.  e., 
when  man  does  not  himself  resist  their  influ- 
ence, this  grace  may  be  called  efficacious.  Still 
it  is  exerted  in  such  a  way  that  no  one  is  com- 
pelled. Grace  never  acts  irresistibly.  The  re- 
newal of  man  is  effected  by  God  through  the 
Christian  doctrine,  the  influence  of  which  can 
be  resisted,  because  it  acts  on  the  will  through 
the  understanding;  and  the  will  is  not  necessa- 
rily determined,  but  only  rendered  disposed  to 
determine  itself  for  a  particular  object.  In  the 
physical  world  the  law  of  sufficient  reason  and 
of  necessity  prevails ;  in  the  moral  world,  the 
law  of  freedom.  God,  therefore,  who  himself 
has  given  this  law,  will  not  act  in  contradiction 
to  it.  Frequently,  however,  one  cannot  prevent 
the  good  impressions  and  emotions  which  arise 
on  hearing  or  reading  the  truths  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion ;  just  as  he  is  unable  to  prevent  the 
sensations  or  ideas  which  external  objects  pro- 
duce in  his  mind,  through  the  senses.  This 
observation,  which  is  founded  on  the  nature- 
of  the  human  soul,  gave  rise  to  the  position* 
which  was  taken  in  the  controversies  between 
the  Jansenists  and  Jesuits;  gratiam  non  esse. 
irresistibilem,  sed  inevitabilem.  For  although 
man  cannot  prevent  in  every  case  good  impres- 
sions and  emotions,  he  is  able  to  prevent  the 
consequences  of  them  in  actual  reformation. 

II.  In  what  manner  does  God  operate  on  the  heart 

of  man  through  the  Word,  in  promoting  his  Moral 

Improvement  ? 

On  this  point  theologians  are  divided. 

(1)  The  natural  power  of  truth  acts  first  on 
the  human  understanding.  The  Christian  doc- 
trine makes  us  acquainted  with  God,  with  his 
feelings  towards  us,  and  with  what  he  requires 
of  us.  It  delivers  us  from  ignorance  and  preju- 
dice. For  all  this  we  are  indebted  to  God.  God 


4G4 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


gave  us  these  instructions  that  they  might  have 
an  effect  upon  us — i.  e.,  that  they  might  act 
powerfully  on  the  will,  and  excite  in  us  good  feel- 
ings and  resolutions.  Thus  the  consideration  of 
the  divine  promises  revealed  in  Christianity 
tends  to  lead  our  minds  to  repose  confidence  in 
God.  The  consideration,  too,  of  these  promises, 
and  the  examination  of  our  conduct  by  the  di- 
vine precepts,  produces  sorrow  and  repentance. 
These  precepts  and  promises,  which  the  Chris- 
tian religion  makes  known,  are  adapted  to  pro- 
duce zeal  for  virtue  or  holiness.  At  first  our 
powers  for  goodness  are  weak;  but  by  exercise 
they  increase  in  strength  and  become  confirmed. 
Vide  Art.  xi.  All  this  takes  place  according  to 
the  natural  laws  of  the  human  mind  ;  but  the 
effect  produced  does  not  cease  on  this  account  to 
be  the  work  of  God. 

(2)  But  the  New  Testament  always  ascribes 
to  the  Christian  religion  a  greater  power  and 
efficacy  in  rendering  men  virtuous  and  happy 
than  to  any  truth  ever  discovered  or  taught  by 
man,  or  supported  merely  by  arguments  of  hu- 
man wisdom.  Thus  Paul  says,  Romans,  i.  16, 
£i3ayy£\ioj>  XpitfT'ov  is  Svva/^tj  ©toy  atj  tfwr'^ptar 
rtavti  TV  rttatsvovti.  In  1  Cor.  i.  and  ii.  he 
shews  that  the  gospel  had  produced  greater  ef- 
fects than  any  human  system  ever  did  or  could 
produce,  although  exhibited  in  the  most  eloquent, 
forcible,  and  convincing  manner.  Cf.  John, 
vi.  63,  and  John,  iii.  Experience  and  history 
confirm  this.  Philosophers  and  moralists,  who 
depend  upon  the  internal  strength  and  validity 
of  their  systems  derived  from  human  wisdom, 
have  never  been  able  to  accomplish  such  great 
and  wonderful  results  as  the  Christian  religion 
has  produced,  although  exhibited  without  elo- 
quence or  human  wisdom.  What  merely  human 
teacher  of  morals  could  ever  boast  of  so  great 
and  remarkable  an  effect  from  his  instructions  as 
we  read  of  in  Acts,  ii.  37,  and  viii.  27 — 38 "?  And 
whence  is  all  this  1  Some  have  thought  it  to  be 
owing  to  the  divine  authority  on  which  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  is  published.  This  authority,  they 
say,  exerts  more  influence  on  one  who  acknow- 
ledges it,  and  removes  doubts  and  difficulties  more 
easily,  than  the  most  convincing  arguments  and 
the  most  eloquent  address,  which  depend  on  no- 
thing more  than  mere  human  authority.  But 
why  have  not  other  religions,  which  have  also 
been  published  on  divine  authority,  produced 
these  same  effects  1  This  divine  authority  can- 
not therefore  be  the  only  ground  of  the  difference. 
With  this  must  be  connected  the  internal  excel- 
lence of  the  religion  itself,  and  the  salutary  na- 
ture of  its  doctrines.  These  two  taken  together 
constitute  the  whole  cause,  so  far  at  least  as  it  is 
externally  visible,  of  the  facts  under  considera- 
tion. But  even  these  do  not  satisfactorily  ac- 
count for  all  the  effects  prod uced  by  the  Christian 
doctrine ;  they  are  not  assigned  by  the  holy  scrip- 


tures as  the  principal  cause  from  which  these 
effects  are  explicable.  The  scriptures  teach 
that  the  cause  of  these  great  effects  does  not  lie 
merely  in  the  power  and  weight  of  the  doctrines 
of  Christianity,  and  the  evidence  by  which  they 
are  supported,  but  principally  in  the  almighty 
power  and  influence  of  God,  who  through  the 
Christian  doctrine  works  in  the  souls  of  men. 
Vide  s.  131,  II.  4.  This  efficacy  of  the  divine 
doctrine  is  called  in  theology,  the  power  (vix, 
cfficacia)  of  the  divine  word. 

(3)  Inferences  drawn  from  the  preceding  state- 
ment. 

(a)  The  power  of  the  word  of  God,  or  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not  physical  but 
logico-moral — i.  e.,  the  Holy  Spirit  acts  upon  the 
human  soul  in  a  manner  conformed  to  our  ra- 
tional and  moral  nature.  This  influence  is 
founded  in  the  knowledge  of  the  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  of  the  motives  contained  in  it,  by 
which  the  human  will  is  drawn,  but  not  com- 
pelled. To  this  is  added,  on  the  part  of  man, 
the  firm  conviction  of  the  divine  origin  and  au- 
thority of  this  doctrine,  and  of  the  divine  su- 
perintendence by  which  its  effect  on  him  is  in- 
creased. Power  to  convince  and  reform  is  im- 
parted to  and  connected  with  the  Christian  doc- 
trine in  the  same  *way  as  power  to  germinate 
and  grow  is  given  to  seed,  and  power  to  heal, 
to  medicine. 

This  last  statement  is  in  itself  true  and  scrip- 
tural. Cf.  Mark,  iv.  28.  But  it  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  other  equally  scriptural  view  of 
the  influence  of  God  on  the  heart  of  man.  For 
he  does  not  act  on  us  otherwise  than  by  means 
of  the  Christian  doctrine,  and  consequently  not 
in  a  compulsory  and  irresistible  manner,  but  in 
a  manner  conformed  to  the  moral  nature  of  man, 
although  the  internal  modus  of  his  agency  may 
be  inexplicable  to  us.  And  who  can  explain  the 
internal  modus  of  the  effects  produced  by  God  in 
the  natural  world?  John,  iii.  8.  Vide  s.  131, 
II.  4.  To  helieve,  therefore,  that  there  is  an 
influxum  (vim  physicam,  or  as  others  express  it, 
more  guard ed\y,physico-analogam,')  is,  according 
to  what  has  now  been  said,  not  contrary  to  scrip- 
ture, but  conformed  to  it. 

(6)  But  however  powerful  the  operation  of  the 
divine  word,  and  of  God  by  means  of  his  word, 
may  be,  man  himself  must  not,  in  the  meantime, 
be  inactive  and  sluggish;  Phil.  ii.  12,  13.  For 
the  effect  of  the  divine  influence  on  the  heart  of 
any  one  depends  on  his  making  a  right  use 
and  proper  application  of  the  divine  doctrine, 
and  on  his  whole  conduct  in  regard  to  these  di- 
vine influences.  If  he  disregards  these  influ- 
ences, and  neglects  to  improve  them  in  the 
proper  manner,  he  can  no  more  be  benefited  by 
them  than  one  can  be  satisfied  and  nourished 
without  the  use  of  food.  Such  is  the  uniform 
representation  of  the  Bible.  Vide  Mark,  iv.  20, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       465 


denying  grace  to  the  heathen,  to  deny  decidedly 
that  they  had  any  virtue,  or  can  attain  to  sal- 
vation. 

Note. — In  popular  religious  instruction  the 
teacher  should  confine  himself  to  such  clear  and 
scriptural  points  as  Morus  has  exhibited,  (pages 
236,  237,  note  4,)  illustrating  these  by  the  Bible 
and  experience,  and  setting  aside  all  learned 
theological  disputes  and  scholastic  terms. 

(1)  God  has  endued  man  with  reason  and 
conscience.     By  the  aid   of  these   principles, 
man  is  enabled  to  learn  much  respecting  the  na- 
ture and  will  of  God,  and  to  act  conformably  to 
this  correct  knowledge,  Rom.  i.  19,  20 ;  ii.  14, 
15,  seq. 

(2)  But  the  holy  scriptures  give  us  a  far  more 
perfect  knowledge  of  God  and  of  our  duty.   The 
revealed  religion  contained  in  them  has  much 
which  is  peculiarly  excellent,  and  which  is  not 
taught  in  natural  religion.     And,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  the  scriptures,  God  has  pro- 
mised his  special  assistance,  support,  and  guid- 
ance, to  those  who  possess  them,  and  obey  the 
precepts  contained  in  them.     Arid  this  promise 
is  confirmed  by  experience;  Rom.  i.  ii.     We 
ought  therefore  thankfully  to  receive,  and  faith- 
fully to  obey,  the  instruction  contained  in  the 
holy  scriptures. 

(3)  No  one  can  understand,  discern,  or  receive 
with   approbation  the  instructions  of  the  holy 
scriptures,  unless  he  is  taught  the  truths  con- 
tained in  them  ;  nor  can  any'one  obey  these  in- 
structions, unless  the  hindrances  which  stand  in 
the  way  of  his  reception  of  them,  in  his  under- 
standing and  will,  are  removed,  1  Cor.  ii.  14. 

(4)  To  be  delivered  through  divine  instruction 
and  assistance  from  our  ignorance,  our  mistakes, 
prejudices,  and  from  our  evil  passions,  is  a  great 
and  invaluable  benefit;  and  we  owe  this  benefit 
to  none  but  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit.     Vide  the 
texts  cited,  s.  130* 

(5)  There  are,  and  always  will  be,  great  diffi- 
culties and  hindrances,  both  within  and  without, 
by  which  our  assent  to  the  truths  of  revelation 
will  be  weakened,  and  our  progress  in  holiness 
retarded;  and  these  difficulties  and  hindrances 
cannot  be  overcome  and  removed  without  the 
constant  assistance  and  support  of  God,  John, 
v.  44;  viii.  43,  seq.;  Ephes.  iv.  18,  and  other 
passages.     Vide  s.  130,  131. 

(6)  We  need  therefore,  in  commencing  and 
continuing  a  life  of  piety,  the  help,  support,  and 
guidance    of   God.     We   ourselves,   however 
must  not  in  the  meantime  be  inactive,  but  must 
conscientiously  employ  the  means  which  God 
has  given  us,  and  faithfully  obey  the  instruc- 
tions and  directions  contained  in  the  Bible,  al- 
ways remembering  that  we  owe  these  means 
of  improvement  and  virtue  to  God  only,  and 
that  without  him  we  can  do  nothing.    Phil, 
ii.  12,  13. 


4G6 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


[Note. — The  opinions  of  the  Lutheran  theolo- 
gians since  the  time  of  our  author  have  been 
equally  diversified  as  when  he  wrote,  and  per- 
haps more  so.  This  is  the  less  strange,  as  it  is 
now  a  conceded  point  that  their  own  established 
•tandards  are  at  variance  among  themselves  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  operations  of  grace.  Cf.  s. 
32,  Note.  Henke,  Eckermann,  and  Wegschei- 
der,  follow  out  the  positions  of  Morus,  Junk- 
heim,  Michaelis,  Doederlein,  and  others,  to  the 
full  Pelagian  extreme,  and  make  the  grace  of 
God  in  conversion  to  be  only  that  general 
agency  by  which  he  has  endued  man  with  ra- 
tional powers,  written  the  law  upon  his  heart, 
instituted  Christianity,  and  caused  it  to  be  pro- 
mulgated, and  by  which,  in  his  providential  ar- 
rangements, he  gives  to  every  man  opportunity 
and  excitement  to  repentance.  Ammon  also 
(Summa,  s.  133,  133)  makes  the  renewing 
grace  of  God  to  consist  procuratione  institutionis 
sslutaris,  excitations  per  exempla  virtutis  illustria, 
paupertate,  calamitatibus,  admonitionibus  amico- 
rum  et  inimicorum.  ' 

All  these  writers  agree  in  making  the  opera- 
tions of  grace  merely  external,  in  the  way  of 
moral  influence,  and  in  denying  an  immediate 
agency  of  God  upon  the  human  mind.  In  this, 
their  system  is  stamped  with  one  of  the  most 
essential  features  of  Pelagianism.  Cf.  Nean- 
der's  development  of  the  Pelagian  system  in 
Part  iii.  of  the  2nd  vol.  of  his  Church  History. 

There  is  another  class  who  are  distinguished 
from  the  former  by  admitting  an  immediate  di- 
vine agency  in  the  moral  kingdom,  though  they 
differ  among  themselves  as  to  the  relation  of 
this  influence  to  the  agency  of  man,  especially 
at  the  commencement  of  the  life  of  faith.  Bret- 
schneider  contends  strenuously  for  an  immediate 
divine  influence  as  indispensable  to  conversion. 
At  the  same  time,  he  supposes  it  to  depend  upon 
the  character  and  state  of  the  individual  who  is 
the  subject  of  this  influence,  whether  grace  alone 
produces  faith  in  him,  or  whether  he  himself 
contributes  anything  towards  it.  The  operations 
of  grace,  accordingly,  are  not  uniform,  but  as 
various  as  the  states  in  which  it  finds  man,  from 
untutored  barbarism,  to  the  highest  degree  of 
illumination  and  refinement  enjoyed  in  Chris- 
tian lands.  Nearly  the  same  views  are  express- 
ed by  Reinhard  in  his  Theology. 

Neander  and  Tholuck,  as  will  be  obvious  to 
any  attentive  reader  of  their  works,  hold  promi- 
nently, that  even  in  faith  there  is  a  divine  ele- 
ment— that  it  can  by  no  means  result  from  the 
unaided  efforts  of  man  ;  that,  besides  the  gene- 
ral influence  of  Christianity,  there  is  an  internal 
influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God — a  drawing  of  the 
Heavenly  Father — but  that  man  also  is  active 
in  this  work;  and  that  it  is  an  unwarrantable 
assumption  to  undertake  to  settle  immovable 
limits  to  these  two  conspiring  agencies,  or  to 


solve  the  mystery  belonging  to  the  secret  ope- 
rations of  grace. 

Again:  Schleiermacher,  Marheinecke,  and 
others  belonging  to  the  more  appropriately  phi- 
losophical school  of  theologians,  have  restored 
the  entire  system  of  Augustine  as  to  immediate 
and  efficacious  grace,  and  the  absolute  and  un- 
qualified dependence  of  man  upon  God  for  the 
very  commencement  of  faith.  With  regard  to 
this  class,  it  is  remarkable,  that  while  Augus- 
tine and  Calvin  rested  the  proof  of  this  doctrine 
mainly  upon  scriptural  authority,  these  have  been 
led  to  adopt  and  now  maintain  it  on  grounds 
purely  philosophical.  The  weight  of  the  names 
of  such  writers  has  raised  the  Augustinian  and 
Calvinistic  theory  of  grace  far  above  the  con- 
tempt and  reproach  with  which  it  was  hereto- 
fore treated  by  the  great  body  of  Lutheran  theo- 
logians. 

A  few  extracts,  under  distincts  heads,  will 
shew  something  of  the  manner  in  which  this 
doctrine  is  treated  by  writers  of  this  class,  and 
how  much  importance  is  attached  by  them  to 
the  idea  that  the  divine  influences  are  immediate, 
and  not  merely  moral  and  external.  Our  ex- 
tracts are  drawn  from  two  of  the  more  lucid  and 
popular  writers.  The  statements  of  Schleier- 
macher  and  others  of  the  same  school  upon  this 
subject,  though  still  more  decisive  on  the  point 
in  question,  are  so  intimately  interwoven  with 
the  whole  of  their  system,  and  receive  so  much 
colouring  from  it,  as  to  require  more  explanation 
to  render  them  perfectly  intelligible  than  the 
present  limits  will  allow. 

That  such  an  influence  is  to  be  desired,  is  af- 
firmed by  Reinhard  in  the  following  passage 
from  the  4th  vol.  of  his  "Moral,"  s.  129: — 
"When  one  considers  the  innate  depravity  of 
which  man  is  conscious — the  weakness  of  his 
moral  powers  hence  resulting — the  innumerable 
perversions  to  which  those  constitutional  feel- 
ings and  propensities  which  are  in  themselves 
good,  are  liable,  the  disordered  states  which 
arise  from  these  perversions,  and  which  more  or 
less  hinder  a  true  moral  development — in  fine, 
the  many  external*  causes  which  nourish  and 
strengthen  depravity,  and  render  genuine  refor- 
mation exceedingly  difficult, — when  one  who  is 
in  earnest  in  the  work  of  improvement  considers 
all  this,  he  must  feel  the  wish  arise,  that  God 
would  lighten  this  arduous  work,  and  come  in 
aid  of  his  efforts." 

Objections  having  often  been  made  to  the^os- 
sibility  of  such  influences,  by  Reimarus,  Les- 
sing,  and  others,  on  the  ground  that  violence 
would  thus  be  done  to  the  intellectual  and  moral 
nature  of  man,  Bretschneider  thus  replies: — 
"That  God  has  power  to  act  inwardly  on  the 
souls  of  men,  and  to  awaken  ideas  in  their 
minds,  cannot  be  denied.  As  the  Creator  of 
spirits  he  knows  their  nature,  and  how  he  can 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       167 


operate  upon  them  ;  and  as  almighty,  he  must 
be  able  to  produce  in  his  creatures  any  effect 
which  he  desires.  Does  any  one  deny  this 
power  to  God,  he  erects  between  him  and  the 
spiritual  world  an  insurmountable  wall  of  par- 
tition; and  in  order  to  be  consistent,  must  deny 
that  God  is  the  governor  of  the  world  in  gene- 
ral, any  more  than  he  is  of  the  spiritual  world. 
The  possibility  of  an  inward  agency  of  God 
upon  the  world  of  spirits  cannot  therefore  be  de- 
nied, although  the  manner  in  which  this  agency 
is  exerted  is  inscrutable;  which  indeed  is  true 
as  to  the  manner  of  all  the  divine  operations." 
#  u  With  what  truth  now  is  it  presupposed 
t  these  influences  must  hamper  the  free 
agency  of  the  mind,  and  reduce  the  subject  of 
;hem  to  a  mere  machine  1  Does  not  the  very 
nature  of  the  case  require  that  reason,  the  reci- 
oient,  should  actively  receive,  retain,  and  appro- 
priate that  which  is  given  it?  Does  not  the 
teacher  often,  in  giving  instruction  to  the  child, 
•suddenly  interrupt  the  course  of  his  thoughts, 
and  put  him  on  an  entirely  new  train  of  ideas  1 
But  are  the  laws  of  mind  in  the  child  violated 
by  this  interruption  1  The  teacher,  it  is  said, 
makes  use  of  words.  But  cannot  God,  by  an 
adloquium  internum,  cause  new  thoughts  in  the 
souls  of  men  ?  Or  are  words  the  only  possible 
way  by  which  a  Spirit  can  impart  his  light  to 
other  spirits,  and  teach  them."  Dogmatik,  b. 
.  s.  129,  ff. 

But  an  immediate  influence  of  this  kind  is  not 
only  desirable  and  possible,  but  also  highly  pro- 
bable. Here  again  Bretschneider  remarks: — 
"As  God  stands  in  connexion  with  the  material 
world,  and  by  his  most  full  and  perfect  life  con- 
tinually operates  upon  it,  he  must  also  stand  in 
constant  connexion  with  the  moral  world,  other- 
wise there  could  be  no  moral  government." 
Dogmatik,  b.  ii.  s.  GOO.  This  probability,  drawn 
from  the  co-operation  of  God  in  the  material 
world,  is  stated  still  more  strongly  by  Reinhard. 
If  there  is  an  immediate  concurrence  and  agency 
of  God  in  the  material  world,  as  generally  con- 
ceded by  German  philosophers  and  theologians, 
such  an  agency  is  much  more  to  be  expected  in 
the  moral  world,  since  this  is  a  far  more  conge- 
nial sphere  for  divine  operations.  "  In  the  ma- 
terial sphere,  the  connexion  between  natural 
causes  and  effects  is  obvious  to  the  senses,  and 
must  therefore  be  principally  regarded  by  us, 
although  even  here  the  scriptures  commonly 
mention  only  the  highest  and  last  cause,  which 
is  God.  But  in  the  kingdom  of  freedom,  there 
is  no  such  mechanical  connexion  between  cause 
and  effect,  but  an  unimpeded  intercommunion 
of  beings  freely  acting;  here,  therefore,  there 
can  be  no  reason  why  we,  with  the  scriptures, 
should  not  conceive  of  an  immediate  influence, 
since  such  an  influence  is  far  more  adapted 
than  one  which  is  mediate,  to  the  sphere  of 


which  are  we  now  speaking."  Moral,  b.  ir. 
s.  258. 

But  while  these  writers  contend  for  the  fact 
of  immediate  divine  influences  in  promoting  the 
renewal  of  men,  they  are  careful  to  guard  against 
the  perversion  of  this  doctrine  by  enthusiasts 
and  fanatics.  "  The  reality  of  these  influences," 
says  Bretschneider,  "cannot  be  proved  from  ex- 
perience. The  influences  of  grace,  as  such, 
cannot  be  distinguished  in  consciousness  from 
others;  because  our  consciousness  informs  us 
only  of  the  effect,  and  not  of  its  origin ;  takes 
note  only  of  the  change  itself  which  passes 
within  us,  but  is  unable  to  feel  whether  it  comes 
from  God.  *  *  *  As  the  agency  of  God  in  the 
material  world  always  appears  to  us  as  natural, 
and  in  the  effects  produced  we  never  discern  the 
supernatural  cause,  so  his  agency  in  the  moral 
world  will  always  appear  to  us  as  natural,  and 
conformed  to  the  laws  of  psychology,  and  we 
are  unable  in  our  consciousness  to  distinguish 
him  as  the  acting  cause."  Dogmatik,  b.  ii.  8. 
600.  Cf.  Reinhard's  "  Moral,"  b.  iv.  s.  264. 

In  this  manner  do  these  writers  contend  for 
the  fact  of  immediate  divine  influences,  by  argu- 
ments derived  from  the  need  of  man,  the  perfec- 
tions of  God,  and  the  analogy  of  his  agency  in 
the  material  universe ;  and  at  the  same  time 
guard  against  the  perversions  of  this  salutary 
opinion  by  enthusiasts  who,  in  the  words  of 
Tucker,  "think  they  can  see  the  flashes  of  illu- 
mination, and  feel  the  floods  of  inspiration  pour- 
ed on  them  directly  from  the  divine  hand,  and 
who  undertake  to  give  an  exact  history  of  all 
his  motions  from  the  very  day  and  hour  when 
he  first  touched  their  hearts." 

It  may  be  remarked  here,  that  Kant  conceded 
the  possibility  of  immediate  operations  of  grace 
for  the  conversion  of  man,  but  denied  that  they 
could  be  either  proved  or  disproved  from  philo- 
sophy. The  belief  in  such  influences  he  held 
to  be  useful  in  awakening  the  hope  that  God 
would  do  for  us  what  we  ourselves  might  b« 
unable  to  accomplish  in  the  work  of  our  moral 
renovation. — TR.] 


APPENDIX. 

OF  PRAYER  AS  A  MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

THE  doctrine  respecting  prayer  is  commonly 
treated  in  systematic  theology  in  connexion  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  operations  of  grace.  But  as 
the  full  discussion  of  this  subject  belo/igs  rather 
to  Christian  ethics  than  to  theology,  it  has  by 
some  theologians  been  either  wholly  omitted,  or 
only  cursorily  noticed  in  their  systems.  On  this 
subject  we  shall  make  here  only  the  following 
remarks.  The  prayer  of  Christians  is  a  means 
of  grace  included  under  Christian  doctrine,  and 


468 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


not  to  be  separated  from  it.  For  the  influence 
of  prayer  is  not  to  be  derived  from  the  mere  act 
of  those  who  pray.  It  stands  in  connexion  with 
the  power  of  the  religious  truths  to  which  prayer 
relates. 

(1)  Statement  of  the  philosophical  theory 
respecting  prayer. 

The  following  is  the  theory  respecting  prayer 
which  has  been  adopted  in  modern  times,  espe- 
cially in  the  eighteenth  century,  by  Mosheim 
and  Morus,  and  which  is  held  by  many  philo- 
sophical and  theological  moralists.  One  who 
institutes  a  merely  philosophical  examination  of 
prayer,  and  passes  by  all  the  positive  promises 
to  the  supplicant  contained  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, and  especially  in  the  Christian  system, 
will  yet  allow,  if  he  understands  the  nature  of 
man,  a  great  moral  influence  to  prayer.  For  it 
is  the  means  of  reminding  us  of  the  great  truths 
of  religion,  and  of  impressing  these  truths  deeply 
on  our  hearts.  It  excites,  moreover,  a  sure  and 
grateful  confidence  in  God  and  his  promises,  and 
a  longing  desire  after  the  enjoyment  of  the  bless- 
ings which  he  has  promised.  It  is  therefore,  in 
itself,  of  a  most  beneficial  tendency,  and  has  an 
indescribable  influence  in  promoting  moral  im- 
provement, and  in  purifying  the  heart.  A  man 
is  not  prepared  for  the  blessings  which  the 
Christian  doctrine  promises,  and  is  not  capable 
of  free,  moral  improvement,  unless  he  acknow- 
ledges God  as  the  author  of  them,  and  has  a 
lively  perception  of  these  benefits,  and  an  ear- 
nest desire  to  obtain  them.  Now  from  this  de- 
sire after  divine  blessings  springs  the  wish,  di- 
rected to  God,  that  he  would  bestow  them  upon 
us,  and  this  is  the  inward  prayer  of  the  heart. 
If  these  feelings  are  strong  and  vivid,  it  is  com- 
mon and  natural  to  us  to  express  them  in  words 
and  in  the  form  of  an  address  to  God,  whom  we 
conceive  to  be  present  with  us,  and  acquainted 
with  our  thoughts  and  wishes.  (The  verbal  ex- 
pression is,  however,  by  no  means  essential  to 
prayer.  A  soul  directed  to  God  is  all  which  is 
requisite.)  By  the  very  act  of  prayer,  this  vi- 
vidness of  conception  is  very  much  heightened, 
and  in  this  way  our  desires  and  our  longings 
are  cherished  and  strengthened  by  prayer  itself. 
In  this  exercise  God  is  made,  as  it  were,  pre- 
sent with  us ;  and  while  we  are  engaged  in  this 
duty,  we  feel  as  we  are  accustomed  to  feel  in 
direct  intercourse  with  a  person  who  is  near  at 
hand  listening  to  us,  and  who  by  our  words  and 
requests  is  rendered  favourable  towards  us  and 
becomes  intimate  with  us.  To  the  philosopher 
all  this  may  appear  illusion  and  imagination, 
but  if  he  looks  at  experience,  which  on  this  sub- 
ject is  worth  more  than  all  speculation,  he  will 
find  that  this  aid  is  indispensable  to  any  one 
who  means  to  make  religion  a  matter  of  serious 
and  lasting  interest.  Experience  shews  that 
good  thoughts,  purposes,  and  resolutions,  unac- 


companied by  prayer,  amount  to  nothing,  be- 
cause they  leave  the  heart  cold  and  the  mind 
unaffected. 

(2)  Examination  of  this  view  of  prayer. 

It  is  true  that  prayer,  considered  merely  as  a 
means  of  improvement,  has  great  moral  advan- 
tages— i.  e.,  that  it  has  a  great  effect  on  our 
moral  improvement,  that  it  withholds  from  evil, 
tranquillizes  the  soul,  and  is  in  every  way  pro- 
motive  of  the  interests  of  morality  and  sincere 
religion.  But  it  -is  also  true,  that  it  would 
cease  to  produce  these  results  which  are  expect- 
ed from  it  if  we  should  content  ourselves  with 
this  theory  of  our  philosophical  moralists,  and 
did  not  confidently  hope  to  obtain  the  blessings 
for  which  we  ask.  One  who  considers  the 
often-repeated  assurances,  "  he  that  asks  shall 
receive,"  &c.,  as  delusive,  and  not  serious  or  sin- 
cere, will  find  that  he  wants  an  inward  impulse 
to  prayer.  He  can  exercise  no  earnest  desires, 
no  real  confidence,  and  no  hearty  gratitude.  It 
is  not  our  business  to  inquire  how  God  can  hear 
and  answer  our  supplications  without  infringing 
upon  his  immutability,  or  altering  the  establish- 
ed course  of  nature.  We  are  to  be  satisfied 
with  knowing  that  he  can  do  more  than  we  un- 
derstand, and  that  he  can  and  will  do  every- 
thing which  he  has  promised.  Such  consider- 
ations, connected  with  personal  experience,  are 
enough  to  secure  us  against  every  doubt.  Nei- 
ther Christ,  nor  the  other  early  teachers  of 
morals,  nor  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament, 
ever  made  use  of  the  motives  to  prayer,  so  often 
used  at  the  present  day,  derived  merely  from  its 
moral  advantages.  Their  great  motive  to  prayer 
is,  that  it  will  be  heard,  upon  which  they  could 
depend  as  confidently  as  the  child  does  upon  its 
father,  when  it  requests  what  is  needful  for  it. 
This  is  the  great  motive  by  which  prayer  should 
be  inculcated  on  the  common  people  and  the 
young,  otherwise  they  easily  get  the  erroneous 
impression  that  prayer,  as  such,  is  of  no  advan- 
tage, and  in  reality  useless,  since  it  is  not  heard. 
On  this  account  Jesus  and  the  other  teachers  of 
morals  and  religion  in  ancient  times  did  wisely, 
both  in  omitting  to  mention  the  motives  to  pray- 
er derived  from  its  moral  uses,  and  in  inculcat- 
ing it  on  the  simple  ground  that  it  is  heard, 
without  philosophizing  upon  the  question,  in 
what  way  it  has  an  influence.  And  certainly 
Christians  do  well  in  holding  fast  to  the  doc* 
trine  of  Jesus  and  of  the  holy  scriptures.  Cf. 
Cramer,  Die  Lehre  vom  Gebet,  nach  Offenba- 
rung  und  Vernunft  untersucht,  u.  s.  w. ;  Keil 
und  Hamburgh,  1786,  8vo;  and  Nitzsch,  Diss. 
inaugural.,  Ratio  qua  Christus  usus  est  in  com- 
mendando  precandi  officio;  Viteberg,  1790; 
also,  "  Nonnulla  ad  historiam  de  usu  religiosa 
precationis  morali  pertinentia,"  by  the  same 
author,  and  published  at  the  same  place,  1790, 
4to. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       469 


Two  points  deserve  particular  consideration 
in  this  connexion. 

(a)  The  feeling  that  prayer  is  necessary  is 
ibsolutely  universal.  The  history  of  all  nations 
who  have  had  any  religion  shews  that  prayer  is 
(everywhere  recognised  as  an  auxiliary  to  piety, 
which  is  indispensable  and  founded  in  our  very 
nature.  Experience,  too,  teaches  that  those  re- 
igions  which  inculcate  frequent  prayer,  and  in- 
sist upon  it  as  a  duty  of  the  first  importance,  are 
the  most  practical,  and  can  enumerate  among 
their  followers  more  examples  of  men  eminent- 
y  religious  and  virtuous  than  other  religions 
which  make  prayer  of  less  importance,  and  at 
most  prescribe  certain  public  prayers  and  set 
brmulas.  Next  to  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
religion,  the  Mohammedan  has  exerted  the 
most  influence  on  the  heart,  because  it  so  stre- 
nuously inculcates  prayer.  This  religion,  next 
to  the  Jewish  and  Christian,  has  had  the  great- 
est number  of  truly  religious  professors  and  de- 
irout  worshippers  of  God.  [Cf.  the  work  of 
JTholuck  on  Ssuffismus,  or  the  doctrine  of  the 
Ssuffis — a  Mohammedan  sect  in  Persia. — TR.] 

6)  Christ  makes  it  the  special  duty  of  his 
bllowers  to  supplicate  God  in  his  name,  and 
>romises  to  them  a  sure  audience,  which  he 
would,  as  it  were,  procure  for  them,  John,  xiv. 
13 ;  xvi.  23,  24.  This  duty  is  inculcated  by  the 
postles  upon  all  Christians.  The  sentiment  of 
many  passages  taken  together  is  this:  Pray 
with  reference  to  Christ  and  his  work,  conse- 
quently in  belief  or  sure  confidence  in  him  and 
n  his  promises.  In  prayer  we  must  be  deeply 
convinced  that  he  is  the  author  of  our  salvation, 
that  even  now  he  is  mindful  of  our  interests,  and 
makes  the  things  for  which  we  ask  his  own,  and 
intercedes  with  God  to  hear  our  requests.  In 
this  respect  he  is  represented  as  our  Paracletus 
and  Advocate  with  God,  1  John,  ii.  1.  But  the 
blessings  which  Christianity  promises  to  us  are 
not  temporal,  but  spiritual.  Desire  to  obtain 
these  is  always  conformable  to  the  divine  will, 
and  as  far  as  they  are  concerned,  the  hearing  of 
prayer  is  certain. 


ARTICLE  XIII. 


ON  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  SOCIETY 
OR  CHURCH. 


[The  common  order  is  to  treat,  first,  of  the  sacra- 
ments, and  then  of  the  church ;  but  the  reverse  order 
is  in  many  respects  more  natural  and  proper;  for 
both  of  these  parts  of  divine  service  have  a  principal 
relation  to  the  church.  By  baptism  we  are  solemn- 
ly initiated  into  the  church ;  and  by  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, the  members  of  the  church  solemnly  renew  and 
perpetuate  the  remembrance  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of 


the  blessings  which  he  has  bestowed  upon  the  hu- 
man race.] 


SECTION  CXXXIV. 

WHAT  IS  MEANT  BY  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  J  ITS 

OBJECT;  ITS  NAMES;  AND  THE  DIVISIONS  OF 
THE  CHURCH  COMMON  IN  THEOLOGY. 

I.  Idea  of  the  Christian  Church  /  its  Object;  and 
an  Explanation  of  its  Scriptural  Names. 

THE  Christian  church,  in  the  widest  sense, 
may  be  defined  to  be,  the  whole  number  of  those 
who  agree  in  worshipping  God  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  this  wider  sense  it 
agrees  with  the  word  Christendom.  Its  object 
is,  to  maintain  and  perpetuate  the  Christian  doc- 
trine, and  by  means  of  ordinances  and  exercises 
observed  in  common,  to  promote  the  practice  of  it. 
Such  is  the  great  body  of  mankind,  that  with- 
out some  common  duties  and  some  external  or- 
dinances, the  Christian  religion  could  scarcely 
be  maintained  among  them ;  certainly  it  could 
not  be  kept  from  totally  degenerating.  The 
government  and  preservation  of  the  church  are 
everywhere  properly  ascribed  to  Christ,  as  its 
head.  The  same  scriptural  principles  are  there- 
fore applicable  here  which  were  above  laid 
down  in  the  doctrine  respecting  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,  s.  98. 

The  scriptural  names  of  church  are, 

(1)  'Exx^ata.     This  term   is   used  by  the 
Greeks  to  denote  an  assembly  of  men,  called 
together  on  the  authority  of  the  magistracy  ; 
from  sxxaheu,  evoco,  convoco — e.  g.,  Acts,  xix. 
32,  39.     The  Hebrew  Snp  is  used  in  the  same 
way,  especially  in  the  books  of  Moses,  and  is 
commonly  translated  in  the  Septuagint  by  fx- 
xT^rjaia.     The  same  is  true  of  the  Hebrew  tnpp. 
The  term  Snp   (rvirv),  denoted   secondarily  all 
those  who  belonged  to  the  Jewish  people,  and 
professed  the  Jewish  religion.     Christians  took 
the  word  from  the  Jews,  and  like  them  used 
txxhyaia  to  denote  (#)  particular  societies  of 
Christians  in  particular  cities  or  provinces— e. 
g.,  ixxhycsia  ev  'Ifpoaohv/AOit,  x.  1.  X.,  Acts,  viii. 
I ;  (&)  the  religious  assemblies  of  these  societies, 
and  the  places  in  which  they  met — e.  g.,  I  Cor. 
xi.  18;  xiv.  19,  28,  &c. ;   (c)  the  whole  sum  of 
those  who  profess  the  Christian  religion,  wher- 
ever they  may  be — e.  g.,  1  Cor.  xii.  28  ;  Matt, 
xvi.  18,  seq. 

(2)  Swoycoyjj  and  fTtKjwoycoyrj*  and  these, 
too,  are  used  by  the  Septuagint  to  render  the 
words  Snp  and  rry.     But  they  were  employed 
by  the  Grecian  Jews  about  the  time  of  Christ 
to  denote  their  places  of  prayer,  or  oratories,  and 
the  congregations  connected  with  them.     Vide 
Vitringa,  de  Synagoga  Vetere.   And  so  we  find 
them  used  in  the  New  Testament,  to  denote  the 
religious   assemblies    of    Christians,   and    the 

2R 


470    - 


CHRISTIAN 


places  where  they  held  them — e.  g.,  Heb.  x. 
25;  James,  ii.  2.  These  terms,  however,  were 
never  used,  like  the  preceding,  to  denote  the 
whole  of  Christendom. 

(3)  There  were  also  various  figurative  names 
employed — e.  g.,  jSacaft-Eta  *tu>v  ovpavav,  or  tov 
<s>sov.  So  frequently  in  the  discourses  of  Christ. 
Vide  s.  99, 1.  But  this  term  denotes  not  simply 
the  Christian  religion  and  church;  it  compre- 
hends all  to  whom  belong  the  rights,  duties, 
and  the  entire  blessedness  of  the  pious  follow- 
ers of  Christ,  in  this  life  and  the  life  to  come — 
e.  g.,  John,  iii.  3 ;  Matt.  v.  3.  Sw^a  Xptcrrou 
(of  which  he  is  the  xf$a"kri) — a  figurative  ex- 
pression used  to  denote  the  intimate  connexion 
between  believers  and  Christ,  and  to  impress 
upon  them  the  duties  of  mutual  harmony  and 
brotherly  love;  Rom.  xii.  5.  He  is  the  head, 
we  the  members,  Eph.  i.  22,  also  chap.  iv.  and 
v.  Na6$  0sov,  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  17, — used  to  de- 
scribe the  dignity  and  holiness  of  Christians, 
and  the  inviolableness  of  their  rights.  Ofrcoj 
Ofou,  1  Pet.  iv.  17,  seq.  Besides  these,  all  the 
terms  used  to  designate  the  Israelites  as  the 
peculiar  and  favourite  people  of  God  are  trans- 
ferred to  Christians  in  the  New  Testament — e. 
g.,  Xaoj  Ttfptouaioj,  Titus,  ii.  14;  &a6$  ei$  Tttpt- 
jtoLyaiv  (rtfptrtotjjtjfcjj),  1  Pet.  ii.  9;  exfax'toi,,  x. 
•t.  x.  The  Israelites  were  the  ancient  people  of 
God,  (under  the  Ttahaia  SIO^-T-XJ?,)  in  opposition 
to  the  new  people  of  God,  (under  the  xaivrj  5ta- 
£j?3C77.)  And  this  ancient  people  is  always  re- 
garded as  the  stock  from  which  the  new  sprung, 
Rom.  xi.  17,  seq.;  Acts,  xv.  16.  And  on  this 
very  account  Paul  earnestly  warns  Christians, 
in  the  passage  cited,  against  despising  or  un- 
dervaluing the  Jews. 

II.  Divisions  of  the  Church. 

(1)  Into  universal  and  particular.   The  church 
universal  comprehends  within   itself  all   who 
profess  the  Christian  doctrine,  No.  I.    But  since 
all  Christians  cannot  agree  respecting  doctrines 
and  forms  of  worship,  it  is  natural  that  those 
who  do  agree  in  these  respects  should  enter  into 
a  more  intimate  connexion.    Hence  have  arisen 
particular  churches,  differing  according  to  place 
and  time,  doctrine,  forms,  &c.     Hence  the  divi- 
sion of  the  church  into  the  Eastern,  Western, 
Roman,  African,  Papal,  Lutheran,  Calvinistic, 
&c.     Again ;  these  particular  churches  are  sub- 
divided into  ecclesise  singulares,  by  which  are 
understood  the  separate  communions  belonging 
to  one  particular  church,  since  even  these  often 
differ  according  to  time  and  place,  and  even 
with  respect  to  doctrines  and  usages.    Thus  we 
have  the  Lutheran  church  in  Saxony,  Branden- 
burg, Sweden ;  the  Reformed  church  in  Eng- 
land and  Switzerland,  &c. 

(2)  Into  the  true  church  and  fake  churches, 
and  their  subdivisions.     This  division  must  be 


THEOLOGY. 

retained  in  abstracts,  although  it  should  be  ap-1 
plied  very  cautiously  in  concrete,  or  to  particular  ' 
cases.  We  may  see,  in  general,  that  that  Chris- 
tian church  deserves  eminently  the  name  of  the 
true  church  in  which  there  is  an  entire  agree- 
ment with  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  and  the  apos- 
tles. The  more  it  obeys  Christ  in  everything 
which  he  has  commanded,  the  more  worthy  is 
it  of  this  name,  Eph.  v.  23,  24.  But  there  has 
never  been  a  church  respecting  all  whose  mem- 
bers this  could  be  said  ;  nor  was  there  any  such, 
even  during  the  times  of  the  apostles,  as  we  see 
from  their  writings  ;  there  has  never  been  a  par- 
ticular church  wholly  free  from  errors  and  devi- 
ations from  the  doctrine  of  Jesus.  Christ  him- 
self declares  that  in  his  church  on  earth  there 
will  always  be  error  and  truth,  good  and  evil 
mingled  together.  Vide  s.  135,  II.  It  is  there- 
fore better  to  say  that  is  the  true  church,  or, 
more  properly,  haa  the  most  truth,  in  which 
there  is  found  a  nearer  agreement  with  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  and  the  apostles  than  in  other 
churches. 

On  this  subject  the  opinions  of  Christians  are 
so  divided  that  it  is  impossible  to  give  any  ge- 
neral characteristic  marks  of  the  true  church 
which  would  be  approved  by  all.  The  defini- 
tion of  the  true  church  will  always  depend  upon 
the  individual  belief  and  conviction  of  every 
Christian  ;  and  each  one  regards  that  church  as 
true  which  is  most  accordant  with  his  own 
views.  The  following  principles,  however, 
may  be  of  some  practical  importance : — 

(a)  No  one  church  is  in  the  exclusive  pos- 
session of  the  truth.  There  are  in  every  church 
faults,  defects,  and  errors;  and  so  it  was  at  the 
time  of  the  apostles,  and  so  it  is  in  all  human 
societies  and  institutions. 

(6)  Nor  is  there,  on  the  other  hand,  any 
Christian  church  which  is  wholly  wanting  in 
the  truth,  or  which  does  not  profess  many  use- 
ful and  important  truths,  although  mixed  more 
or  less  with  error.     We  cannot  in  this  matter 
judge  of  the  particular  members  of  a  church 
from  the  established  and  received  doctrines  of 
their  church  without  doing  the  greatest  injus- 
tice.    In  this  respect  wrong  is  often  done;  for 
experience  teaches  that  there  are   often  good 
Christians  in  a  church  which  professes  many 
errors,  and  which  has  a  bad  constitution;  and, 
on  the  contrary,  that  there  are  often  connected 
with  very  excellent  church-establishments  those 
who  are  unworthy  of  the  Christian  name.  These   | 
observations  have  given  occasion  to  the  division 
of  the  church  into  pure  and  impure,  according   j 
as  more  or  less  errors  or  false  principles  are  em-   j 
braced.     We  also  speak  of  a  corrupt  church,  by    i 
which  is  meant  particularly  a  church  in  which    ! 
false  moral  principles,  exerting  an  injurious  in-    : 
fluence  upon  the  life  and  Christian  walk,  are 
mingled  with  Christian  doctrine.     It  remains 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       471 


therefore  true,  that  the  separate  Christian  com- 
munions are  of  different  value  and  excellence 
according  to  their  greater  or  less  purity  in  doc- 
trine, and  according  to  the  greater  or  less  adapt- 
edness  of  their  external  polity  and  forms  to  pro- 
mote moral  improvement.  It  cannot  therefore 
be  in  itself  an  indifferent  matter  to  which  of 
these  one  belongs.  No  one,  however,  should 
desire  to  make  his  own  individual  conviction 
the  unconditional  rule  for  all  others,  and  despise 
and  condemn  those  who  do  not  agree  with  him- 
self. 

(c)  If  there  is  no  church  in  which  the  system 
of  doctrine,  the  regulations,  forms  of  worship, 
&c.,  are  perfect  and  incapable  of  improvement, 
it  follows  that  improvements  may  and  ought  to 
je  made  in  them  whenever  and  wherever  there 
s  a  necessity  for  it,  and  that  it  is  an  entirely 
"alse  maxim  to  adhere  invariably  to  what  is  an- 
cient; and  never  to  alter.     It  does  not  belong, 
lowever,  to  any  particular  member,  not  even  to 
a  public  teacher,  to  urge  his  supposed  improve- 
ments upon  the  church.     And  correct  as  is  the 
principle  de  reformatione  ecclesise,  in  the  abstract, 
ts  practical  application  is  attended  with  very 

great  difficulties. 

(d)  To   unite  externally   all    the   different 
churches  is  not  practicable ;  and  even  if  it  could 
je  done,  would  occasion  more  injury  than  bene- 
it.     And  notwithstanding  all  the  difference  as 
to  opinion  and  form  in  religious  matters,  mutual 
love  and  toleration  may  still   exist.     This   is 
proved  by  the  history  of  the  church  in  ancient 
and  modern  times. 

(3)  The  church  is  divided  into  visible  and  in- 
visible. This  division  is  entirely  rejected  in 
several  of  the  new  systems — e.  g.,  in  those  of 
G rimer,  Doderlein,  and  others.  They  seem, 
however,  to  have  taken  offence  merely  at  the 
terms.  These  are,  indeed,  new  ;  and  have  come 
into  use  since  the  Reformation.  But  the  thing 
itself  which  is  intended  by  these  terms  is  well 
supported,  and  is  as  ancient  as  the  Christian 
church  itself,  and  was  acknowledged  as  true  by 
Ihrtst  and  the  apostles  and  the  whole  early 
church.  These  terms  came  into  use  in  the  fol- 
lowing way  : — Luther  denied  that  the  Romish 
church,  according  to  the  doctrine  and  polity 
which  it  then  professed,  is  the  true  church.  It 
was  then  asked,  Mrhere  then  was  the  true  church 
before  him?  To  which  he  answered,  that  it 
was  invisible — i.  e.,  before  the  Reformation 
those  Christians  had  constituted  the  true  church, 
and  held  the  pure  doctrine,  who,  without  re- 
garding the  authority  and  commandment  of 
men,  had  followed  the  scriptures  according  to 
their  own  views,  had  lived  piously,  and  kept 
themselves  free  from  the  errors  of  the  public 
religion;  and  such  persons  there  always  had 
been,  even  at  the  most  corrupt  periods,  although 
they  had  not  always  been  known.  It  was  from 


this  just  observation  that  this  division  arose. 
Cf.  Confess.  August.,  Art.  vii.  and  viii.,  and 
Apol.  A.  C. 

Protestants  understand  by  the  invisible  church 
true  Christians,  who  not  only  know  the  precepts 
of  Christ,  but  from  the  heart  obey  them,  Matt, 
vii.  21.  This  church  is  not  always  clearly  seen ; 
indeed,  to  speak  justly,  it  is  known  only  to  God, 
Col.  iii.  3  ;  while  from  the  eyes  of  men,  who 
judge  only  according  to  the  external  appearance, 
it  is  wholly  concealed.  On  the  contrary,  the 
visible  church  consists  of  all  who  by  profession 
belong  externally  to  the  church — i.  e.,  attend 
public  worship,  partake  of  the  sacraments,  &c. ; 
for  wherever  the  Christian  doctrine  is  proclaim- 
ed, and  the  rites  prescribed  by  it  are  observed, 
there  the  visible  church  is.  Not  every  one, 
therefore,  who  belongs  to  the  visible  church, 
even  if  it  be  one  of  the  best,  does  on  this  account 
belong  also  to  the  invisible  church.  For  in  the 
visible  church  there  are  often  wicked  men  and 
hypocrites.  This  is  not,  then,  a  division  generis 
in  species,  but  eadem  res  diverso  respectu.  The 
same  is  true  with  respect  to  other  societies — 
e.  g.,  the  republic  of  the  learned. 

There  are  not  wanting  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  in  which  this  distinction  is  plainly 
made,  although  it  is  not  expressed  in  this  man- 
ner. For,  first,  the  word  ixx^aia  in  many  texts- 
denotes  the  whole  number  who  make  an  outward 
profession  of  Christianity,  without  having  any 
reference  to  their  inward  state — e.  g.,  1  Cor.  i. 
2,  &c.  Vide  No.  I.  But,  secondly,  in  other 
passages  such  predicates  are  given  to  the  church 
as  do  not  apply  to  all  who  profess  Christ,  but 
only  to  that  better  and  nobler  part  which  is 
called  the  invisible  church — e.  g.,  Eph.  v.  27, 
oyta,  (tyicojiioj,  p,rj  f^oucra  tfTuXov  77  pur'iSa,  &c. 
Here  belongs  the  remarkable  passage,  Mark,  ix. 
38 — 40,  where  the  disciples  of  Jesus  would  not 
acknowledge  a  person  to  be  a  genuine  follower 
of  Christ,  because  he  did  not  belong  to  their 
society,  their  external  church,  and  was  not,  as 
it  were,  enrolled  as  belonging  to  their  corpora- 
tion ;  on  which  point  Christ  sets  them  right* 
Cf.  Matt.  xv.  22,  seq.  That  in  the  visible 
church  (jBatfi^fta  tuv  ovpavwv)  the  evil  and  the 
good  are  mingled  together,  and  cannot  be  exter- 
nally separated  without  injury  to  the  whole,  is 
taught  by  Christ  in  the  excellent  parable,  Matt. 
xiii.  24 — 30.  The  wicked  are  compared  with 
the  tares,  although  they  belong  to  the  external, 
visible  church ;  but  the  good,  who  belong  both 
to  the  visible  and  invisible  church,  are  compared 
with  the  wheat.  Cf.  the  text,  Matt.  vii.  21, 
above  cited. 

Note. — Christ  regards  all  who  from  the  heart 
believe  in  him  (the  members  of  the  invisible 
church)  as  a  present  which  God  has  given  him,, 
and  so  calls  them  ;  and  upon  them,  he  says,  he 
bestows  eternal  life.  Vide  John,  vi.  37 ;  xviu 


472 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


2,  6.  The  better,  pious  part  of  mankind  are 
spoken  of  as  belonging-  to  God, — they  are  his 
children  ;  and  this  his  possession  he  gives  over 
to  the  charge  of  Christ,  to  lead  them  to  eternal 
life.  This  is  a  great  and  heart-affecting  idea ; 
and  if  such  a  thought  had  been  found  in  Plato 
or  Xenophon,  there  would  have  been  no  end  of 
praising  it;  but  in  the  holy  scriptures  it  is  less 
regarded. 

(4)  The  church  is  divided  again  into  militant 
and  triumphant.  By  the  church  militant  is 
meant  Christians  in  the  present  life,  so  far  as 
they  have  to  contend  with  many  internal  and 
external  sufferings,  adversities,  and  persecu- 
tions. By  the  church  triumphant  is  meant  the 
society  of  Christians  in  heaven,  so  far  as  they 
are  freed  from  all  these  trials,  and  enjoy  the 
most  perfect  rest  and  blessedness.  The  church, 
however,  is  here  used,  in  the  narrower  sense, 
for  the  invisible  church  and  its  members.  This 
division  was  taken  principally  from  the  text, 
Rev.  xii.  7,  seq.,  though  this  is  rather  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  rest  to  which  the  church  will  be  re- 
stored here  upon  the  earth,  after  long  persecu- 
tions and  calamities.  It  is  also  derived  from 
those  passages  in  which  the  dangerous  and  toil- 
some life  of  Christians  is  compared  with  a  strife 
and  conflict,  which  will  soon  be  over — e.  g.,  2 
Tim.  iv.  7.  Here  too  must  be  mentioned  the 
text,  Heb.  xii.  22,  23,  where  the  noble  thought 
is  exhibited,  that  we  compose  but  one  society 
with  the  host  of  blessed  angels  and  the  company 
of  the  saints  now  rewarded  in  heaven  (f^ftetco- 
fic vw  Stxauoj/),  of  whom  Jesus  is  the  Head  ;  and 
that  when  we  have  completed  our  course  here 
below,  we  shall  join  this  upper  society  in  our 
native  land. 

Note. — Among  the  writings  of  the  older  pro- 
testant  theologians,  in  which  this  division  and 
the  other  topics  introduced  in  this  section  are 
treated  very  thoroughly,  that  of  Jo.  Musaeus,  De 
Ecclesia,  (Jenae,  1675,)  deserves  particular  men- 
tion. 

SECTION  CXXXV. 

ATTRIBUTES  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH J  THE 
ECCLESIASTICAL  TERMS  COMMONLY  EMPLOYED 
TO  DESIGNATE  THEM,  AND  THEIR  SIGNIFICA- 
TION. 

IT  has  been  common,  in  imitation  of  the  an- 
cient confessions,  to  predicate  of  the  true  church 
the  four  attributes,  una,  sancta,  catholica,  aposto- 
lica.  In  the  apostolic  symbol  it  is  called  a  holy 
Christian  church,  the  society  of  the  saints ;  in  the 
Nicene  symbol,  one  only,  holy,  Christian,  apos- 
tolic church.  Most  of  these  terms  are  taken  from 
the  New  Testament,  though  they  are  there  used 
in  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  they  are 
employed  in  the  later  ecclesiastical  phraseology. 
And  this  difference  should  be  carefully  noted. 


It  must  be  remarked  in  general  that  all  these  at- 
tributes properly  apply  only  to  the  invisible 
church,  although  many  of  them  may  be  predi- 
cated also  of  the  visible  church,  when  rightly  ex- 
plained. The  doctrine  of  the  perpetuity  of  the 
church  may  be  most  conveniently  considered  in 
connexion  with  these. 

I.  Unity  of  the  Church. 

This  predicate  has  an  entirely  different  mean- 
ing in  the  New  Testament  from  that  which  it 
bears  in  the  common  ecclesiastical  phraseology. 
Its  two  significations  will  therefore  be  separately 
considered. 

(1)  When  the  unity  of  the  church  is  spoken 
of  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  a  moral  unity 
which  is  intended.  The  import  of  this  term  is, 
that  all  who  worship  God  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  should  regard  themselves  as  mem- 
bers of  one  society,  and  as  such  should  exercise 
mutual  brotherly  love;  that  notwithstanding  all 
differences  of  birth,  condition,  knowledge,  opi- 
nions, and  forms,  they  should  still  constitute 
but  one  church,  or  religious  society,  worshipping 
one  and  the  same  Lord,  even  Christ,  and  par- 
taking in  common  of  the  blessings  promised  to 
his  followers.  That  there  should  be  such  a 
union  among  his  followers  was  the  last  will,  the 
testament  of  Christ;  John,  xiii.  34,  coll.  xv.  1, 
seq.  And  in  order  to  this,  it  is  not  essential 
that  there  should  be  a  full  and  entire  agreement 
of  opinion  on  every  particular. doctrine.  Chris- 
tians, though  differing  as  to  their  mode  of  think- 
ing, their  particular  opinions  and  forms,  and 
though  divided  into  particular  communions, 
ought  to  regard  themselves  as  constituting  still 
but  one  church,  and  so  to  live  together  in  unity 
of  spirit.  This  is  the  true  spirit  of  Christianity ; 
it  infuses  feelings  of  toleration.  And  the  more 
one  has  of  the  mind  of  Christ  the  more  tolerant 
will  he  be  to  others ;  and  especially,  because  he 
knows  that  not  only  his  Lord,  but  his  brethren, 
see  much  in  him  which  requires  forbearance. 
Vide  Tit.  iii.  3—5. 

This  unity  of  the  church  is  mentioned  in 
those  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in  which 
warnings  are  given  against  disturbers  of  the 
peace  and  against  controversies;  and  in  those 
also  in  which  it  is  taught  that  it  is  the  design  of 
Christianity  to  remove  all  distinction  between 
Jew  and  Gentile,  and  to  unite  all  nations  in  a 
common  religion;  respecting  which  vide  sec. 
118,11. 

The  principal  proof-texts  here  are,  John, 
xvii.  20,  IVa  Ttdvtes  ev  ZMW  John,  x.  16,  "one 
fold,  one  shepherd  ;"  and  Ephesians,  iv.  3 — 6, 
and  ver.  13,  evotyg  Ttvevpatog,  because  all  wor- 
ship one  God  and  one  Christ,  have  one  baptism 
and  one  doctrine.  The  svotrjs  rtiatfas  in  ver.  13 
is  one  and  the  same  Christian  doctrine,  professed 
alike  by  Jews  and  Gentiles  who  believe  in  Christ, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      473 


who  ought  therefore  to  love  each  other  as  bre- 
thren. Galatians,  iii.  28,  rtavfts  «!?  iv  Xpujr-cp. 
Rom.  xii.  5,  rt ohhoi  ev  (jw^ua  ts^v,  coll.  ver. 
13 ;  x.  17 ;  1  Cor.  i.  12,  13  ;  viii.  6.  The  true 
spiritual  unity  of  Christians  is  therefore  placed 
by  Christ  himself  in  this,  that  they  believe  in 
the  only  true  God,  and  in  Jesus,  as  the  Saviour 
of  the  world ;  that  they  love  him,  and  from  love 
to  him  obey  his  commandments,  and  especially 
that  they  love  one  another.  By  this  only  can 
the  true  disciples  of  Christ  be  known;  not  by 
external  names  and  forms,  but  by  faith,  work- 
ing by  love — the  love  of  Christ  and  our  neigh- 
bour. 

(2)  But  there  gradually  arose,  after  the  second 
and  third  centuries,  an  entirely  different  concep- 
tion of  the  unity  of  the  church.  It  first  origin- 
ated among  the  fathers  in  the  West,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  transferring  to  Christianity  cer- 
tain incorrect  Jewish  ideas  which  were  disap- 
proved by  Jesus  and  his  apostles,  and  which  had 
the  most  injurious  results.  The  unity  of  the 
church  was  placed  by  them  in  an  entire  external 
agreement  as  to  those  doctrines  and  forms  which 
were  handed  down  from  the  times  of  the  apos- 
tles, through  the  churches  founded  by  them,  and 
in  the  external  connexion  and  fellowship  of  the 
particular  societies  founded  upon  this  agree- 
ment. 

The  most  ancient  passages  relating  to  this 
subject  are  found  in  Irenaeus,  (i.  10,)  Tertullian 
(De  Prescript.  Hseret.  c.,  20,  ad  fin.)  and  Cy- 
prian, (in  his  Book,  "DeUnitate  Ecclesiae.") 
The  object  contemplated  in  this  external  con- 
nexion of  churches  was  at  first  very  good ;  it  was 
designed  by  this  means  to  set  bounds  to  the  ever 
encroaching  corruption  in  doctrine  and  life,  and 
to  remove  false  teachers.  But  when  the  rulers 
of  the  churches  no  longer  possessed  the  genuine 
spirit  of  Jesus,  then,  through  these  principles 
and  the  consequences  derived  from  them,  the 
hierarchy  was  gradually  established ;  and  into- 
lerance and  the  spirit  of  persecution  and  anathe- 
matizing became  very  prevalent.  Even  the  pa- 
pal hierarchy  rests  entrirely  upon  these  princi- 
ples, and  originated  from  them.  The  principal 
bishops  now  established  a  kind  of  college  or  se- 
cret society;  and  this  unity  of  the  church  was  made 
dependent,  first,  upon  many  heads,  then,  upon 
one  visible  head  of  the  church.  And  whoever 
ventured  to  dissent  from  the  doctrine  or  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  principal  bishops,  who  held  toge- 
ther and  governed  their  churches,  was  excluded 
from  church-fellowship  and  declared  a  heretic. 
Even  Cyprian  derived  the  one  true  church  in 
the  West  from  Peter,  because  he  taught  at  Rome, 
and  because  the  church  there  was  the  mother  of 
most  of  the  churches  in  the  West.  The  bishops 
regarded  themselves  therefore  as  the  successors 
of  the  apostles,  and  as  the  representatives  of  God 
and  of  Christ;  and  whoever  was  excluded  by 
60 


them  from  church-fellowship  was  excluded  by 
God  himself;  and  it  was  early  believed  and 
taught  that  he  was  at  the  same  time  excluded 
from  salvation.  Vide  s.  128,  II.  Hence  even 
Cyprian  states  in  his  book  the  principle,  extra 
ecclesiam  illam  unicam  et  veram  [externam  or 
visibilem]  non  dari  salutem — a  principle  from 
which  so  many  false  doctrines  were  afterwards 
deduced.  Vide  s.  121,  II. 

Upon  these  supports  does  the  whole  false 
system  of  the  hierarchy  in  the  Romish  church 
depend.  Vide  Henke,  De  Unitate  Ecclesise,  in 
his  "  Opuscula."  But  there  is  no  such  societas 
Christiana,  nor  ought  there,  according  to  the  de- 
sign of  Jesus,  to  be  any  which  shall  resemble 
civil  societies ;  for  this  leads  to  a  hierarchy,  and 
all  the  evil  consequences  which  flow  from  the 
collision  of  secular  and  spiritual  power. 

Protestants  have  never  had  properly  one 
church,  but  churches,  (ecc/estas.)  Such,  at  least, 
is  the  language  employed  iu  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, Art.  vii.,  and  in  the  other  public  instru- 
ments, even  in  the  peace  of  Westphalia ;  and  it 
is  in  this  that  protestantism  is  distinguished  from 
consolidated  popedom.  The  Roman-catholic  idea 
of  the  church  is  vindicated  in  a  very  subtile  and 
plausible  manner  in  the  work,  "Idea  Biblica 
EcclesiaR  Dei,"  by  Franc.  Oberthiir,  vol.  i. ; 
Salzburg,  1790,  8vo,  vol.  ii.  1799.  He  pro- 
ceeds on  the  definition,  Quod  sit  ecclesia  schola 
quasdam,  quant  Deus  erexerit,  nutriendse  ac  pro- 
movendx  internas  religionis  causa,  in  which, 
however,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  anything 
insidious. 

II.  The  Sanctity  of  the  Church. 

.This  is  twofold— viz., 

(1)  External,-  and  this  is  predicated  of  the 
church  so  far  as  it  is  distinguished  from  other 
religious  societies  (e.  g.,  Jewish  or  Gentile)  by 
the  superior  excellence  of  its  religious  princi- 
ples.    In  this  wider  sense,  even  the  Jews  are, 
in  the  Old  Testament,  often  denominated  holy  ; 
and  taken  in  this  sense,  the  visible  Chris- 
tian church  may  justly  be  called  holy ;  for  it  is 
not  the  moral  character  of  the  members  which 
is  designated  by  the  term  in  this  wider  sense. 
And  so  all  Christians,  even  those  who  are  such 
merely  by  external  profession,  are  often  deno- 
minated aytoc  in  the  New  Testament.     Vide  s. 
126,  IV.;  also  1  Pet.  ii.  9. 

(2)  Internal,  or  moral.     The  whole  object  of 
the  establishment  of  the  church,  and  the  instruc- 
tion communicated  in  Christian  doctrine,  is  to 
bring  the  members  of  the  church,  under  divine 
guidance,  to  this  internal  holiness.    This  is  said 
by  Paul  in  the  passage  cited,  Ephes.  v.  26,  27, 
coll.  Tit.  ii.  14.     But  this  object  is  not  actually 
attained  in  respect  to  all  who  belong  to  the  ex- 
ternal visible  church,  but  only  in  those  who 
belong  to  the  invisible  church.    It  can  therefore 


474 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


be  truly  said  only  of  the  invisible  church,  that 
it  is  holy  in  this  internal,  moral  sense. 

Many  have  been  led,  by  confounding  these 
different  meanings,  and  by  misunderstanding 
those  passages  in  which  it  is  made  the  duty  of 
every  Christian  to  be  holy,  to  adopt  the  princi- 
ple that  even  the  external  or  visible  church  must 
be  a  society  consisting  only  of  renewed  persons 
or  saints,  and  that  a  church  which  tolerates 
within  itself  unholy  or  unregenerate  persons 
cannot  be  a  true  church,  and  so  is  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  Christian  fellowship.  It  was  on 
these  principles  that  the  Novatians  proceeded 
in  the  third  century,  and  the  Donatists  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth.  And  they  were  still  more  fre- 
quently maintained  by  the  Anabaptists  and 
other  fanatical  sects  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
The  same  principles  have  been  revived  in  still 
more  modern  times  by  the  quakers,  and  many 
other  fanatics  and  separatists. 

But  they  do  not  consider  that  in  all  external 
human  societies  good  and  evil  must  be  mixed, 
and  that  often  the  Omniscient  only  can  discern 
and  distinguish  the  hypocrites,  who  are  much 
more  injurious  than  the  openly  vicious.  And 
so  Christ  pronounced  that  the  external  church 
could  never  be  pure  from  evil,  and  that  the  tares 
and  the  wheat  must  be  suffered  to  grow  toge- 
ther; Matt.  xiii.  3,  seq.,  ver.  24 — 31,  47 — 50; 
and  so,  too,  he  himself  endured  Judas  among  his 
apostles.  Too  great  severity  often  terrifies  the 
good  and  keeps  them  at  a  distance ;  and  wicked 
ancestors  often  have  descendants  who  are  good 
and  useful  members  of  the  church,  but  who 
would  not  have  been  so  if  their  ancestors  had 
been  excluded.  The  external,  visible  church 
cannot,  therefore,  be  a  society  consisting  of 
pious  Christians  only;  it  is  rather  a  nursery 
(seminarium},  designed  to  raise  up  many  for 
the  invisible  kingdom. 

Still,  however,  it  is  always  right,  and  cer- 
tainly according  to  the  spirit  of  Christ,  for  like- 
minded  Christians  to  associate  together,  and  to 
establish  among  themselves  institutions  which 
they  may  deem  promotive  of  piety,  or  even  to 
form  smaller  societies,  in  which  they  will  permit 
those  only  to  participate  who  have  a  like  object 
and  possess  similar  dispositions  with  them- 
selves, excluding  all  others,  the  ecclesiolae  in  eccle- 
sia  of  which  Spener  spoke.  They  should  beware, 
however,  against  running  in  this  way  into  spiri- 
tual pride,  against  holding  themselves  to  be  bet- 
ter than  others,  and  against  regarding  those  who 
do  not  join  them,  and  are  not  enrolled  among 
them,  as  worse  Christians  than  themselves. 
It  does  not  belong  to  the  government  to  interdict 
such  associations,  if  they  do  not  disturb  civil 
peace  and  order,  any  more  than  to  forbid  and 
hinder  other  private  associations  of  citizens  for 
other  lawful  objects.  The  reasons  for  and 
against  these  associations  are  canvassed  in 


Burkhardt's  "  Geschichte  der  Methodisten;" 
Nurnberg,  1795,  s.  123,  f.  The  history  of  tru 
church  teaches  that  these  smaller  association* 
have  had,  upon  the  whole,  a  highly  beneficial 
effect.  In  times  of  ignorance  and  unbelief  the) 
have  been  the  depositories  of  uncorrupted  Chris- 
tianity. Without  the  Waldenses,  the  Wick- 
lifites,  and  the  Hussites,  the  Reformation  woulc 
never  have  taken  place. 

III.  The  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church. 

A  different  idea  is  attached  to  the  term  catho- 
lic in  modern  times,  and  especially  in  the  pro- 
testant  church,  from  that  which  anciently  be- 
longed to  it.  Catholic  is  now  used  in  its  etymo- 
logical sense,  and  is  synonymous  with  universal 
And  the  church  is  said  to  be  universal,  because 
all  in  the  whole  earth  who  profess  Christ  belong 
to  it,  and  because  Christianity  is  not  merely  z 
national  religion,  or  the  religion  of  a  country, 
but  one  which  may  be  professed  by  all  mer 
without  distinction.  The  church  is  called  apos- 
tolical, because  the  members  of  it  profess  tc 
adopt  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  apostles,  an<3 
contained  in  their  writings ;  according  to  Eph, 
ii.  20,  "built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apos- 
tles." But  anciently  xo&oMxoj  was  synony- 
mous with  6p£o'6ofoj,  and/des  catholica  was  the 
same  as  fides  orthodoxa,  which  was  the  faith 
held  in  opposition  to  heretics,  because  it  was 
supposed  that  the  true  faith,  which  accords  with 
the  will  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  must  be  the 
universal  faith  of  all  Christians,  and  be  found 
in  all  the  churches  established  by  the  apostles, 
Hence  ecclesia  catholica  is  that  quas  hobetfidem 
sive  veritatem  catholicam — }..  e.,  the  right  and 
pure  doctrine  and  constitution,  in  opposition  tc 
those  churches  which  have  not  the  pure  aposto- 
lic doctrine,  but  belong  to  the  heretics.  Thej 
proceeded  on  the  principle  that  there  is  only  one 
true  church,  (vide  No.  I.,)  and  in  order  to  es- 
tablish and  maintain  this,  the  principal  churches 
and  their  bishops  throughout  the  Roman  empire 
(xa£'  otojv  otxov/tEvi?!/)  had  gradually  formed  a 
separate  church  union.  Whatever  agreed  with 
this  was  xa&faxov,  otherwise  alpetixov.  The 
genuine  apostolic  doctrine  was  supposed,  how- 
ever, to  be  found  in  those  churches  which  the 
apostles  themselves  had  founded.  To  -these 
churches,  and  to  the  doctrine  handed  down  in 
them  from  the  times  of  the  apostles,  the  appeal 
was  therefore  made,  in  the  controversies  in 
which  the  catholic  fathers  were  engaged  with 
the  heretics;  and  it  was  by  this  appeal,  an  ap- 
peal to  tradition,  that  they  confuted  them.  Vide 
Introduction,  s.  7,  III.  But  the  whole  body  of 
Christian  churches  professing  the  orthodox  doc- 
trine handed  down  in  the  apostolic  churches 
were  called  the  catholic,  orthodox,  or  apostolic 
church,  because  they  all  agreed  in  the  doctrines 
and  regulations  prescribed  by  the  apostles  to 


STATE  IN^TO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       475 


the  churches  founded  by  them— e.  g.,  by  Peter 
to  the  church  at  Rome,  by  Paul  to  that  at  Ephe- 
sus,  &c.  The  earliest  passages  relating  to  this 
subject  are  found  in  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haeres,  1. 
iii.,  and  especially  in  Tertullian,  De  Prescript. 
Haer.,  c.  20,  21.  It  is  there  said,  for  example, 
Tot  ac  tanlse  ecclesise,  una  est ;  ilia  ab  apostolis 
prirna,  ex  qua  omnes.  Sic  omnes primx,  et  omnes 
apostulicse  dum  una,-  omnes  probant  unitatem, 
etc.  Vide  the  Essay  of  Henke  before  cited. 

^V0;e. — The  infallibility  of  the  church  was 
not  believed  during  the  first  centuries.  Between 
the  period  of  the  Nicene  Council  in  the  fourth 
century,  and  Gregory  the  Seventh,  many  traces 
of  this  opinion  appear.  From  Gregory  the 
Seventh  until  the  Western  schism  in  the  four- 
teenth century,  it  was  placed  mostly  in  the  in- 
fallibility of  the  pope.  From  that  period  until 
the  Council  at  Trent,  the  idea  prevailed  that 
only  the  church  collected  in  general  council  is 
infallible.  Since  that  period,  the  opinions  of 
catholic  theologians  have  been  divided  on  this 
point.  Some  (the  genuine  Romanists)  make  the 
pope  the  subject  of  this  infallibility ;  others  (and 
among  these  even  Febronius)  suppose  the  oecu- 
menical councils  alone  infallible;  others  still 
(and  principally  the  French  theologians  since  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century)  attribute  in- 
fallibility only  to  the  church  dispersed  at  large. 
At  present  this  doctrine  is  wholly  abandoned 
by  some  of  the  more  liberal  catholic  theologians. 
Vide  the  excellent  book  (written  by  a  catholic,) 
entitled  Kritische  Geschichte  der  kirchlichen 
Unfehlbarkeit,  zur  Beforderung  einer  freyern 
Priifung  des  Katholicismus,  Frankf.  a.  M.  1792, 
8vo.  Cf.  also  the  very  learned  and  liberal 
work,  entitled  "  Thomas  Freykirch,  oder  Frey- 
miithige  Untersuchung  von  einem  katholischen 
Gottesgelehrten  iiber  die  Unfehlbarkeit  der  ka- 
tholischen Kirche,  Ir.  b. ;  Frankf.  und  Leipzig, 
1792,  8vo. 

IV.  The  Perpetuity  of  the  Church. 

Christ  himself  teaches,  with  the  greatest  as- 
surance, that  the  religious  society  and  constitu- 
tion founded  by  him  will  never  cease,  but  be 
perpetual.  M  the  powers  of  decay  and  destruc- 
tion shall  not  get  advantage  over  «7,  rtvXcu  ci6ot> 
(where  all  which  perishes  or  is  destroyed  upon 
the  earth  is  collected)  ov  xo,-tus%vGovG(.v  avtr^, 
Matt.  xvi.  18.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
Testament  that  Christ,  as  the  Ruler  of  the 
church,  is  now  actively  employed  in  heaven  for 
its  good,  and  that  he  will  continue  until  the  end 
of  the  world  to  support  and  enlarge  it.  Vide 
Matt,  xxviii.  20;  1  Cor.  xv.  25,  coll.  Ephes.  iv. 
16,  and  s.  98,  respecting  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
This,  however,  is  not  to  be  so  understood  as  to 
imply  that  the  particular  forms  of  doctrine  which 
prevail  at  any  particular  time,  and  the  particu- 
lar church  communions  originating  from  them, 


will  be  of  perpetual  duration.  Changes  must 
necessarily  here  take  place.  The  history  of  the 
church  teaches  that  one  mode  of  church  polity 
succeeds  another,  and  that  yet,  however  great 
these  changes  may  be,  Christianity  still  sur- 
vives. External  constitutions  and  economies 
resemble  the  scaffolding,  which  aid  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  building,  but  are  not  the  build- 
ing itself.  They  may  be  taken  down  and  broken 
to  pieces  when  they  have  answered  their  pur- 
poses, and  the  building  will  then  proceed  in  a 
different  way.  That  this  is  so,  is  proved  by  the 
history  of  the  church.  It  has  been,  however,  a 
common  mistake  for  the  members  of  certain  par- 
ticular churches — e.  g.,  the  catholic,  Lutheran, 
and  others,  to  suppose  that  if  their  particular 
constitution  should  cease  the  whole  Christian 
church  and  Christianity  itself  would  perish. 
So  most  in  all  the  separate  communions  still 
think,  and  always  have  thought;  and  yet  the 
Christian  doctrine  and  church  have  hitherto 
been  perpetuated,  notwithstanding  the  greatest 
revolutions  in  states  and  in  ecclesiastical  poli- 
ties ;  and  this  beyond  a  doubt  would  still  be  the 
case,  even  if  the  particular  churches  and  esta- 
blishments now  existing  should  perish.  The 
spirit  and  essential  nature  of  Christianity  may 
remain,  however  much  its  external  form  may  be 
altered.  Christianity,  however,  is  not  so  con- 
nected with  any  one  place  or  nation  that  it  must 
necessarily  be  perpetuated  there,  nor  has  any 
one  church  a  promise  that  its  descendants  shall 
be  Christians.  We  know  from  the  history  of 
the  church,  that  where  Christianity  was  once 
most  flourishing,  it  has  since  been  expelled, 
either  by  superstition  or  unbelief,  and  it  has 
thence  travelled  to  other  regions  which  were 
formerly  sunk  in  the  deepest  night  of  ignorance. 
Let  the  reader  call  to  mind  the  former  flourishing 
condition  of  the  Eastern  churches,  and  then  com- 
pare with  it  their  present  state.  Every  church 
should  make  the  use  of  this  fact  which  is  sug- 
gested in  Rev.  ii.  5. 

SECTION  CXXXVI. 

OF  THE  HEAD  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  ;  AND 
OF  THE  INSTITUTIONS  ESTABLISHED  TO  MAIN- 
TAIN AND  EXTEND  IT,  ESPECIALLY  THROUGH 
THE  OFFICE  OF  PUBLIC  TEACHING. 

I.  The  Head  of  the  Church. 

THE  only  true  Head  and  supreme  Lord  of  the 
Christian  church  is  Jesus  Christ,  according  to 
the  uniform  doctrine  of  Christ  himself  and  the 
apostles.  Vide  Moms,  p.  278,  s.  2.  Those 
who  profess  his  doctrine  are  brethren,  and  as 
such  have  equal  rights.  Vide  Matt,  xxiii.  8. 
Hence  he  is  called  o  rtot/op,  ap^trtot/ur(r,  x.  i1.  7.. 
John,  x.  12;  1  Pet.  v.  4;  Heb.  xiii.  20;  and 
,  Ephes.  i.  22,  iv.  15 ;  Col.  ii. 


476 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


10.  Nor  is  he  called  by  these  titles  merely  in 
a  figurative  sense,  but  because,  in  his  exalted 
state,  he  exercises  unwearied  and  watchful  care 
over  men,  and  especially  over  his  church  and 
its  members.  Vide  s.  98,  respecting  the  king- 
dom of  Christ. 

Christ  therefore  by  no  means  wished  that  his 
apostles  should  exercise  a  lordly  dominion  over 
other  Christians,  Luke,  xxii.  24,  and  they  never 
assumed  such  authority,  but  expressly  protested 
against  it.  Vide  1  Pet.  v.  1 — 3 ;  1  Cor.  v.  6, 
seq.  Nor  was  it  his  will  that  one  of  the  apos- 
tles, or  his  successors,  should  possess  supre- 
macy and  magisterial  power  over  the  church, 
like  what  is  asserted  in  the  Romish  church  re- 
specting Peter  and  his  successors,  of  which 
there  is  not  a  trace  in  the  New  Testament  or  in 
the  first  centuries,  as  appears  from  church  his- 
tory. The  text,  Matt.  xvi.  18,  upon  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  church,  relates  indeed  to  Peter  and 
his  merits  in  diffusing  the  Christian  faith.  For 
history  teaches  that  he  really  laid  the  first  foun- 
dation of  the  great  building  of  the  house  of  God 
after  the  departure  of  Christ,  both  from  the  Jews, 
Acts  ii.,  and  from  the  Gentiles,  Acts  x. — a 
building  which  is  firmly  based  (built  on  a 
rock,)  and  which  will  endure  until  the  end  of 
the  world,  whence  he  is  always  pre-eminent 
among  the  apostles.  But  nothing  is  said  in  this 
passage  respecting  his  own  supreme  and  judi- 
cial power  over  the  church,  or  that  of  his  suc- 
cessors. Peter  is  here  spoken  of  as  a  disciple, 
and  not  as  a  ruler  and  governor.  Moms  ex- 
plains this  passage  very  well,  (p.  284,  seq.  n.  3.) 

It  is  therefore  justly  affirmed  in  the  protestant 
church  that  Christ  has  constituted  no  visible 
head  of  the  whole  church  who  is  to  hold  his 
place  upon  the  earth,  and  to  act  and  make  de- 
crees as  his  representative  and  in  his  name. 

It  is  quite  another  question,  Whether  the 
Christian  church  has  not  the  right  to  commit  to 
some  one  the  charge  and  government  of  its  exter- 
nal public  concerns  ?  This  right  the  church  cer- 
tainly has ;  and  if  good  order  is  to  be  preserved, 
it  must  be  exercised,  because  all  the  members 
of  the  church  cannot  take  part  in  its  govern- 
ment. Thus  it  was  in  the  apostolic  church. 
But  the  one,  or  the  many,  who  are  appointed  to 
this  duty,  and  who  constitute  an  ecclesiam  re- 
prsesentativam,  possess  this  pre-eminence  not 
jure  divino,  but  humano.  They  ought  not 
therefore  to  give  out  their  decretals  as  divine, 
and  in  the  name  of  God.  Their  enactments  are 
merely  human,  and  ought  to  have  no  more  than 
human  authority;  they  may  be  altered,  im- 
proved, &c. 

Since,  moreover,  in  every  well-organized  so- 
ciety there  must  be  subordination,  no  good  rea- 
son can  be  given  why  this  should  not  be  intro- 
duced among  the  officers  and  teachers  of  the 
Christian  church,  and  why  one  should  not  have 


more  authority  than  another.     In  this  way,  at  a   | 
very  early  period,  a  great  pre-eminence  over  the 
other  occidental  bishops  was  ascribed  to  the  ' 
Roman  bishops,  and  he  was  called  the  head  of  !| 
the  (occidental)  church,  while  as  yet  there  was  ,| 
no  absolute  dominion  or  magisterial  power  over  | 
the  church  allowed  him.     But  for  a  further  ac-  j 
count  of  this  matter  we  must  refer  to  canon  law 
and  church  history. 

II.  The  Office  of  Teaching  in  the  Church. 

Every  Christian  has  the  right,  and  indeed  is 
under  obligation,  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  main- 
tain and  promote  Christian  knowledge  and  feel- 
ing. Vide  Rom.  xv.  14;  Gal.  vi.  1;  Eph.  v. 
19 ;  vi.  4 ;  1  Thess.  v.  14.  But  since  all  Chris- 
tians have  not  the  time,  talents,  or  other  qualifi- 
cations requisite  for  this  work,  some  were  set 
apart  by  Christ,  whose  appropriate  business  and 
calling  it  should  be  to  teach  and  counsel  those 
committed  to  their  charge ;  and  these  were  to 
be  the  instruments  through  whom  he  designed 
that  his  doctrine  should  be  maintained  and  trans- 
mitted, and  the  practice  of  it  promoted.  Paul 
therefore  derives  the  institution  of  the  different 
kinds  of  officers  and  teachers  in  the  church  di- 
rectly from  God  and  Christ,  and  says  that  each 
received  a  different  office  and  employment,  ac- 
cording to  his  talents  and  gifts ;  1  Cor.  xii.  28 ; 
Eph.  iv.  11,  12;  and  in  the  latter  passage  he 
says  that  this  arrangement  was  made  for  the 
perfection  and  edification  of  the  Christian 
church,  (rfpoj  xatapifiripov — f  t$  oixoSo^v  cfw^uatoj 
Xpttf-r'ov.)  They  are  hence  called  i^ptraj  and 
8idxovoi  ©sou  and  Xpttfroaj — those  who  stand  in 
the  service  of  God  and  Christ,  and  are  employed 
by  them  as  instruments.  They  are  also  called 
fellow  workers  with  God,  (tjwfpyot,)  1  Cor.  iii.  9. 

The  Christian  office  of  teaching  was  therefore 
appointed  by  Jesus  Christ  himself  as  an  insti- 
tution designed  for  the  maintenance  and  spread 
of  the  gospel  through  all  ages.  And  he  had 
the  right  to  do  this,  as  being  commissioned  and 
authorized  by  God  himself  to  be  the  founder 
and  head  of  his  church.  No  one  of  his  follow- 
ers can  therefore  consistently  undervalue  this 
institution,  or  wilfully  withdraw  himself,  on  any 
pretence,  from  the  assemblies  of  Christians  for 
the  purpose  of  religious  instruction.  Matt. 
xxviii.  18 — 20;  Eph.  iv.  11,  seq.;  Heb.  x.  25. 
But  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  obviate  various 
abuses  and  mistakes,  that  we  should  here  more 
particularly  illustrate  some  points  relating  to  the 
office  of  teaching. 

(1)  The  apostles  were  set  apart,  as  public 
teachers  and  as  founders  of  Christian  churches, 
directly  by  Christ  himself;  and  they  again,  as 
ambassadors  for  Christ,  appointed  a  perpetual 
office  of  teaching,  and  the  public  assembling  of 
Christians  for  worship,  and  other  institutions, 
calculated  to  impart  strength  and  perpetuity  to 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      477 


the  church.  Cf.  the  first  chapters  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  Cf.  also  Spalding,  Vom  Werth 
und  Nutzen  des  Predigtamts,  2te  Ausg. ;  Berlin, 
1773,  8vo. 

The  teachers  in  the  apostolic  church  are  di- 
vided into  ordinary  and  extraordinary.  Among 
the  latter  are  included  the  apostles  themselves, 
the  evangelists,  (who  were  missionaries  and  as- 
sistants of  the  apostles,)  and  in  general  all  who 
were  not  appointed  as  permanent  teachers  over 
particular  churches,  but  who  were  employed  in 
extending  Christianity,  and  in  founding  new 
churches.  Among  the  former — the  ordinary  and 
permanent  officers  and  teachers  of  each  particu- 
lar church — were  tjticxortoi,,  rtpsafivtfpoi,  jtot- 
,  (of  which  the  general  name  is 
,  officers,  rulers  of  the  church,  Hebrews, 
xiii.  7,  17,  24.)  Some  of  these  had  more  to  do 
with  the  external  concerns  of  the  church,  (pres- 
byteri  regentes,  rtotpeves,)  and  others  were  more 
especially  employed  in  instruction,  (presbyteri 
•  ducentes,  StSctoxakot.)  But  for  a  more  particular 
account  of  this  matter  we  must  refer  to  church 
!  history. 

These  officers  and  teachers  were  not  appointed 
i immediately  by  Christ  himself;  and  in  the  first 
church  they  were  not  always  appointed  in  the 
i same  way  and  by  the  same  persons;  certainly 
i  no  rule  was  given  respecting  this  point  which 
should  be  binding  in  all  places  and  at  all  times. 
The  apostles  never  imposed  teachers  upon  any 
church,  but  left  to  the  churches  the  enjoyment 
of  the  right  belonging  to  them  of  choosing  their 
own  teachers.  This  right  of  choosing  their  of- 
ficers was  sometimes  exercised  by  the  churches 
— e.  g.,  Acts,  vi.  2,  3,  5;  2  Cor.  viii.  19;  and 
sometimes  they  left  it  to  the  apostles,  or  persons 
commissioned  by  them,  to  whom  was  committed 
the  care  of  the  public  affairs  of  the  church— e. 
g.,  2  Tim.  ii.  2;  Tit.  i.  5,  seq. 

But  all  these  teachers  and  overseers,  appoint- 
ed either  by  the  churches  or  their  rulers  and  re- 
i  presentatives,  were  regarded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  appointed  by  God,  or  the  Holy  Ghost, 
i  or  Christ— e.  g.,  Acts,  xx.  28;  Col.  iv.  17;  be- 
;  cause  their  consecration  took  place  on  his  autho- 
i  rity,  and  according  to  his  will.     It  is  common 
j  to  denominate  the  naming  and  consecration  of 
any  one  to  the  office  of  teaching,  his  calling  (vo- 
catio),  because  *np  and  xateiv  are  used  in  the 
scriptures  with  respect  to  the  designation  of 
j  prophets  and  other  teachers,  and  the  divine  com- 
|  missions  entrusted  to  them.     And  this  calling, 
I  even  in  application  to  the  teachers  of  religion  at 
|  the  present  day,  may  be  denominated  divine,  so 
i  far  as  it  is  accordant  with  the  divine  will,  and 
with  the  order  which  God  has  established;  in 
j  the  same  way  as  the  institution  of  government 
j  is  called  divine,  Romans,  xiii.  1.   At  the  present 
i  time,  however,  this  calling  is  never  immediately 
\  from  God.     And  every  teacher  may  be  sure  that 


he  has  a  divine  call  (i.  e.,  one  in  accordance 
with  the  divine  will)  when  in  a. regular  manner 
he  has  received  a  commission  to  his  office  from 
those  who  have  the  right  to  induct  him,  and 
after  careful  examination,  in  the  presence  of 
God,  has  found  that  he  can  hope  to  discharge 
its  duties  with  the  divine  approbation.  The 
characteristics  of  a  teacher  who  is  acceptable  to 
God  and  to  Christ  are  briefly  enumerated,  1 
Tim.  iii.  2—7;  2  Tim.  ii.  24;  Titus,  i.  5—9; 
1  Pet.  v.  2,  seq. ;  and  by  these  each  one  may 
examine  himself. 

That  a  teacher  of  religion  should  be  solemnly 
consecrated  to  his  office,  or  ordained,  is  a  regula- 
tion which  is  indeed  useful  both  to  the  teacher 
himself  and  to  the  church  ;  but,  in  itself  consi- 
dered, it  is  not  a  matter  juris  divini ;  it  is  no- 
where expressly  commanded  by  God,  and  con- 
tributes nothing,  considered  as  an  external  cere- 
mony, to  efficiency  and  activity  in  the  sacred 
office.  Luther  himself  pronounced  ordination 
not  to  be  necessary,  and  said  that  a  rightful  call- 
ing is  sufficient  to  make  any  one  a  rightful 
teacher,  and  this  is  the  consecration  of  God. 
And  this  is  very  true;  for  the  right  to  teach 
does  not  properly  depend  upon  ordination,  but 
upon  vocation.  On  protestant  principles,  the 
ordination  of  a  teacher  is  nothing  else  than  a 
public  approval  and  confirmation  of  his  calling 
to  the  office  of  teaching;  so  that  thenceforward 
he  may  begin  his  work,  and  enjoy  his  rights. 
Moms,  p.  282,  n.  3. 

The  act  which  is  now  called  ordination,  and 
which  is  still  retained  in  the  protestant  church, 
is  something  very  different  from  ^ordination  ac- 
cording to  the  use  of  the  ancient  church,  and  the 
old  ecclesiastical  Latinity.  Ordinatio  was  there 
the  same  as  %t tpot ovia,  and  was  taken  from  mili- 
tary life  among  the  Romans,  like  the  word  or- 
dines ;  for  Christians  were  called  milites  Christi. 
It  was  therefore  synonymous  with  constitutio, 
constituere  ad  munuspublicum,  and  was  the  same 
with  vocare.  But  afterwards  they  made  a  sepa- 
rate order  of  the  clergy,  and  allowed  them  en- 
tirely peculiar  privileges,  and  an  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction,  and  then  called  them  ordo,  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  the  Roman  senate  is  called 
ordo,  ordo  senatorius,  with  which  it  was  com- 
pared ;  and  when  any  one  was  received  into 
this  order  by  special  consecration,  he  was  said 
ordinari.  t 

The  right  of  ordaining,  according  to  protest- 
ant principles,  is  not  confined  to  particular  per- 
sons— e.  g.,  bishops;  but  it  can  be  performed 
by  any  one  who  is  commissioned  to  do  it  by  the 
church,  or  by  their  functionaries  and  representa- 
tives. The  imposition  of  hands  in  the  induction 
of  teachers  into  office  is  mentioned — e.  g.,  1  Tim. 
iv.  14;  Acts,  xiii.  3;  and  is  a  ceremony  bor- 
rowed from  the  Jewish  church,  where  it  was 
practised  with  regard  to  all  to  whom  any  office 


478 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


was  given,  to  whom  anything  was  promised,  or 
for  whom  any  blessing  was  implored  from  God, 
as  a  sign  of  blessing,  invocation,  &c. — symbo- 
lum  collationis. 

There  is  one  practice  in  the  protestant  church 
with  reference  to  this  subject  which  is  a  real 
remnant  of  popery — viz.,  that  an  ordained  per- 
son may  still  teach  and  administer  the  sacra- 
ments, even  when  he  no  longer  properly  fills  an 
office  as  a  teacher  of  religion,  as  if  ordination 
put  a  character  indelebilis  upon  a  person ;  while 
the  truth  is,  that  the  permission  and  the  right  to 
discharge  these  duties  depend  upon  a  person's 
vocation  to  the  sacred  office,  and  not  upon  his 
ordination.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  the  prac- 
tice of  the  protestant  church  is  inconsistent  with 
its  theory,  and  many  evil  consequences  are  the 
result. 

(2)  Of  the  rights  of  Christian  teachers. 

First.  As  to  the  rights  of  teachers,  they  have, 
merely  as  teachers,  no  other  than  to  instruct  and 
counsel  that  part  of  the  church  entrusted  to  their 
care,  to  perform  the  services  of  public  worship, 
and  in  return  to  expect  their  maintenance  from 
the  church ;  1  Pet.  v.  2,  3 ;  Acts,  xx.  28  ;  1  Cor. 
ix.  6 — 14.  The  church  and  the  government  may, 
however,  if  they  see  it  to  be  best,  confer  still 
other  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  upon 
teachers. 

•yffote. — As  to  the  manner  in  which  the  church 
's'hall  be  governed,  and  by  what  sort  of  persons, 
and  how  instruction  shall  be  provided  for,  there 
are  no  precepts  given  in  the  Bible.  Properly, 
all  Christians  have  a  right  to  teach — every  fa- 
ther his  own  family ;  and  even  to  administer  the 
sacraments,  as  even  Tertullian  truly  observes. 
There  is,  therefore,  truly  a  jus  laicorum  sacerdo- 
tale,  as  Grotius,  Salmasius,  Bohmer,  and  Spener 
have  maintained.  Even  among  the  Jews  the 
teachers  of  the  people  were  not  priests,  but  lay- 
men ;  and  any  one  who  had  proper  qualifications 
might  teach  in  the  synagogue  or  in  the  temple. 
Among  the  ancient  Israelites  the  prophets  were 
commonly  not  from  the  order  of  the  priesthood, 
but  for  the  most  part  from  other  tribes,  classes, 
and  orders  of  the  people.  But  for  the  sake  of 
good  order,  the  business  of  teaching  and  of  per- 
forming the  services  of  public  worship  must  ne- 
cessarily be  entrusted  to  some  particular  persons; 
otherwise  irregularities  and  abuses  are  inevita- 
ble; as  may  be  seen  from-the  example  of  some 
sects  which  allow  every  one  to  teach,  1  Cor.  xii. 

Secondly.  It  was  not  long,  however,  before 
other  rights  and  privileges  were  conferred  upon 
the  teachers  of  the  Christian  church  ;  partly  such 
as  had  belonged  to  the  Jewish  priests  (with  whom 
Christian  teachers  were  compared)  and  even  to 
the  heathen  priests  within  the  Roman  empire, 
and  partly  such  as  were  given  to  the  extraordi- 
nary teachers  in  the  first  Christian  church,  and 
especially  to  the  apostles.  To  these  extraordi- 


nary teachers   Christ    promised  extraordinary  \ 
gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  many  of  their  peculiar 
privileges  and  rights  were  founded  upon  these 
gifts,  and  could  not  be  claimed  by  their  succes-  ^i 
sors,  to  whom  these  gifts  were  not  imparted. 

Among  these  is  especially  the  office  or  the 
power  of  the  keys,  (potestas  clavium.}  This  in-1 
eludes  the  power  of  forgiving  or  not  forgiving 
sins,  like  what  is  common  in  the  protestant; 
church  at  confessions,  or  at  the  preparation  for 
the  Lord's  Supper;  (against  which  there  is  no- 
thing to  be  objected,  if  it  is  understood  that  this 
absolution  is  not  collativa,  but  merely  declarativa 
or  hypothetica  ,•)  and  also  plenipotentiary  power, 
either  to  exclude  any  one  from  church  fellow- 
ship, or  to  receive  him  again ;  so  that  the  entire 
administration  of  church  discipline  is  called  ojfi- 
cium  clavium.  Vide  Morus,  p.  286 — 288. 

But  with  regard  to  this  there  are  more  mis- 
takes than  one  which  need  to  be  answered. 

(a)  In  all  the  passages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment which  are  appealed  to  in  behalf  of  the 
power  of  the  keys,  the  apostles  only — the  extra- 
ordinary teachers  of  the  church — are  spoken  of. 

(6)  In  the  passages  Matt.  xvi.  19  and  xviii. 
-18,  nothing  is  said  about  forgiving  or  not  for-* 
giving  sins,  but  about  binding  and  loosing, 
which  in  such  a  connexion  always  mean,  in  the 
Syriac,  Chaldaic,  and  the  Rabbinical  writers, 
to  forbid  and  to  allow.  Cf.  Lightfoot  and  Wet- 
stein  on  these  texts.  The  meaning  is — "  You, 
as  my  ambassadors,  shall  have  power  in  the 
Christian  church  (xteis  jSctcrttatas  twv  ovpavuv)^ 
to  make  regulations  and  to  give  precepts,  to 
allow  and  to  forbid ;  and  God  will  approve  these 
your  appointments,  and  they  shall  be  regarded 
by  men  as  if  they  were  from  God."  For  the 
apostles  had  special  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and 
were  the  ambassadors  of  God  and  of  Christ. 
The  doctrine  of  the  apostles  should  therefore  be 
to  all  Christians  the  rule  of  what  they  should 
do  and  what  they  should  leave  undone.  The 
same  is  taught  in  other  words,  Matt,  xviii.  18. 
This  is  somewhat  differently  explained  by  Mo- 
rus, p.  284,  287. 

(c)  In  John,  xx.  23,  Christ  gives  to  his  apos-  ( 
ties,  as  ambassadors  of  God,  full  power  to  for- 
give sins,  or  to  withhold  forgiveness.  The  rea- 
son of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit  promised  ver.  22.  The  apostles  did  not 
indeed  become  omniscient  and  infallible  by  the 
possession  of  these  extraordinary  gifts ;  but  they 
received  power  to  free  men  from  certain  evils, 
which  were  regarded  as  punishments  of  sin, 
especially  from  sicknesses  ;  and  it  is  this  power 
which  seems  to  be  here  spoken  of,  and  therefore 
not  so  much  de  remissione  peccatorum  VERBALI, 
(as  theologians  call  it,)  as  de  remissione  reali. 
Thus  the  healing  of  the  lame  man,  Matt.  ix.  6, 
is  derived  from  the  power  which  the  Messiah 
possessed  of  forgiving  sins. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       479 


(d)  The  right  to  receive  any  one  into  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  church,  or  to  exclude  him  from 
it,  did  not  belong  to  the  apostles  or  to  other 
teachers  exclusively.  Nor  did  the  apostles  ever 
exercise  it,  or  claim  it  for  themselves ;  but  they 
left  the  exercise  of  it  to  the  churches.  Vide 
1  Cor.  v.  13 ;  2  Cor.  ii.  6—10.  That  the  church 
not  only  have  the  right,  but  are  under  obliga- 
tion, to  provide  for  the  support  of  their  doctrine 
and  constitution,  and  to  see  to  it  that  nothing  is 
done  contrary  to  them,  is  indeed  unquestionable. 
And  this  is  the  foundation  of  Christian  disci- 
pline— i.  e.,  of  all  those  public  regulations  and 
appointments  by  which  the  Christian  doctrine 
and  constitution,  and  a  correspondent  demean- 
our in  the  members  of  the  church,  are  promoted 
and  preserved.  And  this  is  according  to  scrip- 
ture. But  respecting  the  manner  in  which 
Christian  churches  shall  administer  this  disci- 
pline, no  general  rules  are  given.  This  must 
depend  upon  the  situation  and  circumstances  of 
each  particular  church.  The  church  may  allow 
this  right  to  be  exercised  by  some  particular 
persons — e.  g.,  by  its  teachers;  but  these  in 
such  a  case  do  not  possess  this  right  in  and  of 
themselves,  but  in  the  name  of  the  church  and 
as  its  representatives.  In  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  the  Apology  there  is  a  particular 
chapter  on  the  power  of  the  church  as  exercised 
through  its  teachers.  But  many  protestant  teach- 
ers are  dissatisfied  with  having  their  power 
limited  to  mere  teaching  and  counselling.  It  is 
moreover  a  maxim  in  the  protestant  church,  that 
church  discipline  should  not  have  the  form  and 
effect  of  civil  punishments.  Vide  Morus,  p. 
285,  s.  8. 

If  therefore  the  phrase,  the  power  of  the  keys, 
is  to  be  retained,  and  this  power  is  to  be  consi- 
dered as  belonging  to  the  office  of  teaching,  it 
must  be  understood  to  denote  the  right  and  duty 
of  the  teacher  earnestly  to  exhibit  before  the 
impenitent  and  unconverted  the  consequences 
of  their  sins,  the  divine  punishments ;  to  ad- 
monish them,  to  counsel  and  exhort  them  to  re- 
pentance ;  and,  on  the  contrary,  to  comfort  and 
console  the  penitent,  and  to  convince  them,  with 
reasons  drawn  from  the  Christian  system,  of 
the  mercy  of  God,  and  the  forgiveness  of  their 
sins.  This  right  is  derived  from  the  very  object 
of  their  office,  and  cannot  be  denied.  Cf.  the 
texts  relating  to  this  subject,  as  cited  by  Morus, 
p.  283,  n.  2,  and  p.  287,  No.  2.  And  to  these 
points  are  the  rights  and  duties  of  teachers 
limited,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  pro- 
testant church. 

Note  1. — The  more  extended  investigation  of 
the  doctrines  of  church  government,  of  the 
primacy,  of  the  rights  of  the  church  and  its 
teachers,  the  relation  of  the  church  to  the  state, 
&c.,  which  were  formerly  introduced  into  the 
theological  systems,  belong  rather  to  canon  law 


or  to  church  history.  It  will  be  sufficient  here 
to  make  this  one  additional  remark,  that  the 
uniting  of  persons  in  an  ecclesiastical  society 
produces  no  alterations  in  their  lawful,  civil, 
and  domestic  relations.  Vide  1  Cor.  vii.  20 — 24. 
The  church  is  not  a  society  which  is  opposed 
to  the  state;  it  rather  contributes  to  advance 
the  good  ends  of  civil  society.  Hence  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church  are  always  directed  to  yield 
the  most  perfect  obedience  to  the  government. 
Vide  Luke,  xx.  25;  Rom.  xiii.  1  ;  1  Pet.  ii. 
13 — 17.  The  true  Christian  should  not  indeed 
conform  to  the  world  (the  great  body  of  unre- 
newed  men),  and  ought  to  keep  himself  unspot- 
ted from  the  world ;  still  he  should  not,  of  his 
own  accord,  relinquish  his  worldly  station  and 
calling,  so  far  as  it  is  not  sinful. 

[Note  2. — On  the  general  subject  of  this  arti- 
cle, cf.  Hahn,  s.  613,  ff.  Neander,  Kircheng. 
i.  b.  1  Abth.  s.  346.  Bretschneider,  b.  ii.  s. 
785,  ff. — TR.] 


ARTICLE  XIV. 

OF  THE  TWO  SACRAMENTS— BAPTISM  AND 
THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


SECTION  CXXXVII. 

OF  THE  SACRAMENTS  IN  GENERAL. 

I.  Different  uses  of  the  term  "  Sacramentum" 

(1)  In  the  earliest  times  of  the  church.  Even 
Tertullian  employed  the  term  sacramentum  with 
reference  to  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  (sa- 
cramentum aquas  et  eucharistae),  and  many  of  the 
Latin  teachers  after  him.  But  neither  Tertullian 
nor  the  other  ancient  fathers  employ  it  exclu- 
sively with  reference  to  these ;  but  they  were 
accustomed  also  to  apply  it  to  other  things,  to 
such  especially  as  they  elsewhere  called  myste- 
ria.  Hence  we  find  that  in  Tertullian  the 
terms  mysterium  and  sacramentum  are  used  to 
denote  the  whole  Christian  religion  and  its  par- 
ticular doctrines.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
of  the  Incarnation  of  Christ,  &c.,  are  called  al- 
ternately mysterium  and  sacramentum.  The 
same  is  true  of  all  the  rites  and  ceremonies 
practised  by  Christians,  so  far  as  they  are  the 
types  of  spiritual  things,  and  have  a  special  sig- 
nificancy,  or  a  secret  sense,  or  are  kept  private. 

But  from  whence  is  this  use  of  SACRAMENTUM 
derived?  Not  from  the  ancient  Latin  significa- 
tions of  this  word,  according  to  which  it  denotes 
the  military  oath,  or  a  sum  of  money  deposited, 
but  from  the  ancient  Latin  versions  of  the  Bible 
— e.  g.,  the  Vulgate.  In  these  the  Greek  pva- 
tfyiov  is  frequently  rendered  by  the  word  sacra- 
mentum. And  since  this  Greek  term  was  used 


480 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


respecting  all  secret  and  unknown  things,  and 
designated  the  higher  religious  truths,  the  secret 
sense  of  a  thing,  &c.  (vide  Introduction,  s.  6), 
the  term  sacramentum  was  employed  in  ecclesi- 
astical Latinity  in  all  these  senses.  And  it 
was  adopted  the  more  willingly  by  the  fathers, 
because  they  were  accustomed  to  compare  the 
doctrines  and  rites  of  Christianity  with  the  doc- 
trines and  ceremonies  of  the  pagan  mysteries, 
in  order  to  secure  for  them  a  higher  regard  and 
authority  among  the  heathen.  The  texts  of  the 
Vulgate  on  which  this  use  is  founded  are  the 
following — viz.,  Dan.  ii.  18,  30,  where  Ne- 
buchadnezzar's unknown  dream  is  called  sacra- 
mentum. Tob.  xii.  6,  7 ;  B.  of  Wisdom,  ii.  22 ; 
Ephes.  iii.  3,  9,  where  it  stands  for  the  Chris- 
tian system,  and  its  particular  doctrines.  Ephes. 
v.  32 ;  Rev.  i.  20 ;  xvii.  7,  Ac.  The  fathers  now 
called  everything  standing  in  any  relation  to 
religion,  sacramentum,  and  extended  it  espe- 
cially to  all  religious  rites  which  have  a  secret 
sense  or  anything  symbolical,  and  which  are 
the  external  and  sensible  signs  of  certain  spiri- 
tual things  not  cognizable  by  the  senses.  Re- 
specting the  meaning  of  this  term,  cf.  G.  J. 
Vossius,  Disp.  xx.  de  Baptismo;  Amst.  1648. 
Gesner,  Thesaur.  Lat.  h.  v.  Windorf,  Index 
Latin.  Tertull.  t.  vi.  p.  500.  The  primary 
sense,  therefore,  of  the  term  sacramentum,  is, 
as  Morus  justly  observes,  sacrum  signum,  or 
significatio  ret  sacra?. 

(2)  The  rites  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per have  always  been  justly  regarded  in  the 
Christian  church  as  the  most  important  acts  of 
religious  service,  and  as  possessing  a  peculiar, 
mystical  efficacy.  But  to  many  other  usages 
which  have  gradually  become  prevalent  in  the 
church,  and  which  were  not  instituted  by 
Christ  himself,  a  great  significance  and  effi- 
cacy was  attributed ;  and  they  were  supposed 
to  contain  deep  religious  mysteries.  To  all 
these  the  term  sacramentum  was  applied,  in  the 
sense  in  which  it  was  used  by  Augustine — viz., 
Sacramentum  est  visible  signum  rei  sacra?,  sive 
rei  divinse  invisibilis.  In  this  way  all  the  rites 
of  the  church  might  be  reckoned  as  belonging 
to  the  sacraments,  and  this  was  actually  done. 

Now  after  the  twelfth  century  the  schoolmen 
began  to  contend  about  the  number  of  the  sa- 
craments, and  at  length  most  of  them  settled 
upon  seven  (as  a  sacred  number),  which  they 
regarded  as  the  most  important  and  efficacious, 
and  to  which,  by  way  of  eminence,  they  gave 
the  name  sacramenta.  These  were  first  dis- 
tinctly stated  by  Peter  of  Lombardy,  in  the 
twelfth  century,  as  baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper, 
confirmation,  (confirmatio  catecumenorum),  ordi- 
nation, extreme  unction,  auricular  confession  (sa- 
cramentum poenitentiae') ,  and  wedlock.  He  was 
followed  in  this  by  most  of  the  teachers  in  the 


Romish  church,  and  they  endeavoured  to  sup- 
port their  opinion  even  from  the  Bible.  This 
doctrine  was  not,  however,  publicly  acknow- 
ledged until  the  Council  at  Trent,  in  the  six- 
teenth century.  It  must  be  acknowledged  that 
this  selection  does  not  reflect  much  credit  upon 
the  sagacity  of  the  one  who  made  it;  and  it 
proved  the  occasion  of  a  great  accumulation  of  J 
ceremonies,  and  confirmed  the  people  in  the  de- 
lusion that  Christianity  consists  essentially  in  j 
ecclesiastical  rites,  and  that  those  invented  by 
men  have  equal  authority  with  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  which  depend  upon  divine  ap- 
pointment, and  possess  equal  power  and  effi- 
cacy. 

(3)  These  perversions  induced  the  protestant 
theologians  of  the  sixteenth  century,  especially 
those  of  the  Lutheran  church,  to  use  the  word 
sacramentum  in  a  more  limited  sense  than  that 
in  which  it  had  been  previously  taken,  and  so 
to  determine  its  meaning  that  it  should  no  more 
include  all  the  rites  which  had  been  formerly 
denominated  sacramenta,  but  merely  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper.  Hence  the  doctrine  of 
seven  sacraments  was  publicly  established  in 
the  Romish  church  by  the  Council  at  Trent,  in 
opposition  to  the  protestants ;  and  it  was  there 
maintained  that  all  the  seven  were  instituted  by 
Christ,  and  were  sacraments  in  the  same  sense 
with  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is 
however  expressly  said,  in  the  Apology  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  by  Melancthon,  that  no- 
thing depends  upon  the  use  of  the  word,  or 
upon  the  number,  if  the  thing  itself  is  only 
rightly  understood,  and  human  institutions  are 
not  made  of  equal  authority  with  those  of  God. 
Nemo  vir  prudens  de  nomine  et  numero  rixabitur. 
Cf.  Morus,  p.  276,  s.  5. 

The  Lutheran  theologians  have  adhered  close- 
ly to  the  use  of  this  word  in  the  narrower  sense 
adopted  in  the  sixteenth  century.  But  the  re- 
formed theologians  have  often  used  it  in  the 
wider  sense,  after  the  ancient  manner — e.  g., 
they  frequently  call  the  Levitical  ceremonies 
and  all  the  types  of  the  Old  Testament,  sacra- 
ments. Many  among  the  catholics  (Bellarmin, 
and  more  lately  Oberthiir)  have  expressly  al- 
lowed that  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are 
the  most  general  and  important  of  the  sacra- 
ments, and  that  they  therefore  approached  the 
protestants  more  nearly  than  the  Council  at 
Trent.  Oberthiir  (in  his  Idea  Bibl.  Eccks.  Dei, 
vol.  ii.)  confesses  that  Christ  expressly  and 
immediately  appointed  only  two  sacraments, 
but  insists  that  he  conferred  upon  the  church 
and  the  priesthood  the  power  to  add  others. 
The  assertion  made  by  some  that  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  are  even  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment denominated  pva-trfiia,  is  without  founda*- 
tion.  For  the  oLxovopos  fuwtrfrUw  ®tov  (1  Cor 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       481 


religion  which  are  herein  represented,  and 
which  should  be  deduced  from  these  ceremo- 
nies, produce  their  effect  in  the  same  way  (or 
rather  the  Holy  Ghost  produces  through  them 
an  effect  in  the  same  way)  upon  the  heart  of 
man,  as  they  are  accustomed  in  other  cases  to 
do,  when  they  are  heard,  read,  &c. ;  only  in 
these  sacraments  they  are  not  taught  by  words, 
but  in  different  ways  are  rendered  obvious  to 
the  senses.  All  which  has  been  before  said 
respecting  the  operations  of  grace  through  the 
Word  of  God,  s.  129,  seq.,  is  therefore  equally 
applicable  to  this  subject.  Cf.  especially  with 
reference  to  the  Biblical  doctrine,  s.  131.  Me- 
lancthon,  therefore,  well  observed  in  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  Art.  vii.,  that  Augustine  truly 
said,  Sacramentum  esse  verbum  visibile ;  for,  he 
adds,  ritus  oculis  accipitur  (ut  moveat  corofa),  et 
est  quasi  pictura  verbi,  idem  significans  quod  vcr- 
bum.  Now  in  the  same  way  in  which  God  ex- 
erts his  power  through  the  word,  when  it  is 
heard  or  read,  in  the  very  same  way  does  he 
act  through  the  Word  (the  truth},  when  in 
other  ways  and  by  external  rites  it  is  repre- 
sented to  the  senses. 

(2)  Inferences  from  this  representation  of  the 
Lutheran  theologians.  From  this  limitation  of 
the  idea  of  sacramentum  it  follows  that  only 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  can  properly  be 
regarded  as  sacraments.  For  the  characteristics 
of  the  sacraments  have  been  so  settled  that  they 
can  all  apply  only  to  these  two;  and  other  ce- 
remonies are  excluded  from  the  number.  By 
these  distinctions  are  excluded, 

(a)  The  five  other  sacraments  of  the  Romish 
church,  because  the  third  and  fourth  of  the  cha- 
racteristics above  mentioned  do  not  belong  to 
them  ;  or  at  least  one  or  the  other  of  these  two 
characteristics  is  wanting.  Morus  shews  this 
particularly  with  regard  to  each  one  of  the  five 
Romish  sacraments,  p.  275,  s.  4,  in  the  Note. 

(6)  The  washing  offset  (pedilavium],  which 
was  regarded  by  some  as  a  religious  rite  ap- 
pointed for  all  the  members  of  the  Christian 
church  in  all  ages,  because  Christ  washed  his 
disciples'  feet,  (John,  xiii.  5,)  and  because  it 
appears  from  1  Tim.  v.  10,  that  this  rite  was 
practised  in  the  first  Christian  church.  But 
this  act  was  symbolical,  and  Christ  designed  by 
it  to  inculcate  upon  his  disciples,  after  the  ori- 
ental manner,  the  duty  of  Christian  love,  con- 
descension, and  readiness  to  serve  others. 
Vide  ver.  12,  seq.  It  was  never  appointed  by 
the  apostles  as  a  rule  for  all  Christians  in  all 
ages.  By  degrees,  as  customs  altered,  and 
another  mode  of  thinking  prevailed,  it  fell  into 
disuse  in  most  of  the  Western  churches.  Still 
it  was  long  retained  in  the  Eastern  churches, 
and  in  some  of  them  is  common  to  this  day. 
Even  in  the  West,  it  has  been  revived  by  some 
of  the  smaller  churches — e.  g.,  by  a  part  of  the 
2S 


482 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Mennonites ;  an'd  it  is  now  practised  by  some, 
though  not  all,  belonging  to  the  society  of 
United  Brethren.  They,  however,  do  not  in- 
sist that  it  is  an  essential  Christian  rite,  which 
must  be  observed  by  all  Christians,  and  which 
should  again  be  introduced  into  all  Christian 
churches,  after  it  has  now  fallen  into  disuse; 
but  they  leave  every  one  to  his  own  judgment 
respecting  it. 

(c)  The  Jewish  religious  rites,  such  as  offer- 
ings, sacrifices,  &c.  For  Paul  says  that  they 
did  not  effect  the  forgiveness  of  sin  before  God, 
although  they  were  instituted  by  him,  Heb.  ix. 
9  ;  x.  11.  So  far  as  they  typified  spiritual  bless- 
ings, (vide  s.  90,  III.  7,)  they  might  be  called 
sacraments  in  the  old  sense. 

(c?)  Especially  have  circumcision  and  the 
passover  been  considered  as  sacraments,  and 
called,  by  way  of  distinction,  sacramenta  Vete- 
ris  Testamenti,  and  compared  with  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper.  But  many  modern  theolo- 
gians have  decided  that  they  cannot  be  called 
sacraments  in  the  sense  of  the  Lutheran  church. 
For  although  they  were  commanded  by  God, 
they  were  attended  by  no  promise  of  spiritual 
blessings.  Circumcision  related  merely  to  ex- 
ternal good,  the  possession  of  Canaan,  the  pos- 
terity of  Abraham,  &c.,  Gen.  xvii.,  and  not  to 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  &c.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  assigned  as  the  object  of  baptism,  the  ini- 
tiatory rite  of  the  Christian  religion,  to  promote 
the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  or  moral  improve- 
ment. Vide  Col.  ii.  11,  12.  The  passover  was 
instituted  merely  to  commemorate  the  deliver- 
ance of  the  Jews  from  Egypt.  Still,  although 
it  is  not  declared  in  the  scriptures  that  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  have  come  into  the  place 
of  circumcision  and  the  passover,  yet  both  of 
the  latter  may  be  regarded  as  sacraments,  so 
far  as  they  typified  spiritual  blessings.  For  it 
was  expressly  said  to  Abraham  at  his  circumci- 
sion, that  the  great  promises  made  to  him  and 
his  posterity  should  be  fulfilled,  (Gen.  xvii. 
21,)  and  among  these  were  spiritual  blessings. 
And  all  the  offerings  and  festivals  of  the  Jewish 
religion,  and  especially  these  two,  which  were 
the  most  solemn,  are  said  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  have  a  figurative  sense.  Vide  1  Cor. 
v.  7 ;  John,  xix.  36 ;  and  s.  90.  Cf.  Heilmann, 
Definienda  justa  sacramentorum  notione,  in  his 
"Opuscula,"  th.  i.  s.  433. 

III.  The  Object  of  Christ  in  instituting  these  two 

Sacraments. 

(1)  The  utility  and  necessity  of  religious  rites 
may  be  inferred  from  the  constitution  of  our  na- 
ture. Man  is  not  a  mere  spirit,  but  a  being  com- 
posed of  reason  and  sense.  And  on  this  account 
there  must  be  something  in  religion  which  will 
appeal  to  his  senses,  excite  and  sustain  his  de- 
votion, and  strengthen  his  zeal  in  piety.  The 


sensible  representation  of  the  truths  of  religion 
often  makes  a  stronger  impression  upon  men,  * 
as  experience  shews,  than  mere  instruction ;  be-  j 
cause  their  feelings  are  apt  to  be  more  strongly 
excited  by  anything  which  appeals  to  the  senses 
than  by  that  which  addresses  simply  the  under-  j 
standing.     Hence  our  religious  services  cannot 
be  merely  spiritual.   Even  ceremonies  of  human 
appointment  have  a  great  effect,  and  far  more  j 
those  which  have  divine  authority,  and,  like 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  accompa- 
nied with  special  promises. 

Religious  rites  in  general  contribute  much 
also  to  the  support  of  religion  itself;  since  by 
their  means  the  solemn  and  public  profession 
of  religion  is  renewed,  and  even  children  are  ! 
from  their  youth  up  accustomed  to  them,  and  I 
are  bound  to  their  observance.    A  religion  with-  j 
out  external   religious   rites,  and  without  the  ' 
aids  of  sensible  exhibitions  of  its  truths,  would  i 
be  as  liable  to  become  obsolete,  as  the  different  ' 
systems  of  philosophy.     The  truth  of  this  re- 
mark is  confirmed  by  the  history  of  the  church. 
In  the  oriental  church,  Christianity  was  indeed 
very  early  disfigured  by  many  false  doctrines; 
but  the  profession  of  Christ,  and  the  essentials 
of  his  religion,  still  continued,  until  Moham- 
med and  his  adherents  succeeded  in  abolishing 
Christian  worship,  together  with  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper.     It  is  therefore  very  neces- 
sary that  these  religious  rites  should  be  main- 
tained ;  and  the  opponents  of  Christianity  pro- 
ceed very  wisely  when  they  endeavour  to  bring 
them  into  disuse  and  contempt.     For  the  doc- 
trines to  which  they  relate  must  soon  share  the 
same  fate. 

(2)  But  it  is  equally  important,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  religion  should  not  be  overloaded 
with  external  rites,  and  that  they  should  be  as 
few  as  possible;  for  when  they  are  multiplied 
their  effect  is  weakened,  and  they  are  soon  re- 
garded with  indifference  and  contempt.  This 
is  proved  by  the  example  of  all  religions,  and 
even  of  the  Christian  religion,  when  it  has  been 
burdened  with  ceremonies.  Christ  endeavoured 
by  his  doctrine  to  withdraw  men  more  and  more 
from  what  is  external  and  sensible,  and  to  pro- 
mote internal,  spiritual  worship,  as  an  affair  of 
the  heart.  Cf.  John,  iv.  23,  24.  Hence  he 
appointed  but  few  ceremonies.  An  additional 
reason  for  this  was,  that  at  the  time  when  Chris- 
tianity was  founded,  the  religious  ceremonial 
both  of  the  Jews  and  of  the  heathen  nations  was 
looked  upon  with  coldness,  or  even  with  con- 
tempt, by  the  more  cultivated  and  thinking  part 
of  the  public,  on  account  of  the  great  multipli- 
city of  its  rites,  and  the  superstition  with  which 
it  was  attended.  Even  a  great  portion  of  the 
religious  Jews  at  that  time  felt  the  burden  of 
the  Jewish  ceremonial  law  to  be  very  oppres- 
sive. Cf.  Acts,  xv.  10;  Matthew,  xxiii.  4. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       483 


A  new  religious  institution,  therefore,  prescrib- 
ing but  few,  simple,  and  easy  rites,  would  on 
this  very  account  commend  itself  to  the  Jews 
and  the  heathen.  Cf.  Matt.  ix.  14—17. 

Considered  in  this  respect,  these  two  sacra- 
ments of  Christ  have  great  advantages.  They 
are  natural,  simple,  and  universally  applicable. 
They  are  therefore  peculiarly  appropriate  to  an 
institution  which  is  designed  to  be  universal. 
It  is  otherwise  with  the  Jewish  ritual,  which  is 
not  adapted  to  all  men,  countries,  and  times. 
Indeed  it  was  not  designed  by  God  for  all  men, 
but  only  for  a  particular  period,  and  that  for  a 
limited  time.  Christ,  however,  has  not  forbid- 
den the  introduction  of  other  religious  usages; 
for  an  increase  of  them  may  often  be  indispen- 
sable to  the  maintenance  of  united  religious 
worship.  But  he  has  left  this  to  the  discretion 
of  his  church,  which  may  appoint  and  modify 
them  according  to  the  circumstances.  Those, 
however,  which  Christ  has  instituted  should 
serve  as  models  and  patterns,  in  point  of  sim- 
plicity, for  all  other  Christian  ceremonies. 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

SECTION  CXXXVIII. 

NAMES,  INSTITUTION,  AND  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIAN 
BAPTISM  J  WITH  OBSERVATIONS  ON  JOHN  THE 
BAPTIST  AND  THE  JEWISH  BAPTISM  OF  PROSE- 
LYTES. 

I.  Names  of  Baptism  in  the  Bible. 

(1)  To  ,Sart-rto(ua,  from  Pajft^ew,  which  pro- 
perly signifies  to  immerse,  (like  the  Germ. 
tanfen,)  to  dip  in,  to  wash,  (by  immersion.)  In 
the  Syriac  and  Chaldaic  (which  Christ  used) 
this  is  denoted  by  the  words,  Sato,  riSus,  Stas, 
(Buxtorf,  Lex.  Chald.  p.  849,  850.)  Hence  the 
washing  of  vessels  with  water  is  called  fait-tw- 
juot,  Mark,  vii.  4.  And  instead  of  vi^uvfoA  in 
ver.  3  of  the  same  chapter,  we  have  in  ver.  4, 
jSartn'crcoi'T'ac,'  so  also  of  the  washing  of  hands, 
Luke,  xi.  38,  seq.  (In  the  New  Testament  the 
form  6  jSart-z'Ktytos  is  never  used  for  the  religious 
rite  of  baptism,  either  of  John  or  of  Christ;  but 
always  *6  jSarffia/ia.)  Hence  it  is  often  used 
tropically,  (a)  For  what  flows,  or  is  communi- 
cated, to  any  one  in  full  measure;  as  in  Latin, 
pcrfundcre,  imbuere,  &c. — e.  g.,  Acts,  i.  5. 
(6)  For  severe  sufferings  which  befal  any  one — 
e.  g.,  Matt.  xx.  22,  23 ;  for  these  are  often  com- 
pared with  waves  which  overflow  any  one;  Ps. 
Ixix.  2,  3.  So  among  the  Latins,  Jluctus  mi- 
serix,  mergi  malis.  Hence  martyrdom  is  called 
by  the  ancients,  baptisma  sanguinis.  In  the 


classics,  —  e.  g.,  in  Plato,  —  a  drunken  person  is 
said  to  be  part*ta$«tV*  vino  imbutus,  mersus. 

(2)  Kc&aptffjitdj,  John,  iii.  25;  because  by 
washing  purification  is  effected,  and  baptism 
represents  purification  from  sins,  and  is  design- 
ed to  promote  this  end  in  the  one  who  is  bap- 
tized.    Hence  Josephus  (xviii.  7)  employs  tx- 
xo&aiptiv  in  respect  to  the  baptism  of  John. 
Perhaps,  too,  2   Peter,  i.  9,   (xc&opwr/ioj  t^v 
rtakat  a^uapT'ttov,  coll.  Eph.  v.  26)  belongs  in 
this  connexion. 

(3)  To  £o"wp,  because  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered with  water;  John,  iii.  5,  coll.  Acts,  x.  47; 
Eph.  v.  26,  seq. 

(4)  Among  the  church  fathers  one  of  the 
oldest  names  was  ^cor'tcr^oj,  from  the  instruction 
which  the  subject  of  this  rite  received  in  con- 
nexion with  his  baptism,  as  Justin  the  Martyr 
(Apol.  i.  61)   explains  it.     The  Syriac,  too, 
translates  tov$  oijtat  ^wi'i^Was  (Heb.  vi.  4), 
those  once  baptized,  which   version   Michaelis 
follows,  though  it  is  a  doubtful  rendering.   Bap- 
tism is  moreover  called  by  the  church  fathers, 

sigillum,  (character  Christiani,} 
tvSvpa,  a<J>£-ap<jux?,  x.  -t.  h. 


II.  Institution  of  Baptism,  and  the  principal  texts 

relating  to  it. 

Jesus,  even  during  his  life  upon  the  earth, 
required  those  who  wished  to  become  his  dis- 
ciples to  be  baptized  by  his  apostles;  John,  iii. 
22,  coll.  ver.  5  of  the  same  chapter,  and  chapter 
iv.  1,  2.  But  at  that  time  none  but  Jews  were 
received  into  his  church  and  baptized  ;  as  was 
the  case  also  with  John  in  his  baptism.  Shortly 
before  his  ascension  to  heaven,  he  first  gave  the 
commission  to  his  apostles  to  admit  all  (itdvto, 
l^wf)  into  the  Christian  church,  and  to  baptize 
them  without  distinction  ;  Matt,  xxviii.  18  —  20, 
cf.  Mark,  xvi.  15,  16.  They  were  to  be  made 
disciples  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  professors  of  his 
religion  (fto$N?f*vfty)  in  a  twofold  manner  — 
viz.,  by  baptism  and  by  instruction.  They  were 
to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit  —  i.  e.,  by  baptism  they  were 
to  be  obligated  to  accept  and  obey  the  doctrine 
which  Acknowledges  and  receives  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit.  Whoever,  therefore,  is  bap- 
tized, declares  by  this  rite  that  he  acknowledges 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  for  his  God,  that  he 
will  obey  his  laws,  and  that  he  expects  protec- 
tion and  blessing  from  him;  and  God,  on  the 
other  hand,  promises  and  grants  to  him  the  en- 
joyment of  all  the  benefits  which  the  gospel  of 
Christ  enjoins  upon  us  to  expect  from  the  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  For  a  more  full 
explanation  of  this  formula,  vide  s.  35,  I.,  and 
Morus,  p.  275,  s.  2,  3.  It  is  the  opinion  of 
some  that  Christ  did  not  design  in  this  passage 
so  much  to  prescribe  a  precise  formula,  —  in 
which  case  he  would  rather  have  said,  "Bap- 


484 


CHRISTIAN 


tize  ye,  and  say,  I  baptize  tkee  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit," — but  that  he 
merely  intended  to  teach  what  is  the  meaning 
and  object  of  this  rite.  That  this  command  of 
Christ  was  obeyed  by  the  apostles  may  be  seen 
from  the  Acts  and  Epistles.  The  other  import- 
ant passages  concerning  the  object,  design,  and 
effect  of  baptism — e.  g.,  John,  iii.  5 ;  Titus,  iii. 
5;  Acts,  xxii.  16;  Gal.  iii.  27;  Rom.  vi.  3,4; 
Ephes.  v.  26;  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  &c.,  will  be  ex- 
plained in  the  following  sections. 

III.   Origin  of  Christian  Baptism  ;  the,  Baptism  of 
John,  and  the  Jewish  Baptism  of  Proselytes. 

(1)  John  baptized   before   Christ  appeared 
publicly  as  a  teacher,  and  Christ  even  suffered 
himself  to  be  baptized  by  him.     The  baptism 
of  John  is  described,  equally  with  the  baptism 
of  Christ,  as  a  divine  institution,  and  as  per- 
formed  under   divine  authority;   John,  i.  33, 
(God  sent  him  to  baptize,)  and  Luke,  vii.  30, 
where  it  is  called  a  divine  institution  (j3ov^ 
©sol)),  and  Matt.  xxi.  25,  seq. 

(2)  But  although  this  is  a  divine  institution, 
we  must  still  seek  among  the  prevailing  prac- 
tices and  expectations  of  the  Israelites  the  more 
immediate  reason  why  just  this  and  no  other 
form  of  initiation  was  then  introduced  by  John 
and  Christ.     From  the  passage,  John,  i.  25,  it 
is  manifest  that  the  Jews  (the  Sanhedrim  and 
the  Pharisees)  expected  that  the  Messiah  and 
his  herald  Elias  would  baptize.     Cf.  Lightfoot 
on  this  text.     And  so,  many  even  among  the 
learned  (the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees)  suffered 
themselves  to  be  baptized  by  John  (Matt.  iii. 
7) ;  which  probably  would  not  have  been  the 
case  if  baptism  had  been  to  them  a  strange  and 
unheard  of  thing.     The  Israelites,  like  many 
other  nations,  had  different  forms  of  lustration 
and  washings  with  water,  which  were  clearly 
prescribed  by  their  law,  by  means  of  which  they 
sanctified,  consecrated,  and  cleansed  themselves 
from  impurities.     Vide  Wetstein  on  Matt.  iii. 
6.     As,  now,  the  Messiah  was  to  bring  about 
a  general  reformation,  and  to  establish  a  new 
constitution,  into  which  every  one  must  be  so- 
lemnly initiated,  and  to  which  he  must  be  con- 
secrated ;   as,  moreover,  it  was  the  universal 
expectation,  according  to  the  prophets,  that  he 
would  cleanse  men  from  their  sins,  which  was 
exactly  typified  by  the  washings  in  the  Levi- 
tical  law;  it  does  not  seem  unnatural  that  just 
this  form  of  initiation  should  have  been  expect- 
ed by  the  Jews,  and  should,  in  fact,  have  been 
chosen  by  John  and  Christ,  according  to  divine 
appointment. 

If,  now,  the  baptism  of  proselytes  was  custom- 
ary among  the  Jews  at  or  before  the  time  of 
Christ,  many  things  could  be  explained  still 
more  clearly  from  this  circumstance.  The  Tal- 
mud and  its  interpreters  relate  that  the  prose- 


THEOLOGY. 

lytes,  as  well  circumcised,  as  uncircumcisedj 
were  initiated  by  baptism  into  the  worship  of'  I 
the  one  true  God,  and  that  this  was  a  symbol; 
of  purification  from  sin,  and  of  the  renunciation 
of  heathenism ;  and  that  they  were  then  consi-t 
dered  as  burn  again — exactly  the  expression 
used  by  Christ  (John,  iii.)  and  by  Paul  (TitJ 
iii.)  respecting  Christian  baptism.  Vide  s.j 
126,  II.  The  Talmudists  make  this  practice! 
very  ancient,  and  place  it  as  far  back  as  the) 
time  of  Moses,  and  even  further,  (which  pro-i 
bably  is  going  too  far,  as  thebr  way  is.)  The 
oldest  passage  respecting  a  religious  cleansing, 
or  sort  of  baptism,  occurs  in  Jacob's  historyj 
(Gen.  xxxv.  2,)  when  he  puts  away  the  idolsj 
in  his  house,  and  builds  an  altar  to  Jehovah. 
This  passage  may  certainly  have  induced  thej 
Israelites  to  adopt  this  custom.  So  much  isj 
certain,  that  as  early  as  the  second  century  prp-j 
selyte  baptism  must  have  been  very  customary; 
since  in  the  Dissertations  of  Epictetus  (ii.  9), 
published  by  Arrian,  j3fj3ajttju.£i'oj  signifies  aj 
Jewish  proselyte,  and  ygapa£tt*t«'«j&£t$,  one  who| 
had  not  sincerely  embraced  Judaism.  Others,! 
however,  are  inclined  to  think  that  Christians\ 
are  here  meant,  and  that  Epictetus  confounded 
them  with  the  Jews.  For  these  reasons,  Dantz 
firmly  maintained  that  the  baptism  of  proselytes 
was,  as  it  were,  the  prelude  of  the  baptism  of 
John  and  of  Christ;  and  he  is  followed  by  Mi- 
chaelis,  Less,  and  others.  Cf.  his  treatise  de 
antiquitate  baptismi  initiationis  Israel,  in  Meu- 
schen's  N.  T.  e  Talmude  illustrato,  p.  133,  f. 
and  Wetstein  on  Matt.  iii.  6. 

There  is  much  for  and  much  against  the 
opinion  that  proselyte  baptism  was  customary  in| 
the  first  century,  and  even  earlier,  (a]  Jlgainst.l 
There  is  not  found,  even  to  the  present  time, 
one  distinct  evidence  of  it  in  any  writer  before,! 
at,  or  shortly  after,  the  time  of  Christ;  not  inl 
Philo, — not  in  Josephus,  even  when  he  speaks: 
of  the  conversion  of  the  Idumeans,  under  Johni 
Hyrkan,  to  Judaism  (xiii.  9),  where  he  simply; 
mentions  circumcision, — not  even  in  the  Chal- 
daic  paraphrases.  Zeltner  firmly  opposes  to! 
Dantz  this  stubborn  silence  of  the  writers  nearj 
the  age  of  Christ.  (6)  In  favour.  The  unani-j 
mous  testimony  of  all  the  Rabbins, — theuniver-| 
sality  of  this  practice  among  the  Jews  of  the| 
second  century,  since  it  can  scarcely  be  thoughtj 
that  they  would  have  borrowed  it  from  the! 
Christians,  who  were  so  hated  and  despised  byj 
them, — the  striking  similarity  of  the  Jewish  ex-' 
pressions,  concerning  the  baptism  of  proselytes,, 
with  those  which  occur  in  the  New  Testament! 
respecting  the  Christian  rite  (regeneratio'), — alsol 
the  circumstance  that  Josephus,  in  his  account] 
of  John  the  Baptist,  does  not  express  the  least 
surprise  at  this  practice  as  a  new  and  unwonted] 
ceremony.  This  last  argument,  however,  is 
invalidated  by  the  remark,  that  it  is  known  to 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      485 


!  have  been  expected  that  the  precursor  of  the 
Messiah  would  baptize.  Besides,  it  appears 
that  the  baptism  of  John  did  excite  among  the 

'    Jews  some  degree  of  surprise.     This  is  seen 

1  from  the  question,  why  baptizest  thou  then?  and 
from  his  being  called  the  Baptist.  Ziegler  has 
lately  maintained,  with  very  probable  reasons, 
that  the  antiquity  of  the  Jewish  baptism  of  pro- 

1  selytes  ascends  beyond  the  origin  of  Christian- 
ity. Cf.  his  Theological  Essays,  part  ii.  (Got- 
tingen,  1804,)  Num.  3,  "  Concerning  the  Bap- 
tism of  John  as  the  unaltered  application  of  the 
Jewish  Baptism  of  Proselytes,  and  concerning 
the  Baptism  of  Christ  as  the  continuation  of  that 
of  John."  But  although  much  may  be  advanced 
in  support  of  this  opinion,  it  cannot  be  relied 
upon  with  certainty,  since  it  is  entirely  destitute 
of  clear  contemporary  evidence. 

IV.  Was  the  Baptism  of  John  different  from 
Christian  Baptism,  ? 

Many  theologians  of  the  Romish  church  for- 
merly maintained  that  there  is  a  difference,  but 
protestants  usually  take  the  opposite  side,  al- 
though some,  especially  the  more  modern,  have 
again  adopted  the  former  opinion.  The  follow- 
ing observations  may  serve  to  settle  the  mat- 
ter:— 

(1)  The  object  of  John's  baptism  was  the  same 
with  that  of  Christian ;  and  from  this  it  may  be 
at  once  concluded  that  it  did  not  differ  essen- 
tially from  the  latter.     John  exhorted  'the  per- 
sons baptized  by  him  to  repentance  (^tf-r'atwa) 
and  to  faith  in  the  Messiah  who  was  shortly  to 
appear,  and  made  these  duties  obligatory  upon 
them  by  this  rite,  Matt.  iii.  11;   Luke,  iii. ; 
Mark,  i, ;  John,  i. ;  Acts,  ii.  38.     And  as  soon 
as  Jesus  publicly  appeared,  John  asserted  in  the 
most  forcible  manner  that  he  was  the  Messiah, 
and  so  required  of  all  whom  he  had  then  or  be- 
fore baptized,  that  they  should  believe  in  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah.     Now  in  Christian  baptism, 
repentance  and  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  are 
likewise  the  principal  things  which  are  required 
on  the  part  of  the  subjects  of  this  rite. 

(2)  The  practice  of  the  first  Christian  church 
confirms  the  point  that  the  baptism  of  John  was 
considered  essentially  the  same  with  Christian 
baptism.     For  those  who  acknowledged   that, 
they  had  professed,  by  the  baptism  of  John,  to 
believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  who  in  con- 
sequence of  this  had  become  in  fact  his  disci- 
ples, and  had  believed  in  him,  were  not,  in  a 
single  instance,  baptized  again  into  Christ,  be- 
cause this  was  considered  as  having  been  already 
done.   Hence  we  do  not  find  that  any  apostle  or 
any  other  disciple  of  Jesus  was  the  second  time 
baptized;  not  even  that  Apollos  mentioned  in 
Acts,  xviii.  25,  because  he  had  before  believed 
in  Jesus  as  Christ,  although  he  had  received 
only  the  baptism  of  John. 


(3)  But  all  those  disciples  of  John  who  had 
not  before  acknowledged  this  truth,  and  had  re- 
ceived the  baptism  of  John  or  his  successors  in 
an  entirely  different  signification,  were  properly 
considered  at  the  time  of  the  apostles  as  not  be- 
ing baptized,  or  as  wrongly  baptized,  and  all 
such  were  therefore  required  to  be  baptized  ex- 
pressly into  Christ  as  the  Messiah.  This  was 
the  case  with  the  Jews,  who,  according  to  Acts, 
ii.  41,  were  baptized  into  Jesus,  among  whom 
were  many  whom  John  had  baptized,  but  who 
had  not  then  recognised  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
and  had  even  taken  part  in  his  crucifixion.  This 
was  likewise  the  case  with  those  persons  whom 
Paul  (Acts,  xix.  1 — 5)  permitted  to  be  baptized 
at  Ephesus,  although  they  had  already  received 
the  baptism  of  John.  There  is  in  this  place 
nothing  that  needs  to  be  artificially  explained. 
The  meaning  is,  "That  when  they  heard  from 
Paul  that  it  was  essential  to  baptism  that  one 
should  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Lord  and  Christ, 
(which  they  hitherto  had  not  done,  since  the 
disciples  of  John  who  baptized  them  had  said 
nothing  to  them  about  it,)  they  were  then  will- 
ing to  suffer  themselves  to  be  solemnly  obli- 
gated by  baptism  to  the  acknowledgment  of 
Jesus."  Vide  Bengel's  Gnomon,  ad  h.  1.  and 
Semler,  Diss.  ad  Acts,  xix.  1,  seq.  This  was 
the  more  necessary  at  that  time,  as  many  of  the 
disciples  of  John  had  entirely  separated  them- 
selves from  the  Christians.  These  false  disci- 
ples of  John  still  continued  to  practise  John's 
baptism  into  the  approaching  Messiah,  but  de- 
nied that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  Even  to  the 
present  day  there  are  remnants  of  this  sect  in 
Syria  and  Arabia.  Vide  Norberg,  Von  der  Re- 
ligion und  Sprache  der  Zabier,  and  Walch,  De 
Sabgeis,  in  the  Comment.  Soc.  Gott.  1780  and 
1781.  There  is  much  directed  against  the  false 
disciples  of  John  in  the  accounts  given  by  the 
Evangelists  respecting  John  the  Baptist.  Vide 
Storr,  Ueber  den  Zweck  der  evang.  Gesch.  und 
der  Briefe  Johannis;  Tubingen,  1786,  8vo;  2d 
ed.  1809.  There  is  nothing  therefore  in  the 
passages  Acts  ii.  and  xix.  which  favours  the 
doctrine  that  those  who  had  been  baptized  by 
John  were  required  to  be  re-baptized,  in  order 
to  admission  into  the  church  of  Christ. 

SECTION  CXXXIX. 

HOW  AND  BY  WHOM  BAPTISM  IS  TO  BE  ADMINIS- 
TERED ;  AND  RESPECTING  THE  OPTIONAL  AND 
UNESSENTIAL  THINGS  ATTENDING  THE  OBSERV- 
ANCE OF  THIS  RITE. 

I.  Concerning  Immersion,  Affusion,  and  Sprinkling 
with  Water. 

(1)  IT  is  certain  that  in  Christian  baptism, 
as  in  the  baptism  of  John,  only  water  was  used 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles.     Vide  John,  iii.  5; 
2s2 


486 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Ephes.  v.  26.  But  after  baptism  in  itself  con- 
sidered, and  simply  as  an  opus  opcratum,  came 
to  be  regarded  as  essential  to  salvation,  the 
question  was  started,  Whether,  in  the  want  of 
water,  baptism  could  be  performed  with  any 
other  material — e.  g.,  wine,  milk,  or  sand  1  The 
question  must  be  answered  in  the  negative, 
since  to  do  this  would  be  contrary  to  the  insti- 
tution of  Christ.  For  any  one  to  be  prevented 
necessarily  from  being  baptized  does  not  subject 
him  to  condemnation,  but  only  the  wilful  and 
criminal  refusal  of  this  rite. 

(2)  Immersion  is  peculiarly  agreeable  to  the 
institution  of  Christ,  and  to  the  practice  of  the 
apostolical  church,  and  so  even  John  baptized, 
and  immersion  remained   common  for  a  long 
time  after ;  except  that  in  the  third  century,  or 
perhaps  earlier,  the  baptism  of  the  sick  (bap- 
tisma  clinicorurn)  was  performed  by  sprinkling 
or  affusion.    Still  some  would  not  acknowledge 
this  to  be  true  baptism,  and  controversy  arose 
concerning  it,  so  unheard  of  was  it  at  that  time 
to  baptize  by  simple  affusion.     Cyprian  first 
defended  baptism  by  sprinkling,  when  necessity 
called  for  it,  but  cautiously  and  with  much  limi- 
tation. By  degrees,  however,  this  mode  of  bap- 
tism became  more  customary,  probably  because 
it  was  found  more  convenient ;  especially  was 
this  the  case  after  the  seventh  century,  and  in 
the  Western  church,  but  it  did  not  become  uni- 
versal until  the  commencement  of  the  fourteenth 
century.     Yet  Thomas  Aquinas  had  approved 
and  promoted  this  innovation  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years  before.     In  the  Greek  and  Eastern 
church  they  still  held  to  immersion.     It  would 
have  been  better  to  have  adhered  generally  to 
the  ancient  practice,  as  even  Luther  and  Calvin 
allowed.  Vide  Storr,  Doct.  Christ.  Pars  theoret., 
p.  291.     If  it  is  asked,  however,  if  immersion 
is  so  essential   that  one  who  has  been  only 
sprinkled  is  not  to  be  considered  as  properly  a 
baptized  person,  it  may  be  answered,  No !    No- 
thing more  is  essential  to  the  external  part  of 
baptism  than  that  water  be  used,  (Acts,  x.  47; 
John,  iii.  5,)  and  that  the  subject,  by  the  solemn 
use  of  this  rite,  be  consecrated  to  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit,  and  be  pledged  to  obey  the 
Christian  doctrine,  Matt,  xxviii.  19.   The  wash- 
ing with  water  is  considered  as  the  symbol  of 
the  purification  of  sins,  and  this  can  be  signified 
as  well  by  affusion  as  by  immersion.     Hence, 
even  in  affusion,  the  external  significancy  of  the 
rite  is  retained.     And  this  is  the  reason  why 
many  in  the  Western  church,  and  even  in  the 
protestant  church,  have  contended  that  this  rite 
should  be  administered,  not  per  adspersionem, 
but  per  largiorem  aquas  uffusionem. 

(3)  There  is  no  command  given  concerning 
the  question,  whether   immersion   or   affusion 
should  be  performed  only  once,  or  more  than 
once ;  this  therefore  is  in  itself  optional.     In 


the  Greek  church  we  find  the  threefold  immer- 
sion earlier  and  more  prevalent  than  in  the  La- 
tin; whence  the  Greeks  objected  to  the  Latins. 
Basilius  and  Hieronymus  say  that  this  was 
practised  in  conformity  with  an  ancient  tradi- 
tion;  and  if  it  was  not  common  in  the  first 
church,  perhaps  the  controversies  with  the 
Antitrinitarians  in  the  third  century  might  have 
given  the  first  occasion  for  it.  In  the  African 
church  it  was  already  common  in  the  times  of 
Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  and  in  the  apostolical 
constitutions  it  was  so  ordained.  At  the  fourth 
church  council  at  Toledo,  in  the  year  G33,  this 
threefold  immersion  was  first  established  by 
ecclesiastical  authority  in  the  Latin  church,  in 
opposition  to  the  Arians. 

(4)  It  is  also  optional  whether  the  head,  the 
forehead,  or  the  breast,  be  wet  with  the  water; 
and  in  this  respect  the  one  who  administers  this 
sacrament  must  govern  himself  according  to  the 
usages  of  his  own  particular  church. 

II.  On  the  use  of  Formulas  in  Baptism. 

The  formulas  used  in  administering  baptism 
have  always  been  very  different.  In  the  Greek 
church  it  is  still  common  to  say,  as  formerly, 
Baptizetur  hie,  or  hsec  (servus,  or  serva  Dei}  in 
nomine,  &c.  In  the  Latin  church  the  subject  is 
addressed,  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name,  &c.  The 
formula  adopted  by  some  of  baptizing  in  the 
name  "  of  GOD  the  Father,  GOD  the  Son,  and  GOD 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood, 
as  it  might  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  there  are 
three  gods.  It  has  appeared  strange  to  some 
that  we  find  in  the  New  Testament  no  passage 
from  which  it  plainly  appears  that  the  words 
used  Matt,  xxviii.,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
&c.,  were  used  in  the  apostolical  church.  For 
we  always  find  only,  etj  XpKJtov  or  'Iqaovv — sLf 
ovOjita  Kvptov  or  'Irjfjov — e.  g.,  Rom.  vi.  3  ;  Gal. 
iii.  27;  Acts,  ii.  38;  x.  48;  xix.  5.  The  opi- 
nions on  this  subject  are  not  unanimous.  (1) 
We  might  say,  with  some,  that  although  the 
formula  in  Matthew  xxviii.  were  not  used  in 
the  apostolical  church,  but  it  was  merely  said 
in  the  name  of  Jesus — i.  e.,  into  the  profession 
of  Christ  and  his  doctrine — yet  this  was  entirely 
the  same  with  the  other,  because  it  compre- 
hended the  profession  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  since  whoever  was  baptized  into 
Jesus  by  this  act  professed  his  belief  in  the 
whole  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  therefore  in  that 
which  he  taught  concerning  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Spirit.  Basilius  endeavoured  to  ex- 
plain the  thing  in  this  way.  (2)  Others  (and 
among  the  rest,  Facundus  Hermianensis,  De 
Tribus  Capit.  i.  3)  are  of  opinion  that  it  does 
not  follow  from  these  places  that  they  did  not 
fully  employ  the  prescribed  formulas  in  bap- 
tism ;  but  that  Christian  baptism  was  so  named 
in  distinction  from  the  baptism  of  John,  and 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       487 


from  the  Jewish  proselyte  baptism,  since  one 
who  had  received  this  proselyte  baptism,  or  had 
wrongly  understood  that  of  John,  was  not  bap- 
tized into  Christ.  This  can  be  reconciled  very 
well,  at  least  with  Acts,  xix.  5,  and  with  some 
other  places.  Vide  s.  138,  II.  But  in  addition 
to  these  there  is  a  third  reason.  (3)  In  the  an- 
cient Christian  church  immediately  after  the 
time  of  the  apostles,  the  words  prescribed  by 
Christ  at  the  establishment  of  this  rite  were  cer- 
tainly used,  (Just.  M.  Ap.  1,  80.)  It  may  there- 
fore be  rightly  inferred  that  it  was  the  same  at 
the  time  of  the  apostles ;  and  that  it  is  right  and 
proper  to  continue  in  this  use.  It  is  not,  how- 
ever, forbidden  to  unite  with  this  other  formulas 
which  are  suitable,  and  which  serve  to  explain 
the  design  of  this  rite,  and  to  excite  pious  feel- 
ings. The  teacher  will  of  course  govern  him- 
self in  this  matter  according  to  the  circumstances, 
the  constitution,  and  usages  of  the  particular 
church  to  which  he  may  belong. 

III.  By  whom  is  Baptism  to  be  administered  ? 

In  ordinary  cases,  certainly  by  the  teachers 
of  religion ;  for  it  is  their  appropriate  business 
and  calling  to  lead  disciples  to  Christ,  (^ua^- 
tftvfiv,)  and  this  duty  is  also  committed  to  them 
by  the  church  and  government.  We  find,  there- 
fore, that  baptism  in  the  apostolical  church  was 
always  administered  by  the  teachers.  Vide 
John,  iv.  2;  Acts,  x.  48;  1  Cor.  i.  16.  But 
although  this  na^tfvuv  is  the  appropriate  busi- 
ness of  teachers,  still  they  have  no  exclusive 
right  to  it,  as  this  is  nowhere  given  to  them  in 
the  New  Testament.  But  in  case  of  necessity, 
and  when  no  teachers  can  be  obtained,  baptism 
may  be  administered  by  any  Christian,  and  is 
valid  if  it  is  performed  according  to  the  institu- 
tion of  Christ.  Vide  s.  136,  II.  2.  This  has 
been  the  doctrine  and  practice  which  has  univer- 
sally prevailed  in  the  church. 

IV.  How  far  a  knowkdge  of  Christian  Doctrines  is 

essential  in  the  subjects  of  Baptism. 
This  knowledge  must  certainly  be  presup- 
posed in  adults  before  they  can  be  baptized.  For 
how  could  they  solemnly  profess,  as  they  do  in 
baptism,  to  believe,  and  pledge  themselves  to 
obey,  a  doctrine  respecting  which  they  were 
wholly  ignorant!  We  find,  therefore,  even  in 
the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  that  the 
candidates  for  baptism  were  previously  instruct- 
ed. But  this  instruction  was  by  no  means  par- 
ticular; it  was  confined  to  the  main,  funda- 
mental truths  of  Christianity ;  the  doctrine  of  one 
God;  the  principal  articles  respecting  Christ; 
that  he  is  the  Messiah ;  and  that  through  him 
we  receive  forgiveness  from  God  ;  also  concern- 
ing the  Holy  Spirit  promised  to  Christians,  and 
the  indispensable  necessity  of  repentance  and 
holiness :  these  are  the  principal  truths  in  which 


the  candidates  for  baptism  were  briefly  instruct- 
ed. When  they  were  sufficiently  acquainted  with 
these  truths,  and  had  professed  them  from  the 
heart,  they  were  allowed  baptism,  and  received  af- 
terwards more  complete  instruction  both  in  these 
and  the  other  Christian  doctrines.  Cf.  Acts,  ii. 
41;  viii.  12, 36,  seq.;  ix.  17, 18;  x.  34—48,  where 
in  the  words  of  Peter  we  have  an  example  of 
the  instruction  commonly  given  before  baptism. 
Cf.  Heb.  vi.  1,  seq.  In  the  great  addition  of 
new  converts  in  the  first  period  of  Christianity, 
this  preparatory  instruction  could  not  possibly 
be  very  long  or  particular,  especially  as  the 
teachers  of  religion  were  yet  few.  Accordingly, 
the  confessions  of  faith  to  be  made  in  baptism 
were  at  first  very  short  and  simple;  such,  for 
example,  was  the  symbolum  apostolicum,  so  call- 
ed ;  but  this  was  gradually  enlarged  by  the  ad- 
dition of  new  distinctons,  by  which  the  orthodox 
endeavoured  to  distinguish  themselves  from  he- 
retics. The  instruction  of  catechumens  and  the 
time  of  probation  preceding  baptism  were  by 
degrees  increased  and  prolonged ;  and  for  this 
there  was  good  reason.  For  as  the  number  of 
Christian  proselytes  constantly  increased,  and 
multitudes  were  pressing  into  the  church, 
greater  caution  became  necessary  in  admitting 
them.  This  led  to  the  appointment  of  fixed 
periods  for  the  probation  of  new  converts  before 
baptism. 

V.  Usages  incidental  to  Baptism,  but  not  essential 
to  its  Validity. 

Many  of  these  are  very  ancient,  but  they  may 
all  be  dispensed  with  without  affecting  the  vali- 
dity of  Christian  baptism,  because  they  are  not 
commanded  by  Christ.  In  Christian  archaeo- 
logy and  church  history  they  are  more  fully  ex- 
hibited than  they  can  be  here.  We  mention 
only  some  of  those  which  are  still  common 
among  us. 

(1)  The  sign  of  the  cross  appears  to  have 
been  first  introduced  in  connexion  with  baptism 
in  the  fourth  century,  and  is  intended  to  be  a 
solemn  memorial  of  the  death  of  Christ;  Rom. 
vi.  3. 

(2)  The  imposition  of  a  name  ;  this  was  also 
done  in  connexion  with  Jewish  circumcisions. 

(3)  The  laying  on  of  hands,  as  a  symbol  of 
the  communication  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  of  the 
gift  of  sanctification,  which  in  this  way  is  so- 
lemnly sought  of  God  for  the  subject  of  baptism, 
and  promised  to  him.     This  is  mentioned  even 
by  Tertullian. 

(4)  Sponsors   at  baptism.     Tertullian  (De 
Bapt.  ch.  18)  mentions  these  as  being  present 
at  the  baptism  of  children;  but  they  were  also 
concerned  in  the  performance   of  this  rite  for 
adult  persons;  just  as  sponsors  were  called  in 
at  the  rite   of  circumcision   among  the  Jews. 
Such  only,  however,  as  belong  to  the  Christian 


488 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


church  can  be  employed  for  this  service ;  hea- 
thens, Jews,  Mahommedans,  and  others  who 
are  not  members  of  the  Christian  church  may 
be  present  at  the  rite,  but  not  as  valid  sponsors. 

(5)  The  subjects  of  baptism  must  renounce 
Satan.  This  denoted  originally  an  entire  renun- 
ciation on  their  part  of  heathenism  and  of  hea- 
then superstitions,  and  also  of  the  entire  dispo- 
sition which  had  before  prevailed  within  them, 
as  far  as  it  was  opposed  to  Christianity. 

(6)  Exorcism.     The  first  traces  of  this  prac- 
tice appear  in  Africa,  in  the  third  century,  as  we 
learn  from  Cyprian's  letter,  although  a  founda- 
tion for  it  was  laid  as  early  as  the  second  cen- 
tury.    It  had  its  rise  in  various  opinions,  in  a 
great  measure  superstitious,  respecting  the  phy- 
sical agency  of  the  devil  upon  men,  and  in  the 
idea  that  evil  spirits  may  be  driven  off  by  the 
use  of  formulas  and  certain  charmed  words.     It 
was  at  first  practised  only  at  the  baptism  of  hea- 
then, who  were  regarded  as  persons  possessed 
by  the  devil ;  but  it  came  afterwards  to  be  em- 
ployed at  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  Chris- 
tian parents.   Vide  Kraft,  Ausfurhliche  Historic 
des  Exorcismus  ;    Hamburg,  1750.     Concern- 
ing the  oiher  usages  in  baptism,  vide,  besides 
the  ancient  authors,  (e.  g.,  Vosii  Disertatt.  cf. 
s.  137,  I.  1,)  Calixtus,  Diss.  de  Antiq.  Ritibus 
Bapt.;  Helmstiidt,  1650;  Noesselt's  historical 
investigation  and  illustration  of  the  usages  com- 
mon in  baptism,  published  in  the  weekly  "  An- 
zeiger"  at  Halle,  1764,  No.  28—32. 

Note. — The  rite  of  exorcism  has  been  pro- 
perly abandoned  in  most  places  in  the  protestant 
church.  Although  it  is  well  explained  in  the 
Lutheran  church,  as  a  confession  of  the  natural 
corruption  of  indwelling  sin  and  of  redemption 
from  it,  and  in  various  other  ways,  still  it  is  cal- 
culated to  promote  superstition  and  serious  error 
in  the  community  at  large;  and,  what  is  most 
important,  to  excite  contempt  among  the  lightly 
disposed.  Morus  gives  the  same  opinion,  (p. 
257,  note  3.) 

It  may  be  remarked,  in  general,  that  some  of 
the  usages  common  in  many  places  at  infant 
baptism  are  not  at  all  suitable  to  children,  and 
have  been  transferred,  without  much  judgment, 
to  their  baptism,  from  that  of  adult  persons. 
Among  these  inappropriate  services  we  may 
place  the  confession  of  faith,  and  the  renunciation 
of  the  devil.  Instead  of  these,  it  would  be  more 
appropriate  and  profitable  to  have  a  sincere 
prayer,  in  which  the  new  member  of  the  Chris- 
tian church  should  be  commended  to  the  care 
and  blessing  of  God ;  and  at  the  same  time  a 
feeling  exhortation  to  parents  and  other  specta- 
tors, in  which  they  should  be  impressively  re- 
minded of  the  duties  which  they  owe  as  Chris- 
tians to  their  children,  and  those  entrusted  to 
their  watchful  care.  Much  depends  in  things 
of  this  nature  upon  the  teacher,  who,  even  where 


the  rites  are  not  exactly  suitable,  can  obviat 
mistake  and  remove  ignorance  by  proper  expl 
nations.  Even  the  best  formulary  in  baptU 
will  affect  spectators  but  little  if  they  see  th< 
the  teacher  uses  it  without  any  emotion,  and  re- 
peats it  with  a  heartless  voice  and  manner.  The 
teacher  needs  to  be  on  his  guard  against  per- 
forming the  duties  of  his  office — especially  those 
which  frequently  recur,  as  the  Lord's  Supper  and 
baptism — in  a  merely  mechanical  way.  When 
he  performs  religious  services  with  a  cold  heart, 
it  cannot  be  expected  that  others  present  should, 
engage  in  them  with  warm  devotion.  A  teacher 
who  discharges  his  duties  in  this  manner  must 
lose  in  the  good  opinion  of  his  hearers ;  and  the 
blame  is  his  own  if  he  at  last  becomes  con- 
temptible in  their  view. 

SECTION   CXL. 

OBJECT,  USES,  AND  EFFECTS  OF  CHRISTIAN 
BAPTISM. 

THE  uses  and  effects  of  baptism  are  divided, 
as  in  the  sacraments  in  general,  into  internal 
and  external. 

I.  External  Advantages  and  Effects  of  Baptism. 

By  means  of  this  rite  we  are  received  as  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  Christian  society,  and  conse- 
quently become  partakers  of  all  the  privileges 
belonging  to  Christians.  It  is  therefore,  consi- 
dered in  this  light,  the  solemn  initiatory  rite  of 
admission  into  the  Christian  church,  (sacra- 
mentum  initiationis.']  This  is  mentioned  ex- 
pressly in  the  New  Testament  as  the  design 
and  object  of  baptism.  As  soon  as  a  person 
was  baptized  he  was  considered  as  a  member 
of  the  church,  (aytoj,  pa^yrr^,  rtus-ttwv,')  Acts, 
ii.  41,  44,  and  entitled  to  all  the  rights  of  other 
Christians.  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  "  Whether  we  be 
Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or 
free ;  sis  ev  crw^a  Ipouttia&qpfv" — i.  e.,  we  are 
united  by  baptism  into  one  church,  and  have, 
as  members  of  it,  equal  rights.  Vide  ver.  12, 
27.  Whence  Paul  says,  Eph.  iv.  4,  5,  there 
is  sv  pdrttiapa,  (one  common  baptism,)  and  IV 

tia,  (one  church,)  and  jiuaJtott's  of  Christians; 
and  Gal.  iii.  27,  "As  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ" — i.  e., 
are  Christians,  belong  to  the  school  of  Christ, 
and  are  therefore  obligated  to  confess  him  for 
your  Lord  and  Master,  to  obey  him,  and  to  fol- 
low his  example. 

II.  The  Internal  Advantages  and  Effects  of 
Baptism. 

(1)  In  the  old  ecclesiastical  writers  we  find 
many  extravagant  and  unscriptural  assertions  re- 
specting the  effect  of  baptism,  especially  in  the 
instructions  which  they  gave  to  catechumens  and 
new  converts — e.  g.,  in  Gregory  of  Nazianzen, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       489 


Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  even  earlier,  in  Irenaeus 
and  Tertullian.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  went  so 
far  as  to  say  that  the  water  became  changed 
(juttustMzeww&w,'),  by  the  divine  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  into  an  entirely  different  element. 
All  this,  indeed,  admits  of  being  explained  ac 
cording  to  scripture;  but  it  is  still  apparent  that 
Christians  began  very  early  to  attribute  to  bap 
tism  a  magical  efficacy,  by  which  it  produces  its 
effect  through  its  own  inherent  virtue,  and  inde- 
pendently of  the  use  of  the  word  of  God,  and  by 
which  it  acts,  not  only  upon  the  soul,  but  upon 
the  body  also.  Hence  they  made  use  of  it  in 
order  to  heal  sicknesses,  to  banish  evil  spirits, 
&c.  During  the  middle  ages,  these  superstitious 
notions  prevailed  more  and  more,  and  were  even 
adopted  by  the  schoolmen  into  their  systems. 
We  find,  e.  g.,  in  Thomas  Aquinas,  the  doctrine 
that  a  character  indelibilis  is  acquired  in  baptism 
— an  opinion  which  Augustine  had  before  held  ; 
also  the  scholastic  doctrine  that  by  baptism  na- 
tive depravity  is  so  far  done  away  that  only  con- 
cupiscentia  remains,  and  that  even  this  loses  the 
form  of  sin.  Protestants  have  in  every  way 
endeavoured  to  separate  the  scriptural  doctrine 
from  these  superstitious  notions;  yet  there  are 
not  wanting  incautious  expressions  on  this  sub- 
ject even  among  some  protestant  theologians. 

(2)  In  the  New  Testament  this  magical  effect 
is  nowhere  ascribed  to  baptism,  as  if  faith  were 
imparted  to  man  by  baptism  without  his  being 
himself  active  in  obtaining  it;  as  if  he  received, 
through  this  external  rite,  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
readiness  in  good  works,  and  eternal  salvation. 
Neither  has  Luther  taught  such  a  doctrine.  On 
an  adult  person,  who  has  no  knowledge  of  the 
word  of  God  or  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  baptism 
can  have  no  efficacy  simply  as  an  opus  operatum. 
Its  effect  on  adults  depends  on  their  being  in- 
structed in  the  divine  word,  and  the  connexion 
of  baptism  with  this  instruction.  To  this  divine 
word,  and  the  divine  efficacy  connected  with  it, 
(s.  130,  131,)  does  the  power  properly  belong 
to  renew  the  heart  of  man,  and  to  make  it  sus- 
ceptible of  the  benefits  and  privileges  which 
Christianity  promises,  and  not  the  mere  exter- 
nal rite  of  baptism.  This  we  are  distinctly 
taught  in  the  holy  scriptures.  So  Peter  (Acts, 
ii.  38)  exhorts  his  hearers  to  suffer  themselves 
to  be  baptized  EI$  afyrjnw  d/uapr'twv,  but  he  ex- 
pressly requires,  as  an  essential  condition,  the 
fjLfTfavoeiv,  (which  is  effected  by  God  through 
the  use  of  Christian  doctrine;)  and  it  is  the 
same  in  the  baptism  of  John,  Mark,  i.  4,  seq. 
So,  Acts,  xxii.  16,  Paul  was  called  upon  to  be 
baptized  and  to  be  washed  from  his  sins;  but 
the  condition  was  irtixahtad/j.svos  ib  ovop,a  tov 
Kuptou.  Several  texts  relating  to  this  point 
should  be  here  more  particularly  considered. 

(a)  John,  iii.  5,  "  Whoever  is  not  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit  cannot  enter  into  the 
62 


kingdom  of  heaven" — i.  e.,  whoever  does  not 
take  upon  himself  the  obligation  to  live  in  an 
entirely  altered  and  renewed  temper  of  mind, 
which  is  effected  through  baptism  by  the  aid  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  has  no  part  in  the  saving  bless- 
ings of  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom,  (forgiveness 
of  sins  and  eternal  blessedness.)  Vide  s.  126,  II. 
(6)  Titus,  iii.  5,  where  Paul  means  to  say, 
God  had  bestowed  salvation  upon  them  (tauaiv) 
by  leading  them  to  embrace  Christianity.  We 
become  participators  in  these  Christian  bless- 
ings in  a  twofold  way ;  first,  8t,a  hovtpov  rtafay- 
yzvsGiaf  so  baptism  is  called  as  far  as  one  ex- 
ternally receives  it,  and  especially  as  far  as  he 
is  engaged,  by  means  of  it,  to  lead  a  new  life, 
and  receives  strength  for  this  end :  secondly,  xal 
8ia  (ij/asau/atfecoj  Hviv/j,ato$  ayiov — i.  e.,  through 
that  entire  change  and  renovation  of  heart  which 
we  owe  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  renewal  he 
effects  through  the  Christian  doctrine,  s.  130, 
131.  The  meaning  is,  "the  renovation  of  our 
hearts,  which  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
bestowed  upon  us  by  the  free  and  undeserved 
grace  of  God.  He  assists  us  to  obtain  this 
blessing  by  means  of  Christian  baptism,  in 
which  we  become  obligated  to  lead  a  new  life, 
and  receive  strength  so  to  do,  and  also  by  the 
entire  renewal  of  our  hearts,  which  we  owe  to 
his  Spirit." 

(c)  1  Pet.  iii.  21.  It  is  said  concerning  bap- 
tism, that  it  delivers  or  frees  us  from  the  pu- 
nishment of  our  sins,  (tjw^Et;)  not,  however, 
as  an  external  washing,  but  inasmuch  as  we 
pledge  ourselves  in  this  rite,  and  are  assisted 
by  it,  to  maintain  a  jgood  conscience,  and  inas- 
much as  it  is  the  means  by  which  we  receive 
and  appropriate  to  ourselves  the  gracious  pro- 
mise of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  through  Christ, 
which  is  elsewhere  called  pftdvoia  dyuocrvi^. 

The  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  internal  advan- 
tages and  effects  of  baptism  may  be  embraced 
in  the  following  points  : — 

FIRST.  When  we  are  received  by  baptism 
into  the  number  of  the  followers  of  Jesus 
Christ,  we  sacredly  bind  ourselves  to  believe 
his  doctrine  in  its  whole  extent,  its  commands, 
and  its  promises;  to  embrace  it  as  true,  and 
therefore  punctually  to  obey  it  in  all  parts,  to 
live  pious  and  godly  lives,  according  to  his  pre- 
cepts, and  to  imitate  his  example.  For  he  only 
who  does  this  is  worthy  of  the  name  of  a  Chris- 
tian, and  can  lay  claim  to  the  blessedness  pro-* 
mised  to  believers.  Vide  1  John,  ii.  4 ;  iii.  3. 
Peter  calls  this,  in  his  first  epistle,  chap.  iii.  21, 

* t§)j(j£co£  dya^j  ETttpcoT^/ua  E tj  ®f ov,  and  makes 
this  one  object  of  baptism.  'ETtEpw-r^a  is  pro- 
perly stipulatio,  and  so  denotes  any  solemn  obli- 
gation which  one  assumes  (before  God).  Hence 
the  meaning  here  is :  "  By  baptism  we  take 
pon  ourselves  the  sacred  obligation^  in  the 
)resence  of  God,  to  maintain  a  good  conscience, 


490 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


to  be  watchful  against  sin,  and  to  strive  after 
holiness."  The  passage,  Romans,  vi.  3,  4, 
seq.,  teaches  the  same  thing,  coll.  Col.  ii.  12, 
13,  "We  are,  like  Christ,  buried  as  dead  per- 
sons by  baptism,  and  should  arise,  like  him,  to 
a  new  life" — i.  e.,  by  baptism  we  obtain  the 
assurance  of  the  pardon  of  sin  on  account  of  the 
death  of  Christ;  and  so,  when  we  are  baptized, 
take  upon  ourselves  the  obligation  to  die  to  sin 
in  a  spiritual  manner,  as  Christ  died  and  was 
buried  bodily,  &c.  The  image  is  here  taken 
from  baptized  persons  as  they  were  immerged, 
(buried,)  and  as  they  emerged,  (rose  again;)  so 
it  was  understood  by  Chrysostom.  Since  im- 
mersion has  been  disused,  the  full  significance 
of  this  comparison  is  no  longer  perceived.  So 
then  by  baptism  we  profess  to  receive  Christ  as 
our  teacher,  Saviour,  and  Lord — i.  e.,  we  thus 
bind  ourselves  to  embrace  and  obey  his  doc- 
trine, confidently  to  trust  his  promises,  to  ex- 
pect from  him  all  our  spiritual  blessedness,  and 
to  render  him  a  dutiful  obedience.  This  is 
what  is  meant  in  the  New  Testament  by  being 
baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ.  Vide  Moms,  p. 
216,  s.  4.  But  since  now  all  these  blessings 
which  we  owe  to  Jesus  as  Messiah,  or  Saviour 
and  Lord,  are  blessings  which  God  bestows — 
blessings  which,  according  to  the  Christian 
doctrine,  are  derived  from  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,-  so  in  baptism  we  bind  ourselves  to  be- 
lieve in  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  as  our 
God,  to  look  for  our  salvation  from  them,  and 
to  acknowledge  and  adore  them  as  the  only  au- 
thors of  it.  Hence  the  command  of  Jesus  to 
baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  is  designed  to  express  the  reli- 
gious connexion  in  which  we  stand  to  them, 
and  our  duty  to  pay  them  religious  homage. 

SECONDLY.  Through  baptism  we  receive  the 
assurance  that  the  divine  blessings  which  the 
Christian  doctrine  promises  concern  even  us, 
and  that  even  we  may  participate  in  them ;  or, 
in  other  words,  these  blessings  are  by  this  rite 
particularly  applied  to  our  own  personal  state, 
and  we  learn  in  faith  to  appropriate  them  to 
ourselves.  As  any  one,  on  being  formally  ad- 
mitted as  a  citizen  of  a  town,  in  taking  the  oath 
of  citizenship,  and  in  going  through  the  other 
rites  of  initiation,  receives  the  confident  assur- 
ance that  he  has  now  a  title  to  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  of  citizenship ;  so  it  is  with  the 
Christian  in  baptism.  It  is  the  same,  in  this 
view,  with  baptism  as  with  circumcision.  This 
Paul  calls  (Rom.  iv.  11)  a  s^^fiov  and  <y<j>payt5a 
for  Abraham  and  his  posterity — i.  e.,  a  token 
of  assurance  and  a  proof  that  God  was  favour- 
ably disposed  towards  him,  and  justified  him 
on  account  of  his  faith.  So  baptism  is  to  every 
one  the  token  of  assurance  that  he  may  partake 
in  all  those  spiritual  blessings  which  Christian- 
ity promises.  Whoever,  therefore,  is  baptized 


receives  the  assurance  that  his  sins  are  forgiven 
him  for  the  sake  of  Christ — that  God,  for  the 
sake  of  Christ,  looks  upon  him  with  favour  and 
regards  him  as  a  child,  and  that  he,  in  faithful 
obedience  to  the  commands  of  Jesus,  (and  by 
enjoying  the  constant  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  is  promised,)  may  securely  expect  eter- 
nal blessedness;  Acts,  ii.  38;  Gal.  iii.  27; 
Mark,  xvi.  16.  Hence  Peter,  in  his  first  epis- 
tle, chap.  iii.  21,  compares  the  water  of  baptism 
to  the  water  of  the  deluge,  (as  the  Jews  also- 
called  their  washings  and  purifications  spiritual 
floods ;  dvnVuTtoj,  image,  likeness.)  Even  as  the 
pious  at  the  time  of  the  deluge  (ver.  20)  were 
bodily  delivered  ;  so  are  those  who  are  baptized 
with  water  spiritually  delivered  from  sin  and 
its  penalty. 

Conclusions  from  the  foregoing,  and  some  re- 
marks designed  to  illustrate  certain  theological  dis- 
tinctions and  terminologies  respecting  baptism. 

(a)  It  is  justly  maintained  that  baptism  tends 
to  awaken,  enlarge,  and  confirm  our  faith,  and 
that  by  means  of  it  we  receive  power  and  im- 
pulse for  a  new  spiritual  life.     This  effect  is 
produced  in  regard  to  both  the  objects  which 
belong  to  Christian  faith,  the  law  and  the  gos- 
pel.    Still  this  is  not  wrought  through  any  mi- 
raculous or  magical  influence  of  baptism,  or  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  baptism ;  for, 

(b)  This  effect  of  baptism  depends  upon  the 
WTord  of  God  united  with  baptism ;  or  the  di- 
vine truths  of  Christianity  and  the  divine  power 
inherent  in  and   connected   with   them.      Cf. 
Ephes.  v.  26,  "  Christ  purifies  and  sanctifies 
the  members  of  the  church  in  baptism  through 
the  Word" — i.  e.,  the  whole  gospel  system  in 
its  full  extent,  its  precepts  and  promises.     The 
latter  are  made  to  us  in  baptism;  and  at  the 
same  time  we  pledge  ourselves  to  obey  the  for- 
mer, and  receive  strength  so  to  do.   The  means, 
therefore,  by  which  baptism  produces  these  ef- 
fects, or  rather,  God  through  baptism,  is,  the 
Word.     It  is  the  same  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
It  is  accordingly  rightly  said  that  "  God,  or  the 
Holy  Spirit,  operates  in  baptism  upon  the  hearts 
of  men;"   excites   good   feelings,  resolutions, 
&c. — namely,  through  the  Word.     Hence  the 
effect  of  baptism  is  properly  an  effect  which 
God  produces  through  his  word,  or  through  the 
contents  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  which  is  visi- 
bly set  forth,  represented,  and  appropriated  to 
us  in  baptism,  for  the  sake  of  making  a  stronger 
impression  upon  our  heart.     Baptism  may  be 
thus  called,  verbum  Dei  visibile.     Vide  s.  137, 
II.   In  the  same  manner,  therefore,  as  God  ope- 
rates upon  our  hearts,  through  the  Word  and  in 
the  use  of  it,  when  we  hear  or  read  it,  does  he 
also  operate  in  this  visible  presentation  of  the 
same  truth,  by  the  external  rites  of  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper.     And  so  we  may  apply  to 
this  subject  all  which  is  said  in  the  twelfth 


TATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       491 


article  respecting  the  operations  of  grace,  both  in 
the  statement  of  the  Bihlical  doctrine  (s.  130, 
131)  and  of  the  different  theories  of  theologians 
in  the  succeeding  sections.  But  this  effect  is 
not  miraculous,  not  magical,  not  irresistible,  but 
suited  to  our  moral  nature. 

(c)  According  to  the  ancient  scholastic  divi- 
sion, two  things  must  be  considered  in  baptism, 
materta  (better,  res)  terrestris,  that  which  strikes 
the  senses  externally — the  ivater ;  and  materia 
cnelestis,  the  invisible  thing  which  is  represented 
by  the  visible  sign,  and  conveyed  through  it. 
This  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  his  power  and 
agency;  or,  more  definitely,  it  is  that  which  in 
baptism  is  effected  in  us  by  God,  or  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  through  the  divine  Word. 

Note. — Augustine  expresses  himself  very 
justly  concerning  the  efficacy  and  power  of 
baptism,  (De  Bapt.  i.  13,  18,)  "It  has  indeed 
the  power  to  effect  regeneration  (change  of 
heart)  in  men ;  but  it  does  nothing  for  man's 
salvation,  if  there  is  in  him  any  hindrance,  (ob- 
staculum.)"  Luther  too  follows  him  in  this, 
and  says,  very  appropriately  and  justly,  espe- 
cially in  his  large  catechism,  "that  the  divine 
word  and  instruction  must  not  be  separated  from 
baptism,  and  that  without  the  former,  and  faith 
in  it,  the  water  is  nothing  but  water,  and  can  in 
nowise  benefit  the  subject."  Vide  Morus,  p. 
250,  n.  4. 

(c?)  Baptism  is  frequently  represented  as  a 
tovenant  which  is  established  between  God  and 
men;  hence  the  expression,  to  stand  in  his  cove- 
nant of  baptism,  and  others  of  the  same  kind. 
This  name  is  derived  from  circumcision,  and  the 
covenant  of  God  with  Abraham  established  by 
it;  also  from  1  Peter,  iii.  21,  where  Eytspwi'^/ia 
is  translated  covenant  by  Luther.  Cf.  Heb. 
viii.  10,  seq.  The  thing  intended  by  this  name 
is  true,  if  it  is  rightly  understood.  God  so- 
lemnly promises  to  men,  in  baptism,  the  enjoy- 
ment of  all  the  blessings  which  are  promised  in 
the  Christian  doctrine ;  and  man  solemnly  binds 
himself  in  the  same  rite  to  yield  obedience  to 
God  and  the  Christian  doctrine;  and  in  order 
to  this,  receives  strength  and  assistance  from 
God.  Any  one,  therefore,  who  has  not  broken 
this  engagement,  or  forfeited  this  gracious  as- 
sistance which  is  promised,  stands  still  in  the 
covenant  of  baptism.  For  baptism  is  the  testi- 
mony, the  assurance  of  pardon — the  pledge  and 
proof  of  this  and  all  other  Christian  blessings. 

SECTION  CXLI. 

OF   THE    NECESSITY   OF    BAPTISM,  AND   WHETHER 
IT  MAY  BE  REPEATED. 

I.  Tfie  Necessity  of  Baptism. 

(1)  AN  internal  and  absolute  necessity  of 
baptism  cannot  be  affirmed.  For  the  water  of 


baptism,  in  and  of  itself,  and  the  rite  itself,  as 
an  external  act,  have  no  power  to  renew  or  save 
men.  This  effect  depends  solely  upon  the 
agency  of  God,  through  the  Christian  doctrine, 
united  with  baptism.  Since,  then,  it  is  one  of 
the  positive  rites  established  by  Christ,  and  has 
no  internal  or  essential  efficacy,  it  is  no  other- 
wise necessary  than  because  it  has  been  com- 
manded (necessilas  prsecepti.)  But  Christ  has 
commanded  that  all  who  would  be  his  disciples 
should  be  baptized.  Any  one,  therefore,  who 
acknowledges  Jesus  Christ  as  a  divine  messen- 
ger, and  regards  his  authority,  is  under  obliga- 
tion to  obey  his  precept.  Christ  brought  a 
charge  against  the  Pharisees,  (Luke,  vii.  30,) 
that  they  had  rejected  the  divine  appointment 
()3oi>x?7  ®£°v)  concerning  the  baptism  of  John. 
He  required  baptism  of  Nicodemus,  (John,  iii. 
3,  5,  7,)  and  commanded  the  apostles  to  baptize 
all  whom  they  would  make  his  disciples,  (Matt, 
xxviii. ;  Mark,  xvi.) 

It  would  be  false,  however,  to  assert  that 
baptism  is  absolutely  essential  to  each  and  every 
man  in  order  to  salvation.  Theologians  there- 
fore hold,  with  truth,  that  if  a  man  is  deprived 
of  baptism  without  any  fault  of  his  own,  his 
salvation  is  not  endangered  by  this  omission. 
Even  that  familiar  passage,  Mark,  xvi.  16, 
"  Whoever  believes  and  is  baptized  is  saved, 
but  he  that  believes  not  is  punished,"  is  not 
against,  but  in  favour  of  this  view.  For  punish- 
ment is  here  threatened  only  to  the  unbelieving, 
who  wilfully  reject  Christian  truth,  and  not  to 
those  who,  without  their  own  fault,  remain  un- 
baptized ;  hence  |3a*ft'c0&et$  is  not  repeated  in 
the  second  member.  For  an  unbeliever  should 
not  be  baptized ;  and  even  if  he  should  be,  it 
could  do  him  no  good.  Just  so  it  is  in  John, 
iii.,  where  yevvrjots  tx  jtvmpatos  is  represented 
as  the  principal  thing  (ver.  6 — 8),  and  the  ysv- 
vrivis  tx  aJSowoj  as  useful  only  so  far  as  it  tends 
to  promote  the  former. 

(2)  Sketch  of  the  history  of  this  doctrine.  The 
most  opposite  opinions  have  prevailed  from  the 
earliest  times  respecting  the  necessity  of  bap- 
tism. 

(a)  Already  in  the  second  century  some  de- 
nied that  baptism  is  necessary  for  every  Chris- 
tian, and  that  it  is  the  will  of  Christ  that  each 
and  every  one  should  be  baptized.  They  main- 
tained, that  those  who  have  otherwise  sufficient 
faith  have  no  need  of  baptism.  Of  these  Ter- 
tullian  speaks,  (De  Bapt.  ch.  12 — 14.)  Some 
Socinians  agreed  with  these,  and  maintained 
that  baptism  is  not  properly  applied  to  such  as 
are  born  of  Christian  parents,  but  that  it  is  an 
external  rite  of  initiation,  by  which  those  of 
other  religions  are  to  be  introduced  into  the 
Christian  church — an  opinion  to  which  many 
who  are  of  a  Pelagian  way  of  thinking  assent. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  there  is  an  entire  want 


492 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


of  express  testimony  and  evidence  from  the 
apostolical  age  concerning  the  baptism  of  those 
born  of  Christian  parents.  This  inquiry  has 
been  lately  revived ;  and  Teller  (Excurs.  i.  on 
Burnet,  "  De  fide  et  officiis")  is  of  the  opinion 
that  those  descended  of  Christian  parents  were 
not  baptized,  but  were  considered  as  born  with- 
in the  lap  of  the  church.  That  this,  however, 
was  done,  is  implied  in  the  whole  design  of 
baptism,  as  expressed  by  Jesus  and  the  apos- 
tles, s.  140,  and  may  also  be  concluded  from 
the  analogy  of  circumcision,  and  the  uniform 
practice  of  the  ancient  church  after  the  aposto- 
lical times.  There  is  a  work,  in  which,  with 
a  boldness  not  to  be  found  elsewhere,  the  entire 
needlessness  of  baptism  is  maintained,  its  esta- 
blishment by  Christ  denied,  and  the  whole  thing 
given  out  as  an  invention  of  Peter,  for  the  sake 
of  making  himself  pleasing  to  the  Jews ;  it  is 
entitled,  "Die  Taufe  der  Christen,  ein  ehrwiir- 
diger  Gebrauch,  und  kein  Gesetz  Christi,"  pub- 
lished 1774.  The  author  was  C.  C.  Reiche. 
An  answer  to  this  was  written  by  J.  E.  Tro- 
schel,  "Die  Wassertaufe  ein  Gesetz  Christi;" 
Berlin,  1774. 

(6)  Among  the  old  catholic  fathers  in  the 
Christian  church  there  always  prevailed  very 
high  ideas  respecting  the  necessity  and  advan- 
tages of  baptism.  They  were  accustomed,  how- 
ever, to  defer  baptism  as  long  as  possible  (jpro- 
crastinare) ;  and  this  is  recommended  even  by 
Tertullian,  De  Bapt.  c.  18;)  and  many  would 
not  be  baptized  until  just  before  their  death — e. 
g.,  Constantino  the  Great.  They  supposed  that 
baptism  removes,  in  a  kind  of  miraculous  way, 
all  the  sins  previously  committed ;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  sins  committed  subsequently 
to  baptism  could  be  forgiven  only  with  great 
difficulty,  or  not  at  all ;  and  so  they  imagined 
that  one  baptized  shortly  before  death,  or  one 
who  dies  a  martyr,  (for  martyrdom,  in  their 
view,  has  the  same  efficacy,)  goes  out  of  the 
world  as  a  man  without  sin,  and  is  saved.  They 
therefore  delayed  very  much  the  baptism  of  new 
converts,  and  prevented  them  from  the  enjoy- 
ment of  this  sacrament,  entirely  contrary  to  the 
appointment  and  meaning  of  the  apostles,  who 
baptized  new  converts  immediately,  and  often 
many  thousands  in  one  day,  respecting  whose 
conduct  and  integrity  they  could  not  possibly 
have  been  thoroughly  informed  before;  Acts, 
ii.  41;  xvi.  15,  33,  coll.  Acts,  viii.  13.  Vide 
Baumgarten,  De  procrastinatione  baptismi  apud 
veteres;  Halle,  1747. 

(c)  When  now  the  position,  extra ecclesiam  visi- 
bilem  non  dari  salutem,  with  all  its  consequences, 
become  more  and  more  prevalent,  especially  af- 
ter the  time  of  Augustine,  and  in  the  Western 
church  (vide  s.  128,  II.  and  135, 1.),  they  began 
to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  baptism  in  order  to  salvation ;  because 


baptism  is  the  appointed  rite  of  initiation  or' 
reception  into  the  church  ;  and  they  gave  out, 
that  whoever  is  not  baptized,  and  so  is  not  a 
member  of  the  visible  church,  could  not  become 
partaker  of  eternal  happiness.  So  Augustine 
had  before  judged,  not  only  respecting  the  hea- 
then and  the  children  of  heathen  parents,  but 
also  the  children  of  Christian  parents  who  die 
before  baptism.  He  was  followed  by  the  school- 
men. After  this  time  they  began  very  much  to 
hasten  the  baptism  of  children ;  and  now,  for 
the  first  time,  the  so-called  baptism  of  necessity 
(administered  when  a  child  was  thought  in  dan- 
ger of  dying)  became  common.  It  happened 
also  not  unfrequently,  that  the  children  of  un- 
christian parents  (e.  g.,  of  Jews)  were  forcibly 
baptized  against  their  own  and  their  parents* 
will,  on  the  ground  that  they  were  thus  put  into 
the  way  of  salvation;  of  this  we  find  many  ex- 
amples in  earlier  times.  That  this  is  contrary 
to  the  sense  and  spirit  of  the  holy  scriptures 
may  be  seen  from  this,  that  circumcision  was 
appointed  on  the  eighth  day,  and  one  who  died 
before  was  not  considered,  on  this  account,  as 
shut  out  from  the  people  of  God. 

II.  Is  Christian  Baptism  to  be  Repeated? 

(1)  The  doctrine  now  prevalent  in  the  church 
is  entirely  just,  that  baptism  is  not  to  be  repeat- 
ed when  one  passes  over  from  one  Christian  sect 
or  particular  communion  to  another.  For, 

(a)  Baptism,  considered  as  an  external  reli- 
gious rite,  is  the  rite  of  initiation  and  solemn 
reception  into  the  Christian  church  in  general. 
The  subject  of  baptism  pledges  himself  to  the 
profession  and  to  the  obedience  of  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  in  general,  and  not  to  any  one  particu- 
lar church.  No  one  of  these  particular  commu- 
nions (such  as  they  have  always  been)  is  in 
exclusive  possession  of  the  truth  (vide.  s.  134, 
II,  2)  ;  but  in  this  all  agree,  that  they  hold  them- 
selves pledged  to  profess  the  pure  Christian 
doctrine  (i.  e.,  what  they,  according  to  their 
views,  understand  as  such.)  Every  sect  binds 
its  own  baptized  to  this  ;  and  hence  it  is,  in  this 
view,  the  same  thing,  wherever  and  by  whom- 
soever one  is  baptized.  And  Paul  taught  the 
same  thing  when  he  said,  1  Cor.  i.  12,  seq., 
that  one  is  not  pledged  by  baptism  to  any  man 
or  to  any  sect,  but  to  the  profession  of  Christ. 

(6)  The  power  or  efficacy  of  baptism  depends 
not  upon  the  sect  or  the  man  by  whom  it  is  ad- 
ministered ;  man  can  neither  increase  nor  dimi- 
nish this  efficacy.  Vide  I  Cor.  i.  12. 

(c)  We  find  no  example  during  the  times  of 
Christ  or  the  apostles  to  prove  that  proper  Chris- 
tian baptism  was  ever  repeated;  although  we 
find  some  examples,  even  at  that  time,  of  great 
sinners  and  of  persons  excommunicated. 

(e?)  We  do  not  even  find  that  the  baptism  of 
John  was  repeated,  (although,  at  the  present 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       403 


time,  the  Sabeans  in  the  East  yearly  repeat  it;) 
and  the  same  is  true  of  Jewish  proselyte  bap- 
tism. The  examples  Acts  ii.  and  xix.  do  not 
bear  upon  this  point.  Vide  s.  138,  IV. 

(e)  Finally,  the  uniform  phraseology  of  the 
holy  scriptures  teaches  clearly  the  same  thing, 
since  it  is  always  said  concerning  Christians 
who  were  received  into  the  church,  that  they  had 
been  baptized  (baptizatos  esse),  because  it  took 
place  once  for  all ;  not  merely  that  they  were  bap- 
tized (baptizari ,•)  Rom.  vi.  31  ;  Gal.  iii.  27.  It 
is  a  thing  which  had  been  performed.  It  is 
different  with  the  Lord's  Supper:  this  is  a  rite 
to  be  repeated  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  25,  seq.  Therefore, 
only  when  an  essential  mistake  has  been  com- 
mitted— when,  e.  g.,  anything  belonging  to  the 
essentials  of  baptism,  as  the  use  of  water,  or 
proper  instruction  concerning  the  object  of  this 
rite,  has  been  neglected  or  altered,  or  if  it  has 
been  administered  by  one  not  a  Christian  ;  vide 
Acts  ii.  and  xix.,  s.  138,  IV. ;  in  such  cases  only 
must  it  be  renewed,  as  baptism  then  ceases  to 
be  true  Christian  baptism. 

(2)  The  opinions  respecting  repeating  bap- 
tism were  different  even  in  the  ancient  Chris- 
tian church.  Already  in  the  second  century 
they  were  accustomed  in  Africa  (as  appears 
from  Tertullian,  De  Pudic.  c.  19;  De  Bapt.  c. 
15,)  to  rebaptize  heretics,  and  the  same  was 
done  in  many  provinces  of  the  East.  This 
was  not  the  case,  on  the  other  hand,  in  Rome, 
and  in  the  other  European  churches ;  here 
they  simply  laid  hands  upon  those  who  were 
restored,  when  they  were  received  back ;  and 
appealed  for  this  to  the  apostolic  tradition,  that 
whoever  has  been  baptized  according  to  the 
command  of  Christ  is  rightly  baptized,  although 
it  may  have  been  done  even  by  a  heretic.  In 
the  third  century  there  arose  a  vehement  con- 
troversy on  this  point  between  Stephanus,  Bi- 
shop of  Rome,  and  the  African  party,  whose 
usage  Cyprian  zealously  defended.  But  they 
could  not  agree,  and  each  party  still  adhered  to 
its  previous  usage.  These  opinions,  however, 
were  abandoned  by  degrees  in  the  African 
church,  as  in  most  others;  they  were,  however, 
revived  in  the  fourth  century  by  the  Donatists, 
and  other  fanatics  of  the  succeeding  century, 
who  would  acknowledge  no  baptism  as  valid 
which  was  administered  by  a  heretic,  or  any 
teacher  who  did  not  stand  in  fellowship  with 
them.  The  same  opinion  was  revived  by  the 
enthusiastic  sect  known  by  the  name  ofJlnabap- 
tisis,  in  the  sixteenth  century.  They,  however, 
altered  their  theory  afterwards  to  this,  that  they 
merely  rejected  infant  baptism,  and  admitted 
only  adult  persons  to  baptism ;  and  this  is  still 
the  doctrine  of  the  Mennonites  and  the  other 
Anabaptists;  hence  they  rebaptize  those  who 
were  baptized  in  infancy,  because  infant  baptism 
is  not  regarded  by  them  as  valid,  and  those  bap- 


tized in  this  way  only  are  considered  by  them 
as  not  baptized.  They  therefore  reject  the  name 
of  Anabaptists,  (Wiedertaufer.}  The  opinions 
of  all  Anabaptists  of  ancient  and  modern  times 
flow  partly  from  unjust  ideas  of  the  power  and 
efficacy  of  baptism,  and  partly  from  erroneous 
opinions  respecting  the  church.  It  is  true,  in- 
deed, that  many  who  have  denied  that  baptism 
should  be  repeated  have  held  these  same  erro- 
neous opinions,  but  they  would  not  admit  the 
consequences  which  naturally  result  from  them. 

(a)  The  Africans  of  the  second  and  third 
centuries  held  this  point  in  common  with  their 
opponents,  that  forgiveness  of  sin  and  eternal 
happiness  are  obtained  by  means  of  baptism, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  by  means  of  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  bishop ;  and  indeed  both 
imagined  that  a  sort  of  magic  or  miraculous  in- 
fluence belongs  to  these  rites.  Vide  s.  139, 
IV.  The  Africans  concluded  now,  that  as 
heretics  do  not  hold  the  true  Christian  doctrine 
they  are  not  to  be  considered  as  Christians, 
and  consequently  that  their  baptism  is  not 
Christian  baptism,  and  that  they,  therefore,  like 
unchristian  persons,  are  not  susceptible  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

(6)  The  Donatists,  now,  maintained  plainly 
and  decidedly  that  the  church  can  consist  only 
of  holy  and  pious  persons,  and  that  this  genuine 
Christian  church  could  be  found  only  among 
themselves,  (vide  s.  135,11.;)  wherefore  they, 
rebaptized  all  who  came  over  to  their  sect.  For 
they  maintained  that  the  gratia  baptismi  does 
not  exist  among  heretics;  that  the  ordination  of 
teachers  out  of  their  own  communion  is  invalid  ; 
that  others  have  not  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  can- 
not therefore  baptize  in  a  valid  manner; — in 
short,  it  was  their  opinion  that  the  efficacy  of- 
the  ordinances  depends  on  the  worthiness  of 
him  who  administers  them. 

(c)  The  Anabaptists  of  the  sixteenth  century 
proceeded  from  the  same  position,  that  the 
church  is  a  community  of  mere  saints  and  re- 
generated persons.  They  and  their  followers 
therefore  rejected  infant  baptism,  as  it  could  not 
be  known  as  yet  concerning  children  whether 
they  would  live  pious  or  ungodly  lives;  nor 
could  children  promise  the  church  that  they 
would  live  righteously.  Adults  only,  in  their 
view,  might  therefore  be  baptized.  Cf.  the  work 
written  by  an  Anabaptist,  entitled  "  Ueber  die 
moralischen  Zwecke  und  Verpflichtungen  der 
Taufe,"  which,  aside  from  this  point,  contains 
much  which  is  good  ;  translated  from  the  Eng- 
lish;  Leipzig,  1775 — 8.  Vide  also  D.  A.  J. 
Stark,  Geschichte  der  Taufe  und  der  Taufge- 
sinnten;  Leipzig,  1789,  8vo. 

[Note. — On  the  general  subject  of  baptism, 
cf.  Bretschneider,  Dogmatik,  b.  ii.  s.  672,  ff. 
Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  566,  s.  122,  ff.    The  litera- 
ture of  this  doctrine  is  here  very  fully  exhibited. 
2T 


494 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


For  the  early  history  of  this  doctrine,  cf.  Nean- 
der,  K.  Gesch.  b.  i.  Abth.  ii.  s.  533—63 ;  also 
b.  ii.  Abth.  ii.  s.  682,  ff. ;  for  the  more  recent 
history,  cf.  Plank,  Gesch.  der  protest.  Lehrb. 
b.  v.  th.  1.— TB.] 

SECTION  CXLII. 

OF  THE  BAPTISM  OF  INFANTS. 

MANY  of  the  ancients  and  moderns  have  dis- 
approved of  infant  baptism.  It  was  first  ex- 
pressly dissuaded  by  Tertullian  (De  Bapt.  c. 
18),  although  he  does  not  entirely  reject  it,  as 
it  was  at  that  time  in  common  use.  But  it  was 
also  quite  common  then  to  delay  baptism  ;  and 
those  who  approved  of  this  could  not  at  the  same 
time  approve  of  infant  baptism.  Vide  s.  141, 1. 
Infant  baptism  was  also  rejected  by  the  Anabap- 
tists of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  their  follow- 
ers, for  reasons  mentioned  in  s.  141,  ad  finem. 
Mich.  Servetus,  too,  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
would  have  no  one  baptized  under  thirty  years 
of  age.  There  is  no  decisive  example  of  this 
practice  in  the  New  Testament;  for  it  may  be 
objected  against  those  passages  where  the  bap- 
tism of  whole  families  is  mentioned — viz.,  Acts, 
x.  42,  48;  xvi.  15,  33  ;  1  Cor.  i.  16,  that  it  is 
doubtful  whether  there  were  any  children  in 
these  families,  and  if  there  were,  whether  they 
were  then  baptized.  From  the  passage  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that 
Christ  commanded  infant  baptism;  (the  jua^- 
rfvtiv  is  neither  for  nor  against;)  nor  does  this 
follow  any  more  from  John,  iii.  5,  and  Mark, 
x.  14,  16.  There  is  therefore  no  express  com- 
mand for  infant  baptism  found  in  the  New  Tes- 
ment;  as  Morns  (p.  215,  s.  12)  justly  concedes. 
Infant  baptism  has  been  often  defended  on  very 
unsatisfactory  a  priori  grounds — e.  g.,  the  ne- 
cessity of  it  has  been  contended  for,  in  order 
that  children  may  obtain  by  it  the  faith  which 
is  necessary  to  salvation,  &c.  It  is  sufficient  to 
shew,  (1)  That  infant  baptism  was  not  forbid- 
den by  Christ,  and  is  not  opposed  to  his  will 
and  the  principles  of  his  religion,  but  entirely 
suited  to  both.  (2)  That  it  was  probably  prac- 
tised even  in  the  apostolic  church.  (3)  That 
it  is  not  without  advantages. 

I.  Proofs  of  the  Lawfulness  and  Antiquity  of 
Infant  Baptism. 

(1)  That  infant  baptism,  considered  as  a 
solemn  rite  of  initiation  into  the  church,  cannot 
be  opposed  to  the  design  and  will  of  Christ, 
may  be  concluded  from  his  own  declaration, 
Matt.  x.  14,  "Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me  and  forbid  them  not,  T'WJ/  yap  •foiovifuv  ts-tiv 
ri  fiatjifoia  TOU  ©sou."  This  is  indeed  no  com- 
mand for  infant  baptism;  but  if  children  may 
and  ought  to  have  a  share  in  the  Christian 
church,  and  in  all  Christian  privileges  (,3a< 


®j?ov),  it  cannot  be  improper  to  introduce  them) 
into  the  Christian  church  by  this  solemn  rite  of| 
initiation.  Indeed,  if  it  is  according  to  the  dw 
sign  of  Christ  that  children  should  have  a  shard 
in  the  rites  and  privileges  of  Christians  from 
their  earliest  youth  up,  it  must  also  be  agreeable 
to  his  will  solemnly  to  introduce  them,  by  this 
rite  of  initiation,  into  the  nursery  of  his  people] 
Cf.  1  Cor.  vii.  14. 

(2)  Christian  baptism  is  so  far  similar  to  cirj 
cumcision  as  that  the  one  was  the  rite  of  initial 
tion  into  the  ancient  church,  the  other  into  th^ 
new;  s.  137,  II.  ad  finem,  and  Morus,  p.  253 
note.     But  Christian  baptism   represents   ane 
imparts  far  greater  spiritual  benefits  than  cir-1 
cumcision.     Now  we  know  that  the  sons  ofj 
Jews  and  proselytes,  according  to  divine  coraw 
mand,  were  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,  when 
they  certainly  had  as  yet  no  idea  of  the  intenf 
and   meaning  of  this  religious  rite.     Accord] 
ing  to  this  analogy,  children  among  Christians! 
may  be  baptized,  even  during  those  years  wherj 
they  cannot  as  yet  understand  anything  of  the 
design  of  the  rite,  or  make  any  profession  or 
their  faith.     At  least,  this  analogy  must  havj 
been  very  clear  to  the  first  Christians,  and  to  th« 
apostles,  who  themselves  were  Jews.     Whei 
therefore  in  the  times  of  the  apostles  a  wholj 
family  was  baptized,  would  not  the  children  bj 
baptized  too?     And  did  not  Paul  say  withod 
limitation  that  all  were  baptized,  at  a  time  whe« 
there  were  those  grown  up  in  the  Christian 
society  who  were  born  of  Christian  parents 
Vide  1  Cor.  i.  and  xii.,  and  Gal.  iii.     Again 
were  it  entirely  decided  that  Jewish  proselyt 
baptism  was  common  during  the  life  of  Chris! 
this  circumstance  would  establish  the  positio 
still  more;  for  the  children  of  proselytes  wer 
also  baptized.     But  even  if  proselyte  baptisr 
was  not  introduced  until  the  end  of  the  secon 
or  beginning  of  the  third  century,  and  was  the) 
adopted  in  imitation  of  Christian  baptism,  evel 
in  this  case  it  might  still  be  concluded  that  A 
that  time  the  baptism  of  infants  must  have  bee 
common  among  Christians. 

(3)  The  most  decisive  reason  is  the  follow! 
ing:    Christ  did  not  indeed  ordain  infant  ban 
tism  expressly;  but  if,  in  his  command  to  ban 
tize  a//,  he  had  wished  children  to  be  exceptecj 
he  must  have  expressly  said  this ;  Matt,  xxviii 
Since  the  first  disciples  of  Christ,  as   nativi 
Jews,  never  doubted  that  children  were  to  a 
introduced  into  the  Israelitish  church  by  circuoi 
cision,  it  was  natural  that  they  should  includj 
children  also  in  baptism,  if  Christ  did  not  e?i 
pressly  forbid  it.    Had  he  therefore  wished  thij 
this  should  not  be  done,  he  would  have  said  s! 
in  definite  terms. 

(4)  That  infant  baptism  was  very  commoi 
shortly  after  the  times  of  the  apostles,  both  i 
the  Eastern  and  Western  churches,  admits  of  a 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       495 


doubt,  if  all  the  historical  data  are  compared. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  251,  not.  ad  s.  10.  Some  have 
endeavoured  to  find  evidence  for  this  practice 
even  in  the  writings  of  Justin  the  Martyr  and 
Irenaeus ;  but  they  are  not  sufficiently  decisive 
on  this  point.*  The  most  weighty  evidence 
that  can  be  produced,  from  the  oldest  church 
fathers  and  from  church  history,  is  the  follow- 
ing— viz., 

(a)  From  Tertullian  (De  Bapt.  c.  18)  it  is 
clearly  seen,  that  already  in  his  time  the  bap- 
I  tism  of  infants  was  very  customary  in  Africa 
!  and  elsewhere,  although  he  himself  does  not 
speak  favourably  of  this  practice. 

(6)  In  the  time  of  Cyprian,  in  the  third  cen- 
tury, there  arose  a  controversy  concerning  the 
day  when  the  child  should  be  baptized,  whether 
before  the  eighth  day.  But  there  is  no  question 
on  the  point  whether  children  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  in  this  they  were  all  unanimously  agreed. 

(c)  Augustine  calls  infant  baptism  apostolica 
traditio,  and  says,  totam  ecclesiam  id  traditum 
tenere. 

(d)  But  far  more  important  is  the  testimony 
of  a  much  earlier,  and  therefore  more  valuable 
witness — viz.,  Origen,  of  the  third  century,  who 
says  in  his  Comm.  in  Ep.  ad  Rom.  vi.,  that  the 
church  had  received  this  as  a  tradition  from  the 
apostles,  (rtctpago<jt,$  artotffoTax?;.)    Here  it  might 
indeed  be  objected  that  the  church  fathers  ap- 
peal much  too  freely  to  apostolic  tradition,  for 
the  sake  of  giving  to  their  own  opinions  and  to 
the  appointments  of  the  church  the  more  autho- 
rity.    But  if  infant  baptism  was  not  practised 
in  the  oldest  church,  it  is  hardly  conceivable 
how  it  should  have  become  so  general  a  short 
time  after,  and  this  too  without  any  controversy 
or  contradiction.   When  Origen  was  born,  about 
the  year  185,  it  was  universally  prevalent  in  the 
Christian  church,  and  he  was,  as  he  says  him- 
self, a  baptized  child.     If  it  was  not  customary 
at  the  time  of  the  apostles,  we  must  suppose  that 
afterwards  single  individuals  or  churches  began 
to  baptize   children.     But  in   those   times   in 
which  they  adhered    so  strictly,  even   in   the 
smallest  trifles,  to  ancient  usage,  such  an  inno- 
vation could  not  possibly  have  taken  place  with- 
out great  excitement,  controversy,  contadiction, 
and  without  occasioning  many  councils.   These 
effects  were  produced  by  some  very  insignificant 
matters,  but  we  cannot  find  the  least  trace  of 
opposition  to  the  first  practice  of  infant  baptism. 
There  can,  then,  be  no  time  mentioned  in  which 
the  baptism  of  infants  was  first  introduced  after 
the  death  of  the  apostles.     Therefore  it  must 
have  existed  from  the  beginning.    Neither  Ter- 
tullian nor  Pelagius  knew  of  a  later  origin  of  it, 

*  [The  evidence  from  Irenaeus  is  thought  valid  and 
incontrovertible  by  Neander ;  vide  K.  Gesch.  b.  ii. 
Abth.  ii.  s.  549,  550.— Tn.] 


when  the  former  censured  it,  and  the  latter  de- 
nied that  it  is  necessary  to  procure  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  for  children.  For  the  history  of 
infant  baptism  and  its  opponents,  vide  Guil. 
Wall,  Historia  Baptismi  Infan.tum,  and  John 
Walch,  Historia  Padobaptismi,  Saec.  iv.  pri- 
orum;  Jense,  1739. 

II.  The.  Uses  and  Effects  of  In f ant  Baptism. 

Although  children  at  the  time  of  their  bap- 
tism know  nothing  respecting  this  rite,  and  are 
not  capable  of  any  notion  of  it,  and  can  make 
no  profession,  (and  these  are  the  principal  ob- 
jections on  the  other  side,)  still  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  infant  baptism  is  without  advantages, 
any  more  than  that  Jewish  circumcision  was. 
It  has  twofold  advantages: 

(1)  For  the  children  themselves.  The  advan- 
tages to  them  are  both  present  and  future. 

(a)  The  present  effect,  as  far  as  it  appears 
clearly  to  us,  is  principally  this,  that  by  this 
means  they  are  admitted  into  the  nursery 
of  the  church,  and  even  while  children  en- 
joy its  rights  and  privileges,  as  far  as  they 
are  capable  of  so  doing.  This  is  sufficient; 
and  there  is  no  need  of  adopting  the  doctrine 
about  a  children's  faith,  so  far  at  least  as  that 
implies  anything  which  can  exist  without  com- 
prehension and  capability  of  using  the  under- 
standing. Vide  s.  121,  II.,  and  Morus,  p.  249. 
In  the  general  position,  that  just  as/ar  as  they 
have  subjective  capacity,  and  as  soon  as  they 
have  this,  God  will  work  in  them  that  which  is 
good  for  their  salvation,  there  is  not  only  no- 
thing unreasonable,  but  it  is  altogether  rational 
and  scriptural.  It  is  also  certain  that  we  can- 
not surely  tell  how  soon,  or  in  what  way  and 
by  what  means,  this  subjective  capacity  may 
be  shewn  and  developed. 

(£>)  As  soon  as  their  mental  powers  begin  to 
unfold  themselves  in  some  degree,  children  are 
capable  of  an  obvious  inward,  moral  effect  of 
baptism,  or  of  God  in  and  through  baptism.  In 
the  Christian  instruction  imparted  to  them  they 
must  therefore  be  continually  referred  to  this 
event;  it  must  be  shewn  them  that  they  too 
have  obtained  by  baptism  a  share  in  all  the 
great  and  divine  blessings  and  promises  which 
are  given  to  Christians,  and  that  they  are  so- 
lemnly obligated  by  baptism,  through  God's 
assistance  and  guidance,  to  fulfil  all  the  condi- 
tions on  which  Christians  receive  these  great 
promises.  In  the  youthful  age  this  means  is 
exceedingly  efficacious  in  exciting  pious  re- 
flections, and  it  operates  upon  the  whole  suc- 
ceeding life.  It  is  on  this  account  (as  Morus 
well  observes)  a  very  suitable  and  commend- 
able practice  in  the  protestant  church,  that  the 
children,  before  they  approach  the  Lord's  Table 
for  the  first  time,  are  thoroughly  instructed  in 
the  doctrinal  and  practical  truths  of  Christianity, 


496 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


to  the  acceptance  and  obedience  of  which 
they  are  obligated  by  baptism.  This  is  called 
the  confirmation,  (of  the  covenant  of  baptism.) 
It  has  upon  many,  as  experience  teaches,  the 
most  salutary  efficacy  through  their  whole  life, 
and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  evangelical  teacher  to 
lay  out  all  his  strength  upon  this  instruction, 
and  to  make  it,  as  far  as  he  can,  appropriate 
and  practical.  And  if  in  some  the  advantages 
of  it  do  not  appear  immediately,  still  in  late 
years  they  are  often  seen.  The  good  seed  sown 
in  the  heart  often  lies  a  long  time  concealed  be- 
fore it  comes  up.  Baptism  cannot  indeed  exert 
any  compulsion  upon  children,  any  more  than 
when  one  is  enrolled,  as  a  child  to  a  canonry, 
or  as  an  academic  citizen.  They  must  act  ac- 
cording to  their  own  conscientious  conviction, 
choice,  and  determination,  after  they  come  to 
the  exercise  of  their  understanding. 

(2)  For  the  parents,  relatives,  or  guardians  of 
the  children.  To  these,  too,  is  the  baptism  of 
infants  eminently  useful  in  many  respects;  and 
it  may  be  said  that  this  advantage  alone  is  a 
sufficient  reason  for  instituting  infant  baptism. 
For  (a)  the  assurance  is  given  by  this  rite  to 
parents,  in  a  solemn  and  impressive  manner, 
that  the  great  privileges  and  promises  bestowed 
upon  Christians  will  be  imparted  to  their  chil- 
dren also,  and  thus  religious  feelings,  pious 
thoughts  and  resolutions,  are  awakened  and 
promoted  in  them.  (6)  By  this  rite  they  are 
engaged  and  encouraged  to  educate  their  chil- 
dren in  a  Christian  manner,  in  order  that  their 
children  may  receive  the  privileges  bestowed 
upon  them,  and  attain  one  day  to  the  actual  ex- 
ercise and  enjoyment  of  them.  These  duties 
should  be  urged  upon  parents  by  the  Christian 
teacher,  especially  at  the  time  when  their  chil- 
dren are  baptized ;  and  he  may  find  instruction 
respecting  the  manner  in  which  this  should  be 
done  in  the  passages  above  cited.  Respecting 
the  usages  properly  connected  with  infant  bap- 
tism, vide  s.  139,  ad  finem. 


CHAPTER   II. 

ON  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

SECTION  CXLIII. 

OF  THE  NAMES  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER?    AND  THE 
OCCASION  AND  OBJECT  OF  ITS  INSTITUTION. 

I.  Names  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
(I)  The  scriptural  names,  (a)  Kvpiaxov  8sljt- 
vov,  the  festival  which  Christ  appointed,  and 
which  is  held  in  his  honour,  and  is  commemo- 
rative of  him,  1  Cor.  xi.  20.  Hence  the  com- 
mon appellations,  the  Lord's  Supper,  coena  do- 


mini,  or  sacra  coena,  because  it  was  instituted  at 
supper  time.     Entirely  synonymous  with  this ' 
is  the  phrase  (6)  Tpartf^a  Kvpt'oi;,  1  Cor.  x.  21, 'j 
where  we  also  find  the  name  jtotr^tov  Krpt'ou 
With  these  the  term  x?-doi$  T?OV  ap-rov,  Acts,  ii.  [ 
42,  is  frequently  mentioned.     But  this  seems 
rather  to  apply  to  the  feasts  of  love,  (Agapea,) 
after  which  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper  was] 
frequently,  though  not  always,  administered  in 
the  primitive  church.     Cf.  ver.  46,  /jLftaha,tu3d~ 
vfiv  T'po^j.     The  term  5wp?a  fTtorpcwtoj,  Heb. ! 
vi.  4,  is  rendered  by  Michaelis  heavenly  manna, 
and  applied  to  the  Lord's  Supper.     This  term 
seems,  however,  to  denote  more  generally  the  j 
unmerited   divine  favours   conferred  upon  the! 
primitive  Christians. 

(2)  The  ecclesiastical  names  of  this  sacrament.  \ 
These  are  very  many  :  some  of  the  principal  are  | 
the  following:— 

(a)  KotvwWa,  communio — a  festival  in  cora-j 
mon.  This  name  is  borrowed  from  1  Cor.  x.  j 
16,  where,  however,  it  denotes  the  profession 
which  Christians  make,  by  partaking  in  com 
of  the  Supper,  of  their  interest  in  Christ,  of  the 
saving  efficacy  of  his  death  for  them,  and  thei 
own  actual  enjoyment  of  its  consequences 

(6)  Ei^aptcfT'tct  and  ivXoyta,  (for  these  terms 
are  synonymous.)  This  sacrament  is  so  called! 
because  it  is  designed  to  promote  a  thankful  re-| 
membrance  of  Christ,  and  of  the  divine  favours) 
bestowed  upon  us  through  him.  He  himself) 
commenced  the  Supper  by  a  prayer  of  thanks,  \ 
which  has  always  been  justly  retained  in  admi-j 
nistering  this  ordinance.  The  appellation  eucha-\ 
ristia  (eucharist)  was  used  even  by  Ignatius,  j 
Justin  the  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  and  Tertullian.j 
[This  name  seems  also  to  be  of  scriptural  ori- 
gin, and  to  be  taken  from  the  phrase  7to-frtptov 
fuTioyfctj  6  fuTioyovjitfv,  used  by  Paul.—  IR.J 

(c)  XVI>O£L$,  avva%i$  oiyta.  This  signifies,  pri- 
marily, a  collection  ,•  then,  a  collection  for  cele- 
brating the  Lord's  Supper,  and  finally,  the  Lord's 
Supper  itself.  This  name  was  probably  taken 
from  1  Cor.  xi.  18,  20,  crvj^p^o^tisvcov  I'^uwv. 

(c?)  AftT'ovpy/a  [primarily,  ministerium"],  then, 
the  sacrament  of  the  Supper,  as  the  principal  act 
of  religious  service,  especially  on  account  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ  which  is  there  commemorated, 
since  fartovpyia  signifies,  by  way  of  eminence,! 
that  part  of  religious  service  which  consists  in 
sacrifice. 

(e)  Mvcrtrfiiov,  coena  mystica  and  missa ;  so 
this  sacrament  was  called,  because  the  catechu-1 
mens  were  excluded  from  it,  and  none  who  were, 
not  Christians  could  be  present  when  it  was  ad-J 
ministered.  They  were  sent  away  by  the  dea-| 
cons  with  the  words,  Ite,  missa  esl,  (ecclesia.) 
Missa  signifies  properly  dismissio  catechumeno- 
rum  et posnitentiiim. 

(/)  There  are  other  names,  which  were  taken 
from  sacrifices,  and  the  offering  of  sacrifices — 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       497 


9.  g.,  7tpocr$opa,  oblatio,  £uca'a,  ^tvs 
altare,  sacramentum  altaris,  &c.  Many  such 
names  are  found  in  the  ancient  liturgies.  Vide 
Moms,  page  271,  note  2.  Christ  instituted  the 
Supper  chiefly  in  commemoration  of  his  death, 
or  his  offering  up  of  himself  for  man;  and  he 
employs  in  doing  this  the  terms  borrowed  from 
sacrifices.  Now  it  was  customary  for  the  Chris- 
tians who  had  most  possessions  to  bring  food 
and  drink  to  their  love-festivals,  and  from  the 
remnants  of  these  gifts  (rtpo0<j>opa)  they  held  the 
i  Supper  in  commemoration  of  the  sacrifice  of 
|  Christ.  This  gave  the  first  occasion  for  com- 
j paring  this  sacrament  with  an  offering;  and  this 
was  done  the  more  willingly  by  Christians,  as 
it  was  often  objected  against  them,  by  Jews 
and  heathens,  that  they  had  no  sacrifices.  And 
by  degrees  they  became  accustomed  to  regard 
the  Lord's  Supper  not  merely  as  a  festival  in 
memory  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  but  as  an  ac- 
j  tual  repetition  of  this  sacrifice — an  idea  which 
gave  rise  afterwards  to  the  grossest  errors.  The 
first  traces  of  these  opinions  are  found  in  Justin 
the  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  still  more 
in  Cyprian,  Augustine,  and  others.  Vide  Er- 
[  nesti  in  "  Antimuratorius,"  in  his  "  Opusc. 
Theol."  p.  80;  and  with  respect  to  these  eccle- 
siastical names  in  general,  Casaubon,  Exerc.  in 
Baron,— Ex.  16,  p.  445. 

II.  Texts  relating  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the 
occasion  and  object  of  its  Institution. 

(1)  The  institution  of  the  Supper  is  described 
in  the  following  texts — viz.,  Matt.  xxvi.  26 — 28 ; 
Mark,  xiv.  22 — 24  ;  Luke,  xxii.  19,  20.  Luke 
is  more  full  and  distinct  in  his  narrative  than 
the  others;  in  John  there  is  nothing  said  re- 
specting it,  since  he  presupposed  it  as  already 
well  known.  Paul,  however,  gives  an  account 
of  the  institution  of  the  Supper,  and  agrees  most 
nearly  with  Luke,  1  Cor.  xi.  23 — 25.  He  is 
speaking  of  the  disorders  which  had  crept  into 
the  Corinthian  church  in  their  observance  of  the 
Agapae,  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  connexion 
with  them ;  and  takes  this  opportunity  to  dis- 
course at  large  (in  the  entire  passage  from  ver. 
17th  to  34th)  respecting  the  design  and  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper,  and  the 
proper  nude  of  celebrating  it.  Cf.  1  Cor.  x. 
16,  17.  Theologians  are  not  agreed  among 
themselves  whether  the  passage,  John,  vi.  50, 
seq.,  where  Christ  speaks  of  the  eating  of  his 
flesh  and  drinking  his  blood,  relates  to  this  sacra- 
ment. Vide  Morus,  p.  269,  note  D.  As  the 
Reformed  theologians  often  appealed  to  this 
pass-age  in  behalf  of  their  theory,  the  Lutherans 
(e.  g.,  even  Ernesti)  would  not  allow  that  it 
could  be  used  to  explain  the  language  in  which 
the  Supper  was  instituted.  So  much  is  certain, 
that  not!. ing  is  said  in  this  passage  itself  respect- 
ing the  Lord's  Supper,  since  this  was  not  yet  in- 
63 


stituted.  But  the  terms  here  used  have  a  striking 
resemblance  with  those  employed  at  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Supper;  and  since  this  discourse  of 
Jesus  produced  at  the  time  a  great  sensation  on 
account  of  its  remarkable  phraseology,  it  can 
hardly  be  supposed  that  his  disciples  would  for- 
get it,  or  that  it  should  not  have  occurred  to  their 
minds  when  terms  so  similar  were  employed  at 
the  institution  of  the  Supper.  They,  doubtless, 
could  explain  many  things  in  this  whole  trans- 
action from  their  recollections  of  this  discourse. 
This  will  appear  the  more  probable  if  we  con- 
sider that  these  words  of  Jesus,  recorded  by  John 
(chap,  vi.),  were  spoken  shortly  before  the  pass- 
over,  (ver.  4 ;)  that  the  images  employed  by  him 
were  taken  from  the  custom  of  eating  the  flesh 
of  the  victims  at  the  festivals  attending  the  sa- 
crifices, and  especially  at  the  passover,  the  most 
solemn  of  them  all ;  and  that  it  was  exactly  at 
the  passover  that  the  Supper  was  instituted  by 
Christ.  But  allowing  that  these  words  may  be 
used  to  illustrate  those  employed  by  Christ  on 
the  latter  occasion,  the  Lutheran  opinion  is  not 
invalidated.  For  every  Lutheran  will  allow  that 
it  was  a  great  object  in  the  establishment  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  remind  us,  in  an  impressive 
manner,  of  the  body  of  Jesus  offered,  and  his 
blood  shed  for  us,  and  to  exhibit  and  convey  to 
us  the  great  blessings  which  we  owe  to  him. 
Now  in  John,  capf  and  aipa  XpiflTov  plainly  de- 
note the  doctrine  of  Jesus  so  far  as  he  offered  up 
his  body,  and  shed  his  blood  for  the  good  of 
man.  Vide  John,  vi.  51,  63.  To  eat  and  drink 
of  this  body  and  blood,  is  the  same  as  Tttcrfsi-ftv 
£t$  XpKjfov  ^0T'avp(aJi«vov.  Vide  ver.  47,  50,  51, 
56.  What  food  and  drink  are  to  the  body,  as 
contributing  to  its  nourishment  and  vigour,  the 
same  is  a  living  faith  in  this  doctrine  to  the  soul ; 
spiritual  nourishment,  pabulum  animi.  This 
language,  then,  is  to  be  understood  to  denote 
"the  truth  of  Christ's  sacrifice  or  atonement, 
and  the  inward  experience  of  its  benefits."  And 
this  was  the  very  object  of  the  Lord's  Supper — 
viz.,  to  preserve  the  memory  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  visibly  to  set  it  forth,  and  to  convey  its 
benefits  to  those  who  partake  of  this  sacrament. 
It  cannot,  therefore,  be  denied  that  the  passage 
in  John  (so  far  as  it  is  figurative  and  symbolical) 
serves  to  illustrate  the  language  in  which  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  instituted,  and  indeed  the 
whole  nature  of  this  ordinance.  Cf.  especially 
Storr,  Doctrinae  Christianas  pars  theoretica,  p. 
314,  seq. 

(2)  What  was  the  occasion  of  Christ's  institut- 
ing this  festival?  What  was  the  immediate  cause 
of  his  doing  it?  He  was  accustomed  to  take  oc- 
casion, from  the  circumstances  by  which  he  was 
surrounded,  to  give  instruction ;  and  at  the  pass- 
over  everything  was  symbolical,  and  the  father 
of  the  family  (the  character  which  Christ  now 
sustained  among  his  disciples)  referred  every- 
2x2 


498 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


thing  back  to  the  events  in  the  life  of  the  ances- 
tors of  the  Jewish  nation.  It  seems  now  that  this 
Jewish  passover  gave  the  first  occasion  to  Christ 
for  instituting  his  Supper. 

(a)  Christ  abolished  the  ancient  dispensation, 
(rtaXatai/  Sic&jjxjyj/;)  consequently  all  the  Jew- 
ish festivals,  sacrifices,  and  the  solemnities  con- 
nected with  them,  were  set  aside,  and  among 
these  the  passover,  one  of  the  principal  festivals 
of  the  Jewish  church.  This  was  done,  as  we 
are  taught  everywhere  in  the  New  Testament, 
by  the  death  of  Christ.  Still  it  could  not  be 
denied  that  this  and  other  Jewish  festivals  had 
many  advantages,  and  that  they  tended  to  keep 
alive  a  sense  of  the  divine  benefits,  and  to 
awaken  pious  feelings.  Vide  s.  137,  III.  1. 
Besides,  it  was  altogether  customary,  both 
among  the  Jews  and  the  heathen  nations,  to 
have  sacrificial  festivals  standing  in  immediate 
connexion  with  religion;  hence  Paul  objects  to 
it  that  Christians  who  drink  from  the  cup  of  the 
Lord,  and  eat  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  should 
drink  from  the  cup  and  eat  from  the  table  of 
idols,  1  Cor.  x.  15 — 21.  Still  it  cannot  be  pro- 
perly said  that  the  common  sacrificial  festivals 
among  the  Jews  and  heathen  furnished  Christ 
the  principal  or  only  inducement  to  institute  his 
Supper,  as  was  asserted  by'Cudworth,  in  his 
work,  "  De  vera  notione  sacrae  ccenae,"  which  is 
found  in  his  "  Systema  Intellectuale,"  accom- 
panied by  Mosheim's  remarks — an  opinion  to 
which  VVarburton  and  others  have  acceded.  It 
is  also  false  to  assert  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
properly  a  sacrificial  festival,  like  the  Jewish 
passover,  although  it  is  a  coena  religiosa,  or  sacra, 
and  although  it  may  be  compared,  and  is  in  fact 
compared  by  Paul  (1  Cor.  x.,)  with  these  fes- 
tivals. Vide  Morus,  p.  261,  note  ;  and  p.  271, 
note  2.  It  is  more  just  to  say  that  Christ  merely 
took  occasion  from  the  Jewish  sacrificial  festi- 
vals, and  especially  from  the  passover,  all  of 
which  were  now  abolished,  to  institute  this  fes- 
tival, to  maintain  among  his  followers  the  me- 
mory of  his  offering  up  of  himself.  But  in  en- 
tire conformity  with  the  spirit  of  his  religion, 
and  of  all  his  other  institutions,  he  left  it  unde- 
termined at  what  times  it  should  be  held,  and  how 
often  it  should  be  repeated.  He  simply  said, 
Do  this,  as  oft  as  ye,  do  it,  in  remembrance  of  me, 
1  Cor.  xi.  25. 

(6)  The  passover  was  designed  to  commemo- 
rate the  rescue  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt,  and 
their  deliverance  from  many  afflictions;  and 
was  to  be  repeated  by  their  descendants  as  an 
occasion  for  thankful  remembrance  of  the  di- 
vine favours.  Vide  Exodus,  xiii.  9,  coll.  xii. 
26,  27.  It  took  its  name  from  this  circumstance 
— viz.,  na?,  feast  of  deliverance,  or  rescue.  In  the 
same  way  was  the  Christian  festival  designed  to 
promote  the  grateful  remembrance  of  Christ,  on 


account  of  the  deliverance  from  sin  and  its  pu- 
nishment, and  all  the  other  spiritual  blessings 
which  we  owe  to  him,  and  it  was  to  be  repeated, 
ftj  "tr\v  i\n.Y\y  avd/Avqaiv ;  Luke,  xxii.  19;  1  Cor.l 
xi.  24,  26.  Hence  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  v.  7,  to 
rtda%a,  ^jttuiv  vrtsp  ^(uu>i>  efv&],  Xpujfoj.  He 
does  not,  indeed,  here  mean  the  Lord's  Supper 
itself;  but  still  it  is  very  easy  to  see  from  this 
passage  the  intimate  connexion  of  these  ideas. 
The  words,  however,  by  which  the  Supper  was 
instituted,  This  is  my  body,  &c.,  cannot  be  ex- 
plained from  the  formula  used  at  the  celebration 
of  the  passover,  This  is  the  bread  of  suffering 
which  our  fathers  ate,  &c. ;  for  this  formula  was 
not  adopted  until  after  the  destruction  of  the  se- 
cond temple;  neither  can  it  be  found  in  the 
Talmud,  as  Schottgen  has  shewn,  (Hor.  Tal- 
mud, ad  Matt.  xxvi.  26,)  and  also  Deyling, 
(Obs.  Miscell.  P.  i.  Exerc.  iv.  p.  221.)  The 
words  of  Christ  on  this  occasion  are  rather  to  be 
compared  with  the  Mosaic  formula  employed  at 
the  solemn  sanctioning  of  the  law,  at  which 
time  sacrifices  were  also  offered ;  Exod.  xxiv.  8, 
Behold  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  which  the  Lord 
hath  made  with  you.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  260,  note  2. 
(c)  Christ  did  not  institute  his  Supper  during 
the  continuance  of  the  passover,  but  after  it  was 
finished,  in  order  to  give  his  new  ordinance  an 
additional  solemnity  from  its  connexion  with  the 
passover,  and  at  the  same  time  to  make  it  entirely 
distinct  from  the  latter.  This  example  was  so 
far  imitated  by  the  ancient  Christians,  that  while 
they  celebrated  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper  in 
connexion  with  the  jJgapx,  or  feasts  of  love,  they 
yet  observed  it  as  a  separate  festival,  after  the 
former  was  ended.  At  the  social  festivals  of  the 
Jews,  at  the  passover,  &c.,  a  cup  was  passed 
round,  over  which  thanks  were  said,  while  the 
cup  was  drank  to  the  praise  of  God — a  custom 
which  we  find  in  other  ancient  nations.  Cf. 
Psalm  cxvi.  13;  1  Chron.  xvi.  1,  seq. ;  also  the 
rtotr-pisov  SaijU-ovuov,  1  Cor.  x.  21.  It  was  with 
this  ceremony  that  Christ  concluded  the  pass- 
over,  Luke,  xxii.  17.  And  now,  after  they  had 
eaten,  (ta$i6vruv  cwtav,  according  to  Matthew 
and  Mark,  or  p-sra  TO  Sst'rti/^at,  according  to 
Luke  and  Paul,)  he  again  offered  a  prayer  of 
thanks,  as  was  customary  at  the  commencement 
of  a  festival  (fv^optfj-r'^cra?,)  in  order  to  distin- 
guish this  ordinance  from  the  one  which  had  pre- 
ceded, and  then  distributed  the  bread  and  passed 
round  the  cup  the  second  time.  He  took  the 
materials  for  this  sacrament  from  what  remained 
of  bread  and  wine  (as  the  ordinary  drink  of  the 
table)  after  they  had  eaten.  And  this  was  en- 
tirely conformed  to  his  design,  that  the  rite  com- 
memorative of  him  should  be  as  simple  as  pos- 
sible, and  such  that  it  could  be  often  observed, 
and  in  any  place,  without  much  trouble  or  diffi- 
culty. In  this  respect  the  Lord's  Supper  differs 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      499 


widely  from  the  Jewish  passover,  where  every- 
thing was  complicated  and  circumstantially  ar- 
ranged. Vide  Exod.  xii.  3,  seq. 

jtfote. — Christ  recommended  the  observance 
of  the  Supper,  not  merely  to  the  apostles,  but  to 
all  Christians.  Vide  Moms,  p.  259,  s.  1,  ad 
finern.  Nor  was  it  his  meaning  that  they  should 
merely  sometimes  remember  him  at  their  ordi- 
nary social  meals,  and  while  they  partook  of  the 
bread  and  wine  on  the  table,  think  of  his  death ; 
on  the  contrary,  the  apostles  understood  the 
rords,  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me.  to  relate  to 
all  Christians ;  and  they  distinguished  this  fes- 
tival from  all  other  social  festivals,  and  intro- 
duced the  observance  of  it  into  all  the  Christian 
churches.  This  appears  especially  from  1  Cor. 
xi.  23,  24,  coll.  x.  16,  where  it  is  also  described 
as  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  indeed  as  one 
which  Paul  himself,  as  well  as  the  other  apos- 
tles, had  received  immediately  from  Christ.  It 
is  said  expressly,  ver.  26,  that  this  ordinance 
should  be  observed  until  the  end  of  the  world, 

%pis  ov  kT&fi  o  Krptoj.)  The  Supper  was  de- 
signed to  be  a  perpetual  sermon  on  the  death  of 
Christ  until  he  shall  come  again  to  bring  his 
followers  into  the  kingdom  of  the  blessed  ;  and 
every  one  who  partakes  of  it  is  supposed  hereby 
to  profess  that  he  believes  Christ  died  even  for 
him.  There  have  always,  however,  been  some 
who  have  supposed  that  this  institution  is  need- 
less, or  that  the  precept  to  observe  it  does  not 
extend  to  all  Christians :  the  Pauliciani,  e.  g., 
supposed  that  bread  and  wine  are  here  figurative 
terms,  denoting  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  which 
nourish  the  soul.  So  the  Socinians,  and  seve- 
ral fanatical  sects. 

(3)  More  particular  explanation  of  the  object 
of  Christ  in  instituting  the  sacrament  of  the  Sup- 
per. 

(a}  The  chief  object  of  Christ.  From  what  has 
been  already  said,  it  appears  that  this  festival 
was  designed  to  be  in  commemoration  of  Christ, 
— of  all  the  blessings  for  which  we  are  indebted 
to  him,  and  especially  of  his  death,  from  which 
these  other  benefits  all  proceed.  This  is  evident 
from  the  very  words  in  which  this  ordinance 
was  established,  o&jjua  vrttp  vp.u>v  8i86/^.£vov^  (or, 
as  Paul  has  it,  xhufisvov,  "or,  lasdere,  vulnerare, 
to  which  the  breaking  of  the  bread  alludes,)  and 
cup*  vrtsp  vjwwr,  (or  rtepi  rfoM.wv,  according  to 
Mark  and  Luke,)  ix^wo^tvov^  fi^a^sciv  a^uaprtwv. 
Christ  often  repeated  these  words  during  the 
eating  and  drinking  of  the  Supper,  and  inter- 
changed them  with  others  of  the  same  import ; 
and  hence  we  may  account  for  the  different 
phraseology  recorded  by  the  different  evange- 
lists. The  same  thing  is  evident  from  the  ex- 
press declaration  of  Paul,  1  Cor.  xi.  26,  "So 
often  as  ye  partake  of  this  festival,  you  profess 
yourselves  among  the  number  of  those  who  be- 
lieve that  Christ  suffered  death  for  their  sukes," 


(^aj/ar'ov  Kupt'ov  xatayylta-r'f.)  Cf.  1  Cor.  X.  16, 
and  also  the  fine  paraphrase  of  this  passage 
given  by  Morus,  p.  259,  s.  3,  n.  1. 

But  this  needs  more  particular  explanation. 
On  the  day  of  Christ's  death  the  ancient  Mosaic 
dispensation  ceased,  and  the  new  covenant,  or 
the  new  dispensation  instituted  by  God  through 
Christ  for  the  salvation  of  men,  commenced. 
The  memorable  event  of  that  day,  which  had 
such  vast  consequences,  he  and  his  apostles 
celebrated  by  this  festival,  and  he  commanded 
them  to  continue  to  observe  it  in  future  time. 
It  is  therefore  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the  apos- 
tles that  the  new  dispensation  of  God  (xaivrj 
SKX^XJ?)  began  with  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
was  thereby  solemnly  consecrated.  Cf.  the 
texts  cited  s.  118,  II.  I.  Hence  Paul  says,  Heb. 
ix.  14,  15,  that  even  as  Judaism  was  inau- 
gurated by  sacrifices,  so  was  Christianity  also, 
by  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  now  as 
Moses,  Exod.  xxiv.  8,  calls  the  blood  of  the  sa- 
crifice by  which  the  Mosaic  laws  and  the  whole 
Mosaic  institute  was  consecrated  and  received  a 
solemn  sanction,  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  so  does 
Christ,  with  a  most  indisputable  reference  to 
this  expression,  denominate  his  death, — his 
blood  which  he  shed,  the  blood  of  the  new  cove- 
nant;  and  the  words  T'O  al.ua  xcuvrjs  Sia^x^s 
(or,  as  Luke  and  Paul  plainly  have  it,  to  rtotr- 
ptov  (fffT't)  7i  xawri  dia^rixr]  iv  -£9  atjuat'{<  juov)  are 
to  be  regarded  as  explanatory  of  the  words  Ttovto 
(Sift,  -to  ffw,ua  ^uov,  T'O  al/jid  pov. 

The  meaning  therefore  is,  "  ye  celebrate,  while 
ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  wine,  the  me- 
mory of  my  body  offered  up,  and  of  my  blood 
shed  for  you,  by  which  the  new  covenant,  the 
new  dispensation  for  the  good  of  the  world, 
whose  founder  I  am,  is  consecrated."  The  sa- 
crament of  the  Supper  is  therefore  a  significant 
sermon  on  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  requires,  in 
order  to  a  proper  celebration  of  it,  a  personal 
experience  of  the  benefits  of  this  death. 

Christ  says,  "drink  ye  all  of  it;  for  it  is  my 
blood."  By  this  he  means  that  they  should  so 
divide  the  wine  among  themselves  that  each 
should  receive  a  portion  of  it.  He  himself  did 
not  partake  of  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine ; 
for  his  body  was  not  offered,  nor  his  blood  shed, 
for  his  own  sake ;  and  those  only  for  whom  this 
was  done  should  eat  and  drink  of  it.  The  tov-to 
toti  <ju>;ua  and  al/*a  refers,  therefore,  principally 
to  the  act  itself,  like  the  following  T'OVT'O  rtot- 
ci-r'f — i.  e.,  this  act  (which  you  shall  hereafter 
repeat)  shall  serve  to  impress  your  minds  with 
the  great  importance  of  my  body  offered  up  for 
the  good  of  men,  and  of  my  blood  shed  for  their 
sake,  and  shall  remind  you  of  all  the  salutary 
consequences  flowing  from  my  death,  and  shall 
convey  these  benefits  to  you  personally.  It  is 
not,  therefore,  the  then  present  and  living  body 
of  Jesus  which  is  here  spoken  of,  but  the  body 


500 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


which  was  sacrificed — i.  e.,  Christ,  so  far  as  he 
died  for  us.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  formula 
used  by  Moses  respecting  the  passover,  Exod. 
xii.  11,  27,  NCT  ros — i.  e.,  by  this  act  you 
solemnly  commemorate  the  deliverance  from 
Egypt.  And  as  the  passover  was  appointed 
and  first  celebrated  shortly  before  this  deliver- 
ance, so  was  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper  insti- 
tuted and  celebrated  just  before  the  death  of 
Christ;  and  as  the  former  was  to  be  repeated  in 
commemoration  of  the  great  event  on  account 
of  which  it  was  first  instituted,  and  for  the  sake 
of  awakening  grateful  and  religious  feelings,  so 
it  was  also  with  the  latter.  This  analogy  seems 
to  have  been  perfectly  understood  by  the  apos- 
tles, and  hence  they  do  not  inquire  of  Christ, 
as  they  were  accustomed  to  do  in  other  cases. 

(6)  But  in  connexion  with  this  principal  ob- 
ject, Christ  had  also  others  in  view,  all  of 
which,  however,  are  related  to  this,  and  depend 
upon  it.  Especially  does  it  appear  to  have  been 
an  object  with  Christ  in  this  ordinance  to  make 
plain,  and  impressively  to  recommend  to  his  dis- 
ciples that  great  precept  of  his  religion,  Love 
one  another,  as  I  also  have  loved  you,  1  Cor.  x. 
17;  xii.  13.  He  designed  that  by  this  symbol 
his  disciples  should  mutually  pledge  their  cor- 
dial love.  It  is  a  thing  well  known  by  old  ex- 
perience that  friendships  are  founded,  cherished, 
and  sustained  by  social  festivals.  Of  this  fact 
many  of  the  ancient  legislators  and  the  founders 
of  religions  availed  themselves  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  festivals;  and  this  was  also  done  by 
Moses.  In  many  of  the  Oriental  nations,  there- 
fore, the  guest  who  had  but  once  eaten  with 
them,  even  if  it  had  been  only  bread  and  salt, 
and  who  had  drunken  with  them,  was  considered 
as  a  pledged  and  unalterable  friend  ;  and  it  was 
in  this  way  that  the  league  of  friendship  and  of 
mutual  service  was  contracted. 

This  noble  custom  was  now  made  more  ge- 
neral, and,  as  it  were,  consecrated,  by  religion, 
or  the  association  of  religious  ideas.  All  the 
followers  of  Christ  were  to  unite  in  this  cele- 
bration, and  to  hold  this  festival  in  common, 
and  without  any  distinction,  in  memory  of  their 
great  benefactor  and  Saviour.  For  the  follow- 
ers of  Christ  were  required  to  love  each  other 
as  brethren,  and  this/or  Christ's  sake — i.  e.,  be- 
cause it  is  the  will  and  the  command  of  Christ, 
their  common  Lord.  Vide  Joh.  Gottlob  Worb, 
Ueber  die  Bundes-und  Freundschaftssymbole 
der  MorgenlSinder;  Sorau,  1792,  8vo. 

But  we  must  remember,  in  connexion  with 
this,  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  Christ  in  his  exalted  state  is  as  near 
to  all  his  followers,  at  all  periods,  even  until 
the  end  of  the  world,  (Matt,  xxviii.  20,)  and 
that  he  equally  guides  and  supports  them  as 
when  he  was  with  his  disciples,  by  his  visible 
presence,  upon  the  earth.  Vide  s.  98.  He  was 


visibly  present  when  he  first  held  this  festival 
with  his  disciples  then  living,  and  he  then  took  I 
the  lead.     But  while  he  commands  all  his  fol-  I 
lowers  to  continue  to  observe  this  rite  until  his  | 
visible  return,  he  gives  them  the  assurance  that 
they  stand  equally  under  his  inspection,  and  en- 
joy equally  his  care,  with  those  who  lived  with 
him  while  he  was  upon  the  earth.   Theologians 
say  truly,  Christus  prsesentiam  suam  suis  in  sacra 
ccena  declarat  ADSPECTABILI  pignore.     So  cer- 
tainly as  they  see  the  bread  and  the  wine,  even 
so  certain  should  it  be  to  them  that  he  still 
li/es,  and  that  he  is  especially  near  to  them,  as 
he  was  formerly  to  his  disciples  while  upon 
earth. 

Note. — From  what  has  now  been  said,  it  ap- 
pears (a)  that  the  theory  of  the  substantial  pre- 
sence of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the 
sacramental  symbols  is  not  essential,  or  is  not 
to  be  looked  upon  as  the  great  point  in  this  doc- 
trine, and  that  it  cannot  be  decisively  proved 
from  the  words  of  Christ.  The  reformed  theo- 
logians take  stvai  here  in  the  sense  of  signify- 
ing, shewing  forth — a  sense  in  which  it  is  indeed 
often  used — e.  g.,  Sept.  Gen.  xii.  26,  27;  Gal. 
iv.  24 ;  Rev.  i.  20.  Christ  himself  uses  i<sti  in 
a  similar  connexion,  instead  of  cr^tuWi,  John, 
xv.  1.  The  objections  to  this  explanation  which 
are  of  any  weight  may  be  seen  in  Storr's  tk  Doc- 
trina  Christiana,"  p.  305,  seq.  Cf.  also  s.  146. 
This  particular  theory  ought  never  to  have  been 
made  an  article  of  faith,  hut  rather  to  have  been 
placed  among  theological  problems.  Vide  s.  146. 

It  also  appears  from  the  foregoing  that  we  are 
not  to  suppose  in  the  sacrament  any  actual  of- 
fering up  of  the  body  of  Christ,  repeated  every 
time  the  sacrament  is  observed.  This  false  idea 
became  gradually  prevalent  in  the  Romish 
church.  Vide  No.  I.  of  this  section,  ad  finem. 
This  sacrament  may  indeed  be  called,  as  it  is 
by  the  fathers,  a  sacrifice,  but  only  in  a  figura- 
tive sense.  For  Christ  offered  up  himself  once 
for  all,  Heb.  ix.  25 — 28  ;  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  the  means  of  appropriating  to  each  one  the 
benefits  of  this  one  sacrifice.  It  is  taught,  how- 
ever, by  the  Romish  church,  that  the  priest  of- 
fers to  God,  as  a  literal  atoning  sacrifice,  both 
for  the  dead  and  the  living,  the  sacramental 
symbols,  which  become,  by  consecration  and 
transubstantiation,  the  real  body  and  blood  of 
Christ.  From  this  doctrine  respecting  masses 
many  other  false  ideas  have  originated. 

SECTION  CXLIV. 

OF  THE  DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  WHAT  IS  ESSEN- 
TIAL AND  UNESSENTIAL  IN  THE  CELEBRATION 
OF  THE  ORDINANCE  OF  THE  SUPPER. 

SOME  things  pertaining  to  this  ordinance  are 
essential — i.  e.,  of  such  a  nature  that  without 
them  the  whole  act  would  not  be  the  true  Lord's 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      501 


Supper;  others  are  unessential,  or  contingent.  The 
latter  depend  upon  the  circumstances  of  time, 
place,  society,  &c. ;  and  with  regard  to  these 
things  we  feel  ourselves  justified  in  deviating 
even  from  that  which  was  done  on  the  first  in- 
stitution of  the  Supper,  since  these  are  regarded 
as  indifferent  matters,  Christ  having  given  no 
express  precepts  respecting  them.  Thus  all 
agree  that  the  time  of  the  day  in  which  it  is  ob- 
served is  unessential,  although  Christ  observed 
it  in  the  evening;  the  same  as  to  the  posture  at 
table,  whether  sitting  or  lying ;  and  with  re- 
spect to  the  place,  whether  it  be  a  public  or  a 
private  house;  and  other  things  of  the  same 
kind. 

But  on  some  points  opinions  are  divided.  In 
the  protestant  church  the  use  of  the  bread  and 
wine  (materia,  or  res  terrestris,  elementa,  symbo- 
/»)  is  reckoned  among  the  essential  things;  and 
the  use  of  them  too  in  such  a  way  that  each  of 
the  elements  shall  be  separately  (separatim) 
taken.  Protestants,  too,  contend  that  none  but 
real  Christians  may  partake  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. Other  things  are  regarded  by  them  as  un- 
essential. These  points  will  now  be  briefly 
considered,  and  illustrated  by  some  historical 
observations. 

I.  The  use  of  Bread  and  Wine  in  the  Lard's 
Supper. 

(1)  With  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  bread  to 
be  employed  in  this  sacrament,  the  opinions  of 
theologians  have  been  diverse. 

(a)  It  has  been  asked  whether  the  bread 
should  be  leavened  or  unleavened,  or  whether 
this  is  a  point  of  indifference.  In  the  protestant 
church  the  latter  opinion  is  maintained,  and 
justly,  since  Christ  left  no  precept  respecting 
this  point.  So  much  is  beyond  doubt,  that  at 
the  institution  of  the  Supper  Christ  made  use  of 
unleavened  bread,  because  no  other  was  brought 
into  the  house  during  the  celebration  of  the  Jew- 
ish passover,  still  less  was  any  other  kind  eaten. 
We  have  indeed  no  express  information  respect- 
ing the  custom  of  the  primitive  Christians  in 
this  respect;  but  from  all  circumstances  it  ap- 
pears that  they  regarded  it  as  a  matter  of  indif- 
ferance  whether  leavened  or  unleavened  bread 
is  employed.  They  came  together  almost  daily 
to  partake  of  the  Supper,  and  they  carried  with 
them  the  bread  and  wine  for  this  festival.  In 
this  case  they  took  the  bread  which  was  used 
at  common  meals,  and  this  was  leavened  bread. 
Epiphanius  (Hser.  30)  notices  it  as  something 
peculiar  in  the  Ebionites,  that  once  in  the  year, 
at  the  time  of  the  passover,  they  celebrated  the 
Lord's  Supper  with  unleavend  bread.  It  was 
customary  at  a  subsequent  period  in  the  Oriental 
church  to  make  use  of  leavened  bread,  yet  not 
always  and'  in  all  places.  In  the  Western 
church,  on  the  contrary,  unleavened  bread  was 


more  commonly  (though  not  always)  employ- 
ed ;  and  Rabanus  Maurus,  in  the  ninth  century, 
declares  this  to  be  an  apostolical  tradition  in  the 
Romish  church.  There  was,  however,  at  this 
time,  no  law  upon  the  subject,  either  in  the 
Eastern  or  Western  church.  But  in  the  ele- 
venth century  a  controversy  arose  on  this  point 
between  the  two  churches,  as  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  Michael  Cerularius,  reproached 
the  Western  church  for  the  use  of  unleavened 
bread,  and  made  it  heresy.  After  this  period  it 
was  contended  in  the  Romish  church  that  no 
other  than  unleavened  bread  should  be  used, 
and  this  was  so  established  by  many  papal 
decretals.  The  opposite  ground  was  taken  by 
the  Greek  church,  and  is  still  maintained  at  the 
present  day.  Vide  Joh.  Gottfried  Herrmann, 
Historia  Concertationum  de  Pane  Azymo  et 
Fermentato  in  Coana  Domini;  Leipzig,  1737, 
8vo. 

(6)  Another  thing  which  must  be  considered 
unessential  is  the  breaking  of  the  bread,  which 
was  done  at  the  first  institution  of  the  Supper, 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  who  baked 
the  bread  thin,  and  were  accustomed  therefore 
to  break,  instead  of  cutting  it.  We  see,  how- 
ever, from  1  Cor.  xi.  24,  (coll.  x.  17,  flj  apr'oj, 
from  which  pieces  were  broken  off,}  that  this 
custom  was  retained  in  the  primitive  Christian 
church,  and  was  regarded  as  emblematical  of 
the  wounding  and  breaking  of  the  body  of 
Jesus.  It  would  have  been  better,  therefore,  to 
have  retained  this  custom  afterwards,  for  the 
same  reason  that  the  custom  of  immersion  is 
preferable  in  performing  the  rite  of  baptism. 
Luther  at  first  declared  in  favour  of  the  breaking 
of  bread,  though  he  afterwards  altered  his  opi- 
nion. It  has  been  customary  in  the  Romish 
church,  especially  since  the  twelfth  and  thir- 
teenth centuries,  to  cut  the  host  or  holy  wafer 
in  a  peculiar  way,  so  as  to  represent  upon  it  the 
crucified  Saviour,  and  to  make  the  pieces  more 
and  more  small,  that  no  one  might  receive  too 
much  of  this  costly  food. 

(2)  In  respect  to  the  wine,  it  has  been  com- 
monly supposed  that  Christ  used  such,  in  the 
institution  of  the  Supper,  as  was  mingled  with 
water.  For  it  was  very  customary  with  the 
orientalists  to  drink  mingled  wine  at  table,  and 
one  was  regarded  as  quite  intemperate  who 
drank  pure  wine,  (merwm.)  Still  this  is  very 
uncertain,  since  water  and  wine  were  frequently 
drunk  separately  at  table.  In  the  ancient  church, 
however,  the  custom  prevailed  in  most  places 
of  mingling  water  with  the  sacramental  wine. 
It  was  also  determined  how  much  wine  should 
be  taken;  though  this  was  variously  settled. 
Diverse  allegorical  significations  were  given  to 
the  mingling  of  these  two  elements.  E.  g.,  it 
was  said  that  the  wine  is  the  symbol  of  the 
soul  of  Christ,  and  the  water  of  the  people  who 


502 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


are  united  with  him,  &c.  Such  allegorizing  is 
seen  even  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian.  Cle- 
ment III.  expressly  enacted  in  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury that  the  wine  should  be  mingled  with 
water.  This  was  not  insisted  upon  by  Luther, 
on  account  of  the  superstition  connected  with 
it.  The  colour  of  the  wine  is  also  indifferent, 
nor  is  it  certain  that  Christ  used  the  red  wine. 

(3)  In  order  to  the  right  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  neither  the  bread  nor  the  wine 
must  be  taken  without  the  other,  but  both  must 
be  used,  (communio  sub  utraque  specie,)  though 
one  separately  from  the  other,  (separatim.} 

(a)  As  to  the  latter  point,  it  is  probable  from 
the  institution  of  the  Supper  by  Christ  that  he 
distributed  each  of  the  elements  separately  to 
his  disciples.  But  we  find  that  in  some  of  the 
Oriental  churches  an  exception  was  made  in 
behalf  of  some  sick  persons,  and  that  bread 
merely  dipped  in  wine  was  given  them.  The 
same  thing  was  done  in  the  West,  especially 
during  the  tenth  century,  where,  in  some  places, 
the  bread  only  was  consecrated,  and  then  dipped 
in  the  wine,  and  so  given  to  the  communicants — 
a  practice  which  was  justly  condemned. 

(6)  It  is  also  a  well-founded  opinion,  that  the 
cup  should  not  be  withholden  from  any  who 
partake  of  this  sacrament.  Vide  Morus,  p.  272, 
n.  3. 

From  1  Cor.  xi.  26;  x.  16,  21,  it  appears, 
undeniably,  that  in  the  apostolic  church  all 
Christians  partook  both  of  the  bread  and  the 
wine.  And  this  was  the  practice  throughout 
the  whole  Christian  church  during  the  first  ten 
centuries.  The  Manicheans,  who  abstained 
wholly  from  wine,  did  not  use  it  even  at  the 
Lord's  Supper;  but  they  were  strongly  opposed 
by  the  teachers  of  all  other  parties — e.  g.,  Hie- 
ronymus,  Leo  the  Great,  &c.  Particularly  im- 
portant is  a  decree  of  Pope  Gelasius  I.,  of  the 
fifth  century,  against  some  sectarians,  who 
used  only  bread  in  the  celebration  of  the  Supper. 
He  calls  their  practice  grande  sacrilegium,  and 
is  very  strong  in  his  opposition  to  it. 

But  when  the  doctrine  of  transubslantiation 
began  to  prevail  in  the  West,  especially  after 
the  eleventh  century,  the  schoolmen  suggested 
the  question  whether,  considering  that  the  bread 
is  changed  into  the  body  of  Christ,  the  blood  is 
not  also  there,  and  so,  whether  it  is  not  enough 
to  partake  merely  of  the  bread  1  This  question 
was  answered  in  the  affirmative;  and  it  was 
suggested  as  an  additional  reason  in  behalf  of 
this  opinion,  that  drink  may  be  easily  spilled, 
and  that  it  is  more  difficult  to  lose  any  portion 
of  the  bread.  This  ground  was  taken  even  in 
the  twelfth  century  by  Hugo  of  St.  Victor  and 
Peter  of  Lombardy,  and  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury was  defended  with  great  zeal  by  Thomas 
Aquinas.  Some  churches  in  the  West  began, 
therefore,  to  introduce  the  custom  of  withholding 


the  cup  from  the  laity,  and  giving  it  only  to  the 
clergy.  The  first  examples  of  this  occurred  in 
some  English  churches  about  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century.  The  scarcity  and  dearness  of 
wine  in  northern  Europe  during  this  period  may 
have  furnished  an  additional  motive  for  this 
practice.  It  was  not  until  the  thirteenth  centuiy 
that  these  examples  were  followed  in  France 
and  Italy.  Still  this  observance  did  not  become 
universal  either  in  this  or  the  following  century, 
although  it  was  becoming  more  and  more  pre- 
valent in  the  churches  in  the  West.  This  doc- 
trine de  communione  sub  una  was  zealously  op- 
posed by  Wickliffand  Huss  and  their  adherents; 
and  this  led  the  Council  at  Costnitz,  1415, 
wholly  to  interdict  the  use  of  the  cup  by  the 
laity.  It  was  established  by  that  Council, 
"that  in  each  of  the  two  elements  the  whole 
body  of  Christ  is  truly  contained."  This  doc- 
trine has  been  maintained  in  the  Romish 
church  ever  since  this  period,  although  many 
theologians,  and  even  some  of  the  popes,  have 
objected  to  it.  Luther  and  Zuingle  adopted  the 
principles  of  Wickliff  and  Huss,  and  introduced 
again  the  general  use  of  the  cup  into  their 
churches,  and  hence  the  decisions  of  the  Coun- 
cil at  Costnitz  were  re-enacted  by  the  Council 
at  Trent  in  the  sixteenth  century.  Besides  the 
older  works  of  Leo  Allatius,  Schrnid,  Calixtus, 
on  this  subject,  cf.  Spittler,  Geschichte  des 
Kelch's  im  Abendmahl;  Lemgo,  1780,  8vo. 

II.  By  whom  should  the  Lord's  Supper  be  observed? 
who  should  administer  it  ?  and  may  it  be  cele- 
brated in  the  Private  Dwellings  of  Christians  ? 
These  questions  come  under  the  general  in- 
quiry respecting  what  is  essential  and  not  es- 
sential in  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
( 1 )  None  but  actual  members  of  the  Christian 
church  can  take  part  in  the  Lord's  Supper; 
those  who  are  not  Christians  are  excluded  from 
it.  On  this  point  there  has  been  an  universal 
agreement.  For  by  this  rite  we  profess  our 
interest  in  the  Christian  church,  and  our  belief 
in  Christ.  Vide  1  Cor.  x.  17;  xi.  26.  The 
passage,  Heb.  xiii.  20,  seems  also  to  belong  in 
this  connexion.  Every  actual  member  of  the 
church  may  therefore  be  admitted  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  this  ordinance,  without  distinction  of 
regenerate  and  unregenerate  persons,  (though 
this  is  denied  by  some.)  This  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  it  is  the  object  of  the  Supper  to 
make  an  external  profession  of  Christian  faith, 
(vide  s.  145,  I.;)  and  because  it  may  be,  and 
is  designed  to  be,  a  means  of  promoting  a  change 
of  heart,  and  often  produces  this  effect.  As  un- 
regenerate persons  are  not  excluded  from  hear- 
ing the  divine  word,  neither  should  they  be  from 
partaking  of  this  sacrament.  Nor  do  we  find 
that  persons  who  gave  no  evidence  of  a  regene- 
rate mind,  and  who  were  yet  members  of  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       503 


i  visible  church,  were  excluded  from  the  sacra- 
j  ment  in  the  primitive  Christian  church ;  although 
such  persons  were  advised  to  abstain  from  the 
1  sacrament,  so  long  as  their  hearts  were  not  in  a 
|  proper  frame,  still  it  was  left  to  their  own  con- 
j  sciences.     Since,  therefore,  a  mixed  multitude 
'  of  good  and  evil  must  be  allowed  in  the  visible 
!  church,  it  is  the  same  as  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
}  Christ  himself  admitted  Judas  to  the  first  cele- 
i  bration  of  this  ordinance;   and  thus  taught  us 
our  duty  with  regard  to  this  subject.     Many 
i  have  indeed  denied  that  Judas,  the  betrayer  of 
!  Christ,  partook  of  this  sacrament  with  the  other 
i  disciples ;  but  from  Luke,  xxii.  20 — 22,  the  fact 
appears  too  plain  to  be  denied.     This  is  admit- 
ted  even  by  Augustine  on  the   third    Psalm. 
This  fact  is  important,  since  many  conscientious 
Christians,  and  even  teachers,  have  had  great 
t  doubts  as  to  uniting  with  unconverted  men  in 
this  ordinance,  and  have  become  separatists. 

In  respect  to  children,  however,  it  is  main- 
tained that  they  are  excluded  from  partaking 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  was  common  in  Africa, 
in  Cyprian's  time — i.  e.,  in  the  third  century — to 
give  the  sacramental  elements  even  to  children  ; 
and  this  custom  was  gradually  introduced  into 
other  churches.  But  in  the  twelfth  century  this 
practice  fell  into  disuse  in  the  West,  although 
in  the  East  it  continues  to  the  present  day. 
The  passage,  John,  vi.  53,  is  appealed  to  in  be- 
half of  this  practice.  Vide  Peter  Zorn,  Historia 
Eucharistise  Infantium  ;  Berlin,  1736,  8vo.  It 
cannot  he  said  that  the  exclusion  of  children  is 
expressly  commanded  by  Christ,  because  there 
is  nothing  about  this  subject  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, nor  do  we  read  that  in  the  apostolic 
church  they  were  excluded  from  the  sacrament. 
(The  children  of  the  Israelites  were  not  ex- 
cluded from  the  feast  of  the  passover.)  Yet  as 
children  were  not  admitted  during  the  first  cen- 
turies of  the  Christian  church,  (except  in  Africa 
in  the  third  century,)  we  judge  that  they  cannot 
have  been  admitted  in  the  apostolic  church ;  for 
in  that  case  this  practice  would  not  certainly 
have  been  disused  in  all  the  churches.  The 
cause  of  the  exclusion  of  children  is,  plainly, 
that  they  cannot  as  yet  understand  the  import- 
ance of  the  transaction,  and  must  be  unable  to 
distinguish  this  religious  festival  from  a  com- 
mon meal ;  I  Cor.  xi.  29.  It  would  thus  be- 
come to  them  a  merely  formal  and  customary 
thing,  and  make  no  salutary  impression. 

(2)  By  whom  should  the  Lord's  Supper  be  ad- 
ministered? As  the  administration  of  the  other 
religious  rites  of  the  church  is  entrusted  to  the 
teachers  of  religion,  it  is  proper  and  according 
to  good  order  that  this  also  should  be  adminis- 
tered by  them.  This,  however,  is  by  no  means 
their  right  exclusively  and  necessarily,  but  only 
ordinis  et  decori  causa,  as  Morus  well  observes, 
p.  272,  ad  fin.  In  extreme  cases,  therefore, 


where  no  regular  teachers  can  be  obtained,  this 
sacrament  may  be  administered  by  other  Chris- 
tians to  whom  this  duty  is  committed  by  the 
church.  Vide  s.  136,  II.  2 ;  s.  139,  III.  This 
has  been  uniformly  maintained  by  Luther  and 
other  protestant  theologians.  In  the  ancient 
Christian  church  it  was  as  regularly  adminis- 
tered by  the  teachers  as  baptism.  Justin  the 
Martyr  (Apol.  i.  85,  seq.)  says  that  the  rfpo- 
eetMtes  consecrated  and  distributed  the  ele- 
ments; and  Tertullian  (De  Cor.  Mil.)  says, 
nee  dt  aliorum  manu  quam  PR^ESIDENTIUM  sumi- 
mus. 

(3)  The  question  has  been  asked,  Whether 
private  communions  (e.  g.,  in  the  case  of  sick 
persons)  may  be  permitted,  and  whether  they 
accord  with  the  objects  of  the  Lord's  Supper] 
This  has  been  denied  by  some  modern  writers, 
particularly  by  Less,  in  his  "  Praktische  Dog- 
matik,"  and  by  Schulze  of  Neustadt,  "  Ueber 
die  Krankencommunion;"  1794.  Cf.  the  work 
"  Ueber  die  Krankencommunion,  mit  besonderer 
Hinsicht  auf  ihren  Missbrauch  und  ihre  Schad- 
lichkeit;"  Leipzig,  1803,  8vo;  in  which,  how- 
ever, the  practice  is  not  wholly  rejected.  These 
writers  have  been  led  to  make  their  objections 
by  seeing  the  frequent  abuse  of  private  commu- 
nions, by  knowing  that  they  are  frequently  re- 
sorted to  from  pride,  or  from  some  superstitious 
ideas  with  regard  to  their  efficacy.  Hence  they 
have  been  led  to  maintain  that  it  is  essential, 
in  .order  to  a  right  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  that  it  should  be  held  in  common  by 
the  mixed  society  of  Christians  constituting  a 
church,  and  that  private  communions  cannot  be 
regarded  as  constituting  the  Lord's  Supper. 

This  opinion,  however,  has  been  justly  re- 
jected by  many  theologians — e.  g.,  by  Doeder- 
lein.  The  following  reasons  have  been  urged 
against  it — viz., 

(a)  It  is  doubtless  true  that  in  the  apostolic 
church  the  Lord's  Supper  was  commonly  and 
regularly  celebrated  in  the  public  assemblies  of 
Christians;  1  Cor.  xi.  20 — 34.  And  this  must 
always  remain  the  rule,  from  which  there  can 
be  no  exception  in  respect  to  those  Christians 
who  are  able  to  attend  the  public  meetings,  but 
who  refuse  so  to  do,  either  from  pride  or  self- 
will.  There  may,  however,  be  an  exception 
made  in  behalf  of  Christians  who  are  neces- 
sarily detained  from  attending  on  the  public  or- 
dinances of  divine  service — e.  g.,  in  the  case 
of  sick  persons.  And  it  would  be,  as  Morus 
well  remarks,  inconsistent  with  the  rule  of 
love,  which  is  one  of  the  chief  commands  of 
Christ,  if  sick  persons  should  be  prevented  from 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  their  own 
houses. 

(I)}  A  public  place  cannot  be  made  essential  to 
the  proper  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  for 
it  was  held  at  its  first  institution  in  a  private 


504 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


house;  nor  is  the  number  of  Christians  present 
at  all  important,  since  it  was  first  celebrated 
only  by  a  select  few  of  the  five  hundred  disci- 
ples of  Christ  then  living;  but  everything  de- 
pends upon  the  feelings  and  character  of  the 
communicants.  The  Christian  who  in  this  act 
commemorates  the  death  of  Jesus,  professes  his 
relation  to  the  church,  and  forms  pious  resolves 
and  purposes — he  truly  celebrates  the  Lord's 
Supper  whether  he  performs  this  act  in  public 
or  private. 

(c)  Even  in  a  private  dwelling  a  profession 
may  be  made,  by  this  act  of  faith  in  the  death 
of  Christ,  before  the  teacher  and  others  present, 
1  Cor.  xi. ;  and  persons  not  present  still  learn 
that  such  a  profession  has  been  made.  This 
object  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  therefore  attained 
even  by  the  private  celebration  of  it.  There 
was  a  regulation  among  the  Bohemian  brethren 
in  the  fifteenth  century,  (about  the  year  14G1,) 
that  when  a  sick  person  desired  the  Lord's 
Supper,  other  members  of  the  church  should 
partake  of  it  with  him,  in  order  that  it  might  be 
a  true  communion — an  example  which  is  worthy 
of  imitation!  And  even  among  us  this  might 
be  done  without  great  notoriety,  by  admitting 
the  near  relations,  acquaintances,  or  friends  of 
the  sick  person,  or  those  occupying  the  same 
house;  and  they,  too,  might  perhaps  receive  a 
salutary  impression  from  such  a  celebration  of 
this  ordinance.  The  assertion  of  Less,  that  pri- 
vate communions  were  unheard  of  in  earlier 
Christian  antiquity,  is  not  true.  Justin  the 
Martyr  says  (Apol.  2),  "  that  the  deacons  first 
distributed  bread  and  wine  to  those  present,  and 
then  carried  it  to  the  absent." 

III.  Unessential  Rites  in  the  Administration  of 
the  Supper. 

It  is  important  that  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  far 
as  it  is  an  external  rite,  should  be  so  adminis- 
tered as  to  distinguish  it  from  common  and  or- 
dinary repasts,  as  a  special  festival  in  comme- 
moration of  Christ.  This  is  called  by  Paul,  2 
Cor.  xi.  19,  diaxpi'vEtv  -to  ffw^ua  -tov  Kvptou.  This 
may  indeed  be  done  without  any  external  cere- 
monies ;  and  it  cannot  therefore  be  said  that 
such  external  rites  and  usages  are  essential  to 
the  ordinance.  Still  it  is  wise,  and  adapted  to 
promote  the  ends  for  which  the  Supper  was  in- 
stituted, to  employ  such  external  solemnities  as 
will  remind  the  communicants  of  the  great  ob- 
ject of  this  festival,  and  give  it  an  obvious  and 
marked  distinction  from  other  meals.  Here, 
however,  caution  must  be  used,  lest  supersti- 
tion should  be  encouraged  by  the  introduction 
of  these  ceremonies,  and  they  thould  be  sup- 
posed to  possess  some  special  power. 

Christ  distinguished  this  ordinance  from  the 
passover,  which  immediately  preceded,  by  of- 
fering up  a  prayer  of  thanks,  (fv^apKjrjJffaj,  or 


which  was  probably  one  of  the  brief 
thanksgivings  common  among  the  Jews,  as 
neither  of  the  evangelists  have  thought  neces- 
sary to  record  the  words.  He  then  stated  briefly 
the  object  of  this  ordinance.  In  both  of  these 
particulars,  the  example  of  Christ  is  properly 
followed  in  the  administration  of  the  Supper. 
It  is  customary  to  offer  thanks  to  God,  briefly 
to  state  the  object  of  this  ordinance,  and  thus 
solemnly  set  apart  the  bread  and  wine  to  this 
sacred  use.  Vide  1  Cor.  x.  16,  jto-tr^ov  tvXo- 
ytaj,  6  fvXoyov/tsv — i.  e.,  the  wine  in  the  cup, 
which  we  consecrate  to  this  use  by  the  prayer 
of  thanks.  It  is  also  said  elsewhere  respecting 
those  who  thank  God  for  the  enjoyment  of  other 
food,  that  they  partake  of  it  pet'  evJtoyJaj,  1 
Tim.  iv.  5;  Luke,  ix.  16. 

This  solemn  opening  of  the  Supper  withj 
prayer  and  reference  to  the  command  of  Jesus, 
is  called  consecration,  and  is  proper  and  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  Christ.  Consecration,  there- 
fore, in  the  Lord's  Supper,  consists  properly  in 
a  solemn  reference  to  the  object  of  the  Supper, 
and  in  the  devout  prayer  accompanying  this, 
and  not  in  the  repetition  of  the  words,  this  is 
my  body  and  this  is  my  blood.  These  words  are 
uttered  merely  in  order  to  make  the  nature  and 
object  of  the  ordinance  then  to  be  celebrated 
properly  understood;  so  our  symbolical  books 
uniformly  teach.  Hence  these  words  were  fre- 
quently repeated  by  Christ  during  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  ordinance,  and  were  used  alternately 
with  other  expressions.  This  consecration  is 
not  to  be  supposed  to  possess  any  magical  or 
miraculous  power.  Nothing  like  this  was  at- 
tributed to  this  rite  by  the  older  church  fathers, 
who  used  consecrare  as  synonymous  with  oyta- 
£EM/  and  sanctifaare,  to  set  apart  from  a  common, 
and  consecrate  to  a  sacred  use.  By  degrees,  how- 
ever, a  magical  effect  was  attributed  to  conse- 
cration, and  it  was  supposed  to  possess  a  pecu- 
liar power.  This  was  the  case  even  with  Au- 
gustine. And  when  afterwards  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation  prevailed  in  the  Romish 
church,  it  was  supposed  that  the  change  in  the 
elements  was  effected  by  pronouncing  over  them 
the  blessing,  and  especially  the  words  of  Christ, 
this  is  my  body,  &c. 

Besides  this,  there  are  various  other  contin- 
gent and  arbitrary  usages,  some  of  which  are 
good,  and  adapted  to  promote  the  ends  of  this 
ordinance,  and  others  are  extremely  liable  to  i 
become  perverted  into  means  of  superstition. 
More  full  information  on  this  point  may  be  ob-  ; 
tained  from  Christian  Antiquities.  Many  of  ! 
the  rites  introduced  by  the  Romish  church  have  I 
been  retained  in  the  Lutheran  church,  such  as  i 
the  singing  of  the  words  of  consecration,  the  j 
marking  of  the  bread  and  wine  with  the  cross,  i 
the  holding  a  cloth  beneath,  &c.  These  and 
other  usages  originated  for  the  most  part  in  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       505 


octrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  the  extrava- 
t  opinions  respecting  the  external  holiness 
if  the  symbols  resulting  from  this  doctrine. 
They  admit,  however,  of  a  good  explanation; 
md  where  they  are  customary,  and  must  be  re- 
ained,  they  ought  to  be  so  explained  by  the 
eligious  teacher.  Marking  with  the  cross,  e. 
r.,  should  remind  us  that  this  ordinance  is  held 
n  commemoration  of  Christ  crucified,  &c. 

SECTION  CXLV. 

F  THE  USES  AND   THE  EFFICACY  OF   THE    LORD'S 

SUPPER;  AND  INFERENCES  FROM  THESE. 

WE  must  here  presuppose  much  of  what  was 
aid,  s.  140,  respecting  baptism.  The  uses  and 
fficacy  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  of  baptism,  are 
wofold — viz.,  external  and  internal,  and  may 
e  easily  deduced  from  the  design  of  this  ordi- 
lance,  as  stated  s.  143. 


take  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  tov  $dvatov  Krpt'ov 
xcwayy&tet's,"  i.  e.,  you  thus  profess  your- 
selves to  be  of  the  number  of  those  who  believe 
that  Christ  died  for  the  salvation  of  man. 

II.  Internal  Uses  and  Efficacy. 

(1)  WTith  regard  to  the  effects  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  as  well  as  of  baptism,  there  were  vari- 
ous mistakes,  even  among  the  earlier  fathers. 
Vide  s.  140,  II.     The  opinion  is  very  ancient, 
that  the  holy  spirit  so  unites  himself  with  the 
symbols  when  they  are  consecrated,  that  they  are 
transmuted  (pctaa'toixfiovoSaii  trans-elementari^) 
into  an  entirely  different  element,  become  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  possess  a  power 
and  efficacy  which  cannot  be  expected  from  mere 
bread  and  wine.     These  thoughts  occur  even 
in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  in  Irenaeus,  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem,  Basilius  the  Great,  Ambrosius, 
and  others.     It  was  on  this  account  that  the 
invocation  (IrttajXy/otj)  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
introduced  in  many  places  before  the  holding  of 
the  Supper.    Vide  Morus,  p.  202,  n.  2,6.    They 
say  also  that  the  bread  and  wine,  through  the  in- 
vocation of  the  name  of  Christ,  and  by  the  power 
of  the  same,  are  sanctified,  so  that  they  no  more 
continue  what  they  were,  but  receive  a  special 
spiritual  and  divine  power.    So  say,  e.  g.,  Theo- 
dotus,  (as  quoted  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria,) 
Tertullian,  and  others.     Hence  we  often  find  in 
the  ancient  liturgies,  both   oriental   and   occi- 
dental, frequent  invocations  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  God  and  of  Christ,  in  which  they  were  en- 
treated to  unite  themselves  with  the  bread  and 
wine,  and  to  communicate  to  them  this  power. 

At  a  very  early  period,  therefore,  a  kind  of 
magical  and  miraculous  effect  was  ascribed  to 
this  ordinance,  and  it  was  supposed  that  as  an 
external  act  it  has  a  mechanical  agency,  not 
only  upon  the  soul  for  the  remission  of  guilt  and 
punishment,  but  also  upon  the  body.  It  is  very 
often  said  by  some  of  the  fathers  after  the  fourth 
century,  in  conformity  with  this  latter  opinion, 
that  this  sacrament  has  power  to  heal  the  sick, 
to  secure  one  against  magical  arts  and  the  as- 
saults of  the  devil,  and  even  to  effect  the  salva- 
tion of  the  souls  of  those  who  are  dead.  Hence 
originated  the  missse  pro  defunctis,  and  innu- 
merable other  superstitious  opinions  and  prac- 
tices, which  fruitfully  multiplied,  especially  in 
the  Western  church,  during  the  dark  ages,  and 
which  were  then  brought  by  the  schoolmen  into 
a  formal  system. 

(2)  This  magical  or  mechanical  efficacy  is 
never  ascribed  in  the  New  Testament  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.     The  opinion  that  man  obtains 
faith,  remission  of  sin,  and  new  spiritual  power, 
merely  by  the  external  celebration  of  this  ordi- 
nance, as  an  opus  operatum,  and  by  an  external 
participation  in  the  sacramental  symbols,  with- 
out being  himself  active  in  repentance  and  faith, 

2U 


506 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


receives  no  countenance  from  the  sacred  writers. 
The  same  is  true  respecting  baptism  and  the 
other  means  of  grace.  The  efficacy  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  upon  the  human  heart  stands  in  intimate 
connexion  with  the  divine  word,  and  with  the 
power  inherent  in  the  truths  of  the  Christian 
doctrine.  Without  the  knowledge  and  the  pro- 
per use  of  the  word  of  God,  this  ordinance,  in 
itself  considered,  and  as  an  external  rite,  has  no 
efficacy.  And  so  the  effect  which  the  Lord's 
Supper  has  upon  the  human  heart  is  not  ma- 
gical, miraculous,  and  irresistible,  but  in  ac- 
cordance with  our  moral  nature;  exactly  as  we 
have  represented  it  to  be  with  baptism,  s.  140, 
coll.  Art.  xii.  s.  133. 

It  is  therefore  truly  said  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
acts  upon  the  hearts  of  men  through  the  Supper, 
or  through  the  bread  and  wine,  and  that  he  by 
this  means  produces  faith  and  pious  dispositions. 
But  he  produces  this  effect  through  the  word, 
or  through  the  truths  of  Christianity  exhibited 
before  us  and  presented  to  us  in  this  ordinance. 
The  effect  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is,  therefore,  an 
an  effect  which  is  produced  by  God  and  Christ, 
through  his  word,  or  the  truths  of  his  doctrine, 
and  the  use  of  the  same.  In  the  sacrament  of  the 
Supper  the  most  important  truths  of  Christian- 
ity, which  we  commonly  only  hear  or  read,  are 
visibly  set  before  us,  made  cognizable  to  the 
senses,  and  exhibited  in  such  a  way  as  power- 
fully to  move  the  feelings,  and  make  an  indeli- 
ble impression  on  the  memory.  Hence  this  sa- 
crament is  justly  called  verbum  Dei  VISIBILE. 
Some  of  the  most  weighty  doctrines  of  religion 
which  are  commonly  taught  us  by  audible  words, 
through  the  outward  ear,  are  here  inculcated  by 
external  visible  signs  and  actions. 

Among  the  doctrines  more  especially  exhi- 
bited in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
redemption  of  man  by  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
the  universal  love  of  God  shining  forth  from  this 
event,  (Romans,  viii.  32;  John,  iii.  16,)  and  all 
the  duties  both  to  Christ  and  our  fellow-men 
which  result  from  it.  The  contemplation  and 
application  of  these  important  truths,  to  which 
we  are  excited  by  the  Lord's  Supper,  awaken  in 
the  hearts  of  pious  Christians  the  deepest  love 
and  gratitude  to  God  and  Christ,  and  a  readiness 
to  comply  cordially  with  their  requirements. 
And  it  is  only  when  we  possess  this  disposition 
and  this  temper  of  mind  that  we  are  truly  sus- 
ceptible of  the  influences  of  divine  grace  through 
the  word,  s.  130,  131 ;  it  is  then  only  that  we 
can  expect  to  enjoy  that  special  presence  and 
aid  of  Christ  which  he  has  promised  at  his  Sup- 
per. Vide  s.  143,  ad  finem.  These  are  the 
things  which,  according  to  the  scriptures,  are 
essential  to  the  proper  efficacy  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per; and  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  with  in- 
quiries respecting  the  manner  of  the  presence  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  symbols. 


Hence  it  appears  that  the  internal  efficacy  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  or  of  the  word  of  God  through  the 
Supper,  is  twofold. 

FIRST.  This  ordinance  is  the  means  of  exciting 
and  strengthening  the  faith  of  one  who  worthily 
celebrates  it,  so  far  as  he  refers  to  the  divine 
promises,  and  stands  firm  in  the  conviction  of 
their  certain  fulfilment.  Vide  s.  123.  For  we 
are  reminded  by  this  ordinance, 

(a)  Of  the  death  of  Christ.  He  instituted  this 
ordinance  on  the  day  of  his  death,  and  the  break- 
ing of  the  bread  and  pouring  out  of  the  wine 
represent  the  violence  done  to  his  body  and  the 
shedding  of  his  Hood.  Vide  s.  144,  I.  1. 

(6)  Of  the  causes  and  the  salutary  results  of 
his  death — the  founding  of  a  new  dispensation, 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  our  title  to  everlast- 
ing happiness.  Vide  Heb.  viii.  6,  seq. 

(c)  Of  the  special  guidance  and  assistance 
which  Christ  has  promised  to  his  disciples  until 
the  end  of  the  world.  Vide  s.  143,  ad  finem. 

(rf)  Any  one  who  from  the  heart  believes  these 
great  truths  of  Christianity,  obtains  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  the  personal  appropriation  of  these  be- 
nefits procured  through  Christ's  death — i.  e.,  he 
receives  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the  most  solemn 
assurance  and  pledge  that  Christ  shed  his  blood 
for  him  and  on  his  account,  and  that  he  therefore 
may  participate  in  all  the  salutary  results  of  his 
death. 

This  is  the  xowtAvla,  afyto/r'of  and  ffiojuafoj 
Xpttftoij,  1  Cor.  x.  16,  or  the  spiritual  enjoyment 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  It  should  be  as 
certain  to  us  as  that  we  see  the  bread  and  wine, 
that  Christ  died  for  us,  and  that  he  still  cares  for 
us,  as  he  did  formerly  for  his  disciples  while  he 
was  upon  the  earth,  and  still  promotes  our 
eternal  welfare.  This  is  the  true  inward  enjoy- 
ment which  may  be  experienced  at  the  table  of 
the  Lord. 

SECONDLY.  In  this  way  does  this  ordinance 
contribute  to  maintain  and  promote  piety  among 
believers.  The  contemplation  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  of  its  causes,  and  the  great  and  beneficial 
results  which  flow  from  it,  fills  our  hearts  with, 
gratitude  and  love  to  God  and  Christ,  and  makes 
us  disposed  and  ready  to  obey  his  precepts.  In 
this  frame  we  are  prepared  to  enjoy  those  divine 
influences  upon  our  hearts,  and  that  assistance 
of  Christ,  which  it  is  promised  we  shall  enjoy 
at  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Again;  Christ  inculcates  the  love  of  God  and 
the  love  of  our  neighbour  as  the  two  great  pre- 
cepts of  his  doctrine.  Of  both  these  duties  we 
are  reminded  by  this  sacred  rite,  and  derive  from 
it  new  motives  to  perform  them.  All  Christians 
without  distinction  are  required  to  participate  in 
this  rite — high  and  low,  rich  and  poor,  to  eat  in 
common  of  one  bread  and  drink  of  one  cup.  As 
followers  of  Jesus  they  are  all  brethren,  and 
all  equal,  and  mutually  bound  to  live  in  peace, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       507 


friendship,  and  brotherly  love.  All  share  equally 
in  the  rights  which  Christ  purchased  for  them. 
Christ  is  the  Lord  and  Master  of  them  all,  and 
is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever.  Cf. 
1  Cor.  x.  17;  xii.  13,  "  For  whether  we  be  Jews 
or  Greeks,  bond  or  free,  we  are  all  baptized  into 
one  body,  and  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit  (eito- 
^^fi')"— i.  e.,  we  partake  of  one  festival,  so 
that  we  compose  but  one  church  (ei$  ev  <jw/ia), 
and  are  mutually  obligated  to  cherish  the  most 
cordial  brotherly  love  and  harmony  of  feeling, 
ev  fvi  jtyEv/iatoj.  Cf.  1  Cor.  vi.  17;  Ephes.  iv. 
3,  4.  It  was  one  object  even  of  the  Mosaic  sa- 
crificial feasts  to  bind  more  strongly  the  band 
of  friendship  and  brotherly  love  among  the  Is- 
raelites. But  here  we  have  xpeittoves  ErtayysTu-'at. 
Vide  s.  143,  I.  3. 

From  these  remarks  respecting  the  object  and 
efficacy  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  several  important 
practical  consequences  may  be  derived. 

(1)  Whoever  partakes  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
takes  upon  himself  the  sacred  obligation  to  live 
in  all  respects  conformably  to  the  rule  given  in 
the  gospel,  and  there  made  the  condition  of  en- 
joying the  salutary  consequences  of  the  atoning 
death  of  Jesus.     Theologians  therefore  say  that 
in  enjoying  the  Lord's  Supper  a  covenant  is  made 
with  God,  since  man  engages,  on  his  side,  to 
yield  obedience  to  the  divine  precepts,  and  God, 
on  his  part,  promises,  assures,  and  actually  im- 
parts to  men  his  benefits ;  as  it  is  in  baptism,  s. 
140,  ad  finem. 

(2)  Since  the  uses  and  the  effects  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  are  not  magical,  miraculous,  or  irresisti- 
ble, but  entirely  adapted  to  the  moral  nature  of 
man,  he  only  can  derive  the  proper  benefits  from 
this  rite  who  falls  in  with  the  moral  order  above 
mentioned.     Therefore, 

(3)  Whoever  devoutly  contemplates  the  great 
truths  of  salvation  represented  and  made  present 
to  us  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  suffers  himself 
to  be  excited  by  these  means  to  feelings  of  lively 
gratitude  to  God,  to  diligence  in  the  pursuit  of 
holiness,  and  to  a  truly  Christian  temper  in  all 
respects,  he  fulfils,  on  his  part,  the  design  of 
this  rite.     It  follows  from  this,  of  course,  that 
this  festival  in  commemoration  of  the  death  of 
Christ  can  be  properly  celebrated  only  in  the 
exercise  of  a  grateful  heart,  and  of  pious  rever- 
ence. 

But,  on  the  other  side,  the  communicant  must 
endeavour  to  remove  from  his  mind  all  supersti- 
tious fear  and  scrupulous  anxiety  about  this  ordi- 
nance. These  fears  are  often  cherished  by  the 
incautious  expressions  which  religious  teachers 
sometimes  use ;  and  even  by  theologians  has  this 
rite  been  called  TREMENDUM  MYSTERIUM.  Re- 
verence and  love  for  God  do  indeed  go  together ; 
and  in  this  sense  such  representations  are  proper. 
But  anxiety  and  slavish  fear  are  inconsistent 
with  love,  1  John,  iv.  19,  <j>6/3o?  ovx  htw  Iv 


The  celebration  of  this  festival  should 
rather  be  a  cheerful  occasion;  and  it  should  pro- 
mote pious  and  thankful  joy,  since  it  brings  to 
our  mind  an  event  so  fraught  with  happy  conse- 
quences for  us. 

WThat  Paul  says  on  this  subject,  1  Cor.  xi. 
27 — 29,  and  34,  is  very  true,  but  often  misunder- 
stood. He  speaks  here  of  the  external  conduct 
of  the  communicants,  so  far  as  it  indicates  his 
internal  disposition  or  state  of  heart.  Many  of 
the  Corinthians  partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
without  thinking  at  all  of  its  great  object.  They 
did  not  regard  it  as  a  religious  rite,  but  rather  as 
a  common  meal,  (jiwj  8Lo.xpivovt£$  (jco^ua  K^ptou, 
ver.  29.)  They  permitted  themselves  those 
disorders  and  excesses  in  which  many  think  it 
right  to  indulge  at  common  meals, — quarrels, 
gluttony,  drunkenness,  &c. ;  ver.  17 — 22.  This 
is  called  by  Paul  dj>a|t'ttS£c&tWi>  xal  rtwtiv — i.  e., 
indecore,  in  an  unbecoming,  improper  manner,  so 
as  to  shew  by  one's  conduct  an  irreligious  dis- 
position, an  indifference  with  regard  to  this  im- 
portant rite,  and  a  contempt  for  it.  Paul  pro- 
nounces this  to  be  in  the  highest  degree  wrong, 
and  therefore  deserving  of  punishment,  tvo%os 
t<rtat  ctupatos  xal  al'^aTfo^  Kuptov,  ver.  27 — i.  e., 
worthy  of  punishment  on  account  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  undervalued  by  him ;  and 
ver.  29,  (coll.  ver.  34,)  xpipa  savtc*  ta^sc  xal 
rtivsi,  he  draws  upon  himself  divine  judgments 
on  account  of  his  improper  observance  of  this 
ordinance. 

(4)  The  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  does 
not  require,  therefore,  in  the  pious  Christian,  any 
severe  and  anxious  preparation ;  he  may  partake 
of  it  at  any  time  with  advantage,  as  he  may  at 
any  time  die  happily.  And  the  unconverted  man 
has  no  other  exercises  and  preparations  to  go 
through  than  those  which  in  general  he  must  go 
through  in  order  to  his  conversion,  (/urai/ota.) 
It  is  with  reason,  however,  that  Paul  makes  it 
the  duty  of  every  Christian  carefully  to  examine 
his  feelings  and  his  conduct  before  approaching 
the  table  of  Christ.  1  Cor.  xi.  28,  SoxipaZ&u 
di^pcoTtoj  tavtbv,  xo.1  oiVcoj)  i.  e.,  after  he  has 
examined  himself)  1%  tov  aprou  to^uVw  cf.  ver. 
31.  The  meaning  is,  "  Let  him  examine  him- 
self, to  see  whether  he  approaches  the  Lord's 
Supper  with  pious  feelings,  really  designing  to  , 
do  what  this  action  implies" — viz.,  make  a  pro- 
fession of  the  death  of  Christ  in  the  fullest  sense 
of  this  term. 

Note. — Times  for  confession,  or  rather,  for^re- 
paration  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  may  and  should 
be  employed  for  the  purpose  of  this  personal 
self-examination.  These  occasions  should  also 
be  improved  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  the 
evils  which  result  from  a  thoughtless  partaking 
of  the  sacramental  Supper,  according  to  1  Cor. 
xi.  It  must  not,  however,  be  said  that  every 
unconverted  man  receives  the  Lord's  Supper  to 


508 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


his  own  eternal  condemnation.  This  is  not  a 
scriptural  doctrine.  Vide  1  Cor.  xi.  32.  Nor 
does  it  belong  to  the  teacher  to  exclude  any  one 
from  this  ordinance  because  he  regards  him  as 
unconverted,  even  supposing  him  to  have  power 
so  to  do.  Vide  s.  144,  II.  It  is  his  duty,  how- 
ever, to  warn  such  a  person,  and  represent  to  him 
his  case,  as  Paul  does,  1  Cor.  xi. 

(5)  How  often  should  the  Lord's  Supper  be  cele- 
brated? Christ  gave  no  definite  precepts  on  this 
point,  and  this  was  very  wise.  Everything  me- 
chanical, confined  to  a  particular  time  or  a  parti- 
cular place,  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity. Christ  has  therefore  left  it  for  every 
Christian  to  determine,  according  to  his  con- 
scientious conviction  and  judgment,  how  often  he 
will  freely  repeat  this  solemn  observance.  And 
thus  in  this  respect  also  does  this  Christian  ordi- 
nance differ  from  the  passover  and  other  religious 
ceremonies  of  the  Israelites.  It  is  to  be  expected 
of  every  sincere  Christian  that,  finding  how  salu- 
tary these  communion  seasons  are  in  their  influ- 
ence upon  him,  he  will  welcome  their  return,  and 
wish  them  to  be  often  repeated.  But  to  the 
question,  how  if  ten?  no  answer,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  can  be  given  which  will  apply  to 
every  individual.  In  the  early  Christian  church 
they  were  accustomed  to  celebrate  the  Lord's 
Supper  almost  daily.  But  the  too  frequent  repe- 
tition of  this  ordinance  will  be  apt  to  produce 
coldness  and  indifference  with  regard  to  it.  This 
perhaps  had  been  the  case  in  Corinth  ;  cf.  1  Cor. 
xi.  20 — 30.  The  zeal  with  which  this  ordinance 
was  first  observed  gradually  abated,  and  for  this 
reason,  among  others,  that  but  few  good  fruits 
were  seen  to  result  from  it.  At  the  time  of 
Chrysostom  and  Augustine,  the  observance  of 
the  Supper  had  become  far  less  frequent.  Be- 
tween the  sixth  and  eighth  centuries  it  was  cus- 
tomary, especially  in  the  Western  church,  for 
every  Christian  to  commune  at  least  three  times 
during  the  year ;  and  this  was  even  established 
as  a  rule  by  many  ecclesiastical  councils.  In 
the  protestant  church  no  laws  have  been  passed 
on  this  subject;  and  this  is  as  it  should  be. 

SECTION  CXLVI. 

THE  VARIOUS  OPINIONS  AND  FORMS  OF  DOCTRINE 
RESPECTING  THE  PRESENCE  OF  THE  BODY  AND 
BLOOD  OF  CHRIST  IN  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  HISTO- 
RICALLY EXPLAINED  ;  AND  ALSO  A  CRITIQUE  RE 
SPECTING  THEM. 

I.  History  of  Opinions  respecting  the  Presence  of  th 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

(1)  IT  may  be  remarked,  in  general,  that  the 
opinions  of  the  ancients  on  this  subject,  from  the 
first  establishment  of  the  Christian  church  until 
the  eighth  century,  were  very  diverse.  After  the 


eighth  century  there  were  some  controversies 
'especting  the  mode  and  manner  of  this  presence 
of  Christ;  and  in  the  thirteenth  century,  one  of 
the  many  theories  on  this  subject  was  established 
as  orthodox.  The  church  fathers  in  the  first 
centuries  agreed  on  many  points  relating  to  this 
natter,  and  on  other  points  differed,  without, 
however,  mutually  casting  upon  each  other  the  | 
reproach  of  heterodoxy. 

The  first  germs  of  the  Roman-catholic,  the  | 
Lutheran,  and  the  Calvinistic  theories,  are  found  I 
already  in  their  writings ;  but  it  was  not  until  a 
later  period  that  they  were  developed,  and  new 
consequences  deduced  from  them.     We  cannot 
therefore  conclude,  when  we  meet  with  expres-  j 
sions  in  the  ancient  fathers  which  sound  like  I 
those  which  are  used  in  our  own  times,  that  they  | 
adopted  the  whole  theory  of  one  or  the  other  mo-  j 
dern  party.     Their  ideas  are  so  vague,  their  ex- 
pressions so  indefinite  and  unsettled,  that  each  of 
the  dissenting  parties  in  modern  times  may  fre- 
quently discover  passages,  even  in  the  same 
father,  which  seem  to  favour  its  own  particular 
theory. 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  when  the  catholics, 
Lutherans,  and  the  reformed  theologians  were  in 
controversy  with  each  other  on  this  point,  each 
party  collected  passages  from  the  fathers,  in  order 
to  shew  the  antiquity  of  its  own  theory;  thus 
Melancthon  in  opposition  to  (Ecolampadius,  and 
the  latter  against  the  former.  In  the  seventeenth 
century,  many  controversial  books  passed  back 
and  forth  between  the  learned  Roman-catholic 
theologians  of  France  and  the  reformed  theolo- 
gians of  France  and  the  Netherlands,  in  which 
Nicole,  Arnaud,  and  others,  endeavoured  to 
prove,  on  one  side,  the  antiquity  of  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation;  and  Albertinus,  Claude, 
Blondell,  Laroque,  and  others,  attempted,  on  the 
other  side,  to  secure  the  authority  of  the  ancients 
in  behalf  of  the  doctrine  of  the  reformed  church. 
Ernesti  also,  in  his  Jlntimuratorius,  (Opus. 
Theol.  p.  1,  seq:,)  has  collected  many  passages 
from  the  ancients  in  behalf  of  the  Lutheran  the- 
ory, and  in  opposition  to  transubstantiation,  &c. ; 
also  in  his  "  Brevis  Repetitio  et  Assertio  Sen- 
tentiae  Lutheranae  de  Praesentia  Corporis  et 
Sanguinis  Christi  in  Sacra  Cosna,"  (Opus. 
Theol.  p.  135,  seq.,)  which  is  one  of  the  most 
important  modern  works  on  the  Lutheran  side. 
It  was  called  forth  by  Heumann's  "  Proof  that 
the  Doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church  respect- 
ing the  Lord's  Supper  is  correct  and  true;" 
Eisleben,  1764.  It  is  a  very  easy  matter,  how- 
ever, for  any  one  to  find  his  own  ideas  express- 
ed in  the  vague  and  indefinite  phraseology  of 
the  fathers.  The  testimony  of  the  sacred  writers 
in  favour  of  the  essential  part  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Lutheran  church  has  been  exhibited 
partly  by  Ernesti,  and  partly  by  Storr,  in  a 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      509 


i  very  plain  and  lucid,  though  brief  manner,  in 
his  "  Doctrines  Christianas  pars  Theoretica,"  p. 
305—318. 

[The  later  works  of  most  value  on  this  de- 
partment of  historical  theology  are,  Phil.  Mar- 
heinecke,  Sanctorum  Patrum  de  Praesentia 
Christi  in  Ccena  Domini,  Sententia  Triplex; 
Heidelberg,  1811,  4to.  Neander,  Kirch.  Ges- 
chichte,  b.  i.  Abth.  ii.  s.  577—596;  Abth.  Hi. 
s.  1084  ;  b.  ii.  Abth.  ii.  s.  697—712  ;  Abth.  iii. 
s.  1394.  Cf.  Gieseler,  b.  i.  s.  96  ;  b.  ii.  s.  15, 
17.  A  full  account  of  the  literature  of  this  doc- 
trine, in  all  periods,  may  be  found  in  Harm's 
Lehrbuch,  s.  570,  if.;  also  in  Bretschneider's 
Syst.  Entw.  s.  728,  rT.—  TR.] 

(2)  Sketch  of  the  history  of  this  doctrine  from 
the  second  to  the  ninth  century. 

(a)  The  fathers  of  the  second  century  pro- 
ceeded on  the  principle,  which  is  in  itself  true, 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  must  be  considered  as 
entirely  different  from  an  ordinary  repast.  Jus- 
tin the  Martyr  says,  (Apol.  i.  66,)  ov  xoivbs 
aptoj,  ov§£  xoivbv  rcop-a,.  They,  however,  enter- 
tained, even  at  that  early  period,  many  ideas 
respecting  this  ordinance  which  have  no  scrip- 
tural authority.  Neither  in  the  writings  of  the 
apostles,  nor  in  the  words  of  Christ,  is  there 
any  trace  of  the  opinion  that  a  certain  superna- 
tural and  divine  power  is  imparted,  in  a  mira- 
culous and  magical  way,  to  the  symbols,  and 
that  in  this  manner  the  Lord's  Supper  exerts  an 
agency  upon  men.  But  this  opinion  (which 
resembles  that  entertained  by  many  respecting 
the  water  in  baptism)  is  found  very  frequently 
in  the  writings  of  Justin,  Irenaeus,  (iv.  34,) 
Clemens  of  Alexandria,  and  other  fathers  even 
of  the  second  and  third  centuries  ;  and  it  is  entire- 
ly in  accordance  with  the  spirit  and  taste  of  that 
age,  which  beheld  everywhere  something  ma- 
gical and  mysterious,  and  could  not  be  contented 
unless  it  found  something  surpassing  compre- 
hension. In  order  to  express  their  opinion  that 
the  bread  and  wine  are  changed  by  the  divine 
power,  or  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  thus  obtain 
a  new  virtue  and  efficacy,  totally  different  from 
that  which  naturally  belongs  to  them,  they  used 


Still  they  did  not  suppose  any  such  change 
in  the  elements,  that  they  cease  to  be  bread  and 
wine  —  i.  e.,  they  did  not  believe  in  transubstan- 
tiation,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term  ;  neither 
does  the  Grecian  church,  which  employs  these 
terms,  especially  ^ffajSoTu?,  but  still  opposes  the 
doctrine  of  the  Romish  church.  Some  of  the 
fathers  understood  these  terms  in  a  perfectly 
just  sense,  and  meant  only  to  say  that  the 
bread  and  wine  cease,  by  consecration,  to  be 
common  bread  and  wine. 

(6)  Again  ;  it  was  maintained  that  the  Word 


of  God  (Aoyoj  ©JOT})  is  added  to  the  bread  and 
wine  thus  ennobled  and  endowed  with  divine 
power.  If  by  the  Word  of  God  is  meant  the 
Christian  doctrine,  it  is  very  true  that  the  effi- 
acy  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  connected  with  it, 
and  depends  upon  it.  Vide  s.  145.  So  it  was 
understood  by  many  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
.  g.,  Irenaeus.  But  some  of  them  understood 
by  6  Aoyoj,  the  divine  nature  of  Christ.  And 
from  the  fact  that  this  Logos  was  united  with 
the  man  Jesus  and  his  human  body,  they  were 
led  to  the  idea,  that  after  the  same  manner  he 
is  united  with  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  And  they  endeavoured  to  illustrate 
this  union  of  Christ  with  the  sacramental  bread 
and  wine,  from  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in 
his  person. 

In  this  comparison,  which  was  made  by  Jus- 
tin the  Martyr,  we  find  the  true  origin  of  the 
doctrine  concerning  the  real  presence  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  elements  on  his 
table.  Vide  Morus,  p.  263,  n.  4.  According 
to  this  view,  Christ  is  present  in  a  supernatural 
way  in  the  symbols,  and  in  an  entirely  different 
manner  from  that  in  which,  according  to  his 
promise,  he  is  everywhere  present  with  his 
disciples,  until  the  end  of  the  world. 

(c)  After  this  period  the  idea  became  more 
and  more  current  that  communicants  in  partak- 
ing of  the  visible  bread  and  wine  also  partake 
of  the  invisible  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Es- 
pecially did  this  idea  prevail  after  the  fourth 
century.  Thus,  e.  g.,  Gregory  of  Nyssa  affirms, 
"that  as  the  body  of  Christ,  by  his  union  with 
the  Logos,  was  so  changed  and  transformed  as 
to  become  participator  in  his  divine  glory,  so 
also  the  sacramental  bread  si$  tfwjwa  T'OV  ©sov 
Aoyov  lit£T'a7to£tT'cH."  Chrysostom  and  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  also  say  that  we  must  believe  the 
divine  declaration,  that  we  receive  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  sacramental  elements, 
although  this  may  seem  to  be  opposed  to  the 
evidence  of  our  senses. 

But  although  this  doctrine  seems  to  approach 
very  nearly  to  transubstantiation,  these  fathers 
did  not  yet  teach  that  there  is  any  change  of  the 
elements  by  which  they  lose  their  own  nature, 
and  cease  to  be  bread  and  wine ;  on  the  con- 
trary, they  often  taught  in  other  passages  that 
the  elements  retain  their  own  natural  properties, 
that  when  partaken  of  by  us  they  become  assi- 
milated to  the  nature  of  our  bodies,  that  in  the 
Supper  we  do  not  receive  the  natural  body  of 
Christ,  but  only  the  significant  signs  of  it,  that 
we  ought  not  to  stop  short  with  the  mere  sign, 
but  to  turn  our  thoughts  to  that  which  is  signi- 
fied and  imparted  by  it.  There  are  many  pas- 
sages of  this  import  in  the  writings  of  Origen, 
of  Augustine,  Theodoret,  and  others. 

But  in  subsequent  periods,  the  conceptions 
which  prevailed  on  this  subject,  even  in  the 
2u2 


510 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Grecian  church,  became  more  and  more  gross 
and  sensual ;  as  appears  from  the  writings  of 
John  of  Damascus  in  the  eighth  century,  and 
others.  Still  the  opinion  that  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine  lose  their  substance  was  not  re- 
ceived in  the  Greek  church ;  nor  is  it  known 
among  them  to  the  present  day,  although  they 
employ  the  term  ^jrcu3o>.7j  to  denote  the  change. 
Vide  Riesling,  Hist.  Concertationum  Graecor. 
et  Latinor.  de  Transubst.;  Leip.  1754. 

(3)  History  of  this  doctrine  from  the  ninth  to 
the  sixteenth  century  in  the  Western  church. 

It  is  known  from  Beda  Venerabilis,  that  during 
the  eighth  century  there  were  violent  contests  in 
the  Western  church  respecting  the  manner  of 
the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  on  the  question  how 
the  elements  are  changed.  And  even  at  that 
time  they  began  to  give  various  explanations 
of  the  passages  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
earlier  Latin  and  Greek  fathers  on  this  subject. 
After  the  ninth  century,  the  tone  and  taste 
which  began  to  prevail  made  it  certain  that  of 
different  theories  on  any  theological  point,  that 
which  is  the  most  gross  and  material  would 
gain  the  predominance. 

It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  following 
opinion,  first  distinctly  advocated  by  Paschasius 
Radbertus,  a  monk  at  Corvey,  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, should  have  received  so  general  approba- 
tion— viz.,  "that  after  the  consecration  of  the 
bread  and  wine  nothing  but  their  form  remains, 
their  substance  being  wholly  changed,  so  that 
they  are  no  longer  bread  and  wine,  but  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.  Their  form  continues,  that 
no  one  may  take  offence  at  seeing  Christians 
eating  human  flesh  and  blood." 

This  doctrine  was  not,  indeed,  current  at  that 
time,  for  it  caused  much  commotion,  and  was 
strongly  opposed  by  the  monk  Ratramnus,  and 
John  Scotus  Erigena,  and  many  others.  They 
did  not  deny  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ ;  but  they  taught  that  this  conversio  or 
im.mutatio  of  the  bread  and  wine  is  not  of  a  car- 
nal but  a  spiritual  nature;  that  these  elements 
are  not  transmuted  into  the  real  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,  but  are  signs  or  symbols  of  them.  In 
many  points  they  approximated  to  the  opinion 
of  the  Reformed  theologians. 

As  yet  the  councils  and  popes  had  determined 
nothing  on  this  subject.  In  the  meanwhile  the 
doctrine  of  Paschasius  became  more  and  more 
general  during  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries. 
When  therefore  Berengarius  of  Tours,  in  the 
eleventh  century,  attacked  this  doctrine,  he  was 
strongly  resisted,  and  obliged  to  take  back  his 
opinion.  He  denied  any  transmutation  of  the 
elements;  but  maintained  that  the  bread  and 
wine  are  more  than  mere  symbols,  and  that  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  really  present  in 


the  Lord's  Supper.     In  short,  he  took  a  middle 
course   between   Paschasius   and    Scotus,  and 
came  very  near,  in  the  main  points  of  his  doe- 
trine,  to  the  Lutheran  hypothesis.     Vide  Les-  | 
sing's  work,  Berengarius  von  Tours;  Braun-i, 
schweig,  1770,  4to. 

After  the  twelfth  century  the  theory  of  Pas- 
chasius was  further  developed  by  the  school- 
men, and  carried  out  into  its  results.  Even 
Peter  of  Lombardy,  in  the  twelfth  century, 
declared  himself  in  behalf  of  this  opinion,  al-i 
though  he  still  speaks  somewhat  doubtfully 
respecting  it.  The  inventor  of  the  word  tran- 
substantiatio  is  supposed  to  be  Hildebert,  Bishop 
of  Mans,  in  the  eleventh  century.  Before  him, 
however,  the  phrase  commutatio  pants  in  sub- 
stantiam  Christi  had  been  used  by  Fulbert,j 
Bishop  of  Chartres.  This  term  became  current! 
in  the  twelfth  century  through  the  influence  of 
Peter  of  Blois.  It  was  not,  however,  until  the  I 
thirteenth  century  that  this  dogma  became  uni-j 
versally  prevalent  in  the  Romish  church.  At 
the  IV.  Concilium  Lateranense,  1215,  under 
Pope  Innocent  III.,  it  was  established  as  the! 
doctrine  of  the  church,  and  confirmed  by  the 
Council  at  Trent,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  in; 
opposition  to  the  protestants.  According  to  this 
doctrine,  this  transmutation  is  produced  by  the 
sacerdotal  consecration.  Vide  Calixtus,  De  Tran- 
substantiatione  ;  Helmstadt,  1675. 

(4)  Principal  opinions  respecting  the  manner 
of  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
in  the  sacramental  elements,  among  the  protestant 
theologians^  since  the  Reformation. 

There  were  three  forms  of  doctrine  on  this 
subject  which  for  many  centuries  had  prevailed  | 
in  the  Western  church  —  viz.,  (a)  the  theory  of 
transubstantiation,  advanced  by  Paschasius  Rad- 
bertus, which  afterwards  became  the  prevailing 
doctrine  of  the  church  ;  (6)  the  theory,  that  thei 
bread  and  wine  are  merely  symbols  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  advocated  principally  by 
Job.  Scotus  Erigena;  (c)  a  theory  which  takes 
a  middle  course  between  the  other  two,  main- 
taining that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
actually  present  in  the  sacramental  elements, 
but  without  any  transmutation  of  their  sub- 
stance; supported  by  Berengarius  in  the  ele- 
venth century.  These  theories  continued,  though 
under  various  modifications,  after  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  were  designated  by  the  character-  j 
istic  words,  transubstantiatio,figura,  unio.  The} 
Greek  church  still  adhered  to  its  old  word' 


Both  the  German  and  Swiss  reformers  werej 
agreed  in  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  transubstan-j 
tiation  as  wholly  unfounded.  In  this  too  they: 
were  agreed,  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ! 
are  really  present  in  the  sacramental  elements,  j 
and  are  imparted  to  the  communicant  when  he  j 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       511 


partakes  of  the  bread  and  wine ;  since  Christ  is 
near  to  all  whom  he  counts  his  own,  imparts 
himself  to  them,  counsels  and  guides  them. 

But  in  explaining  the  manner  of  this  presence 
they  differed  from  each  other.  Luther  had  a 
great  attachment  to  many  of  the  scholastic 
opinions  and  distinctions,  and  at  first  entertain- 
ed a  very  high  idea  of  clerical  power  and  the 
pre-eminence  of  the  priesthood.  He  therefore 
retained  the  doctrine  of  the  schoolmen,  de  pras- 
sentia  reali  et  substantially  in  such  a  way,  how- 
ever, as  to  exclude  transubstantiation.  His 
doctrine  at  first  was,  that  "?'n,  with,  and  under 
(in,  cum,  and  sub,  terms  which  he  took  from 
Bernhard)  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine,  the 
true  and  essential  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
imparted  to  the  communicant,  and  are  received 
by  him,  although  in  a  manner  inexplicable  by 
us,  and  altogether  mysterious."  He  held,  there- 
fore, that  the  body  of  Christ,  which  in  its  very 
essence  is  present  in  the  sacred  symbols,  is  re- 
ceived by  the  'communicant,  not  spiritually 
merely,  but  (and  here  is  the  point  of  difference 
between  him  and  the  Swiss  Reformers)  realiter 
et  substantialiter ;  so  that  both  believing  and 
unbelieving  communicants  partake  of  the  real, 
substantial  body  and  blood  of  Christ;  the  for- 
mer to  their  salvation,  the  latter  to  their  con- 
demnation. The  bread  and  wine  are  visibly 
and  naturally  received,  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  invisibly  and  supernaturally  ;  and  this  is 
the  unto  sacramentalis,  such  as  takes  place  only 
in  this  sacrament.  In  one  passage  he  explains 
this  unio  sacramentalis  by  the  image  of  heated 
iron ;  and  in  employing  this  illustration,  borders 
close  upon  the  error  of  Cunsubstantiation.  He 
says  also  that  what  the  bread  and  wine  do  or 
suffer,  the  same  is  done  or  suffered  by  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ — they  are  broken,  distri- 
buted, poured  out,  &c.  By  degrees,  however, 
he  abandoned  these  views,  and  was  content 
with  affirming  the  real  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  the  sacramental  elements, 
and  with  an  indefinite  manduca/ione  orali. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Swiss  theologians,  on  the 
contrary,  as  exhibited  by  Calvin,  who  in  some 
respects  modified  the  view  of  Zuingle,  was  this  : 
"The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  not,  as  to 
their  substance,  present  in  the  sacramental  ele- 
ments, but  only  as  to  power  and  effect;  they  are 
vere  et  efficaciter  represented  under  the  bread  and 
wine;  dari  non  substantiam  corporis  Christi  in 
sacra  coena,  sed  omnia  qux,  in  suo  corpore  nobis 
btncficia  prxstitit"  Accordingly  the  body  and 
blood  of  Chrjst  are  not  present  in  space,  and  are 
not  orally  received  by  communicants,  but  spiri- 
tually, with  a  kind  of  manducatio  spiri.tualis. 
Zuingle,  however,  maintained  that  the  bread 
and  wine  are  mere  symbols  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  and  seemed  wholly  to  reject 
the  idea  of  his  real  presence  in  these  symbols. 


Many  of  the  Reformed  theologians  did  not, 
therefore,  at  first  assent  to  Calvin's  doctrine, 
and  many,  even  subsequently,  adhered  to  that 
of  Zuingle. 

Calvin,  then,  designed  to  take  a  middle  course 
between  Luther  and  Zuingle.  Luther  appealed 
to  the  words  in  which  this  rite  was  instituted, 
especially  to  loti.  He  referred  also  to  the  di- 
vine omnipotence,  by  which  the  body  of  Christ 
might  be  made  substantially  present  in  many 
places  at  once.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  266,  s.  8.  This 
was  wholly  denied  by  the  Swiss  theologians, 
as  being  contradictory.  They  contended,  also, 
that  there  is  no  occasion  or  use  for  this  substan- 
tial presence  and  communication  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  since  it  cannot  contribute 
to  make  one  more  virtuous,  pious,  or  holy. 
With  regard  to  iati  they  remarked  that,  accord- 
ing to  common  use,  even  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  often  means  to  signify,  shew  forth, 
(vide  s.  143  ;)  and  the  subject  here  requires 
that  it  should  be  so  understood,  since  otherwise 
Christ  is  made  to  say  what  is  untrue. 

Luther,  however,  adhered  to  his  opinion,  es- 
pecially after  it  became  the  subject  of  contro- 
versy. Melancthon  was  more  calm  and  impar- 
tial, and  wished  to  promote  peace  between  the 
two  parties.  He  therefore  took  the  ground,  es- 
pecially after  Luther's  death,  that  it  is  better 
merely  to  affirm  the  presence  and  agency  of 
Christ  in  the  sacred  symbols,  without  attempt- 
ing minutely  to  define  and  limit  the  manner  of 
this  presence.  He  was  not  favourable  either  to 
the  prsesentia  corporalis  Christi,  or  to  the  man- 
ducatio oralis,  but  only  affirmed  prsesentiam  rf- 
alem  et  efficacem  Christi  in  sacra  co3na.  He 
therefore  chose  a  middle  way  between  Luther 
and  Zuingle,  and  very  nearly  agreed  with  Cal- 
vin, who  also  pursued  this  middle  course. 

Many  of  the  more  moderate  Lutheran  theolo- 
gians agreed  with  Melancthon,  and  seemed  with 
him  to  incline  to  the  side  of  Calvin.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  zealots  for  the  Lutheran  theory 
insisted  upon  all  the  distinctions  which  Luther 
adopted,  and  even  on  some  points  went  further 
than  Luther  himself.  But  in  the  electorate  of 
Saxony  the  party  of  Melancthon  became  more 
and  more  numerous,  and  after  his  death  the 
dreadful  Crypto-Calvinistic  controversies  and 
persecutions  broke  out,  (A.  D.  1571.) 

These  and  other  controversies  and  disorders 
in  the  Lutheran  church,  and  the  necessity  of 
doing  something  to  establish  the  Lutheran  form 
of  doctrine,  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  in  the  year  1577,  which  was  then 
made  a  standard  of  faith,  and  adopted  as  an  au- 
thorized symbol.  In  this  the  most  minute 
boundary  lines  are  drawn  between  the  theories 
of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  church,  by 
applying  the  new  distinctions  introduced  into 
the  doctrine  of  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in 


512 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Christ,  and  the  communicatio  idiomatum.  Vide 
s.  103,  II.,  and  s.  104.  The  Lutheran  theolo- 
gians of  that  period,  especially  Andrea,  Chern- 
nitz,  and  their  followers,  endeavoured  to  shew, 
by  the  theory  of  the  intimate  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ,  and  the  communicatio  idioma- 
tum resulting  from  it,  how  Christ,  as  God-man, 
might  be  everywhere  present,  even  as  to  his 
bodily  nature,  and  that  therefore  he  might  be 
present  at  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper,  and 
might  unite  himself  with  the  elements,  and 
through  them  with  the  communicants,  and  thus 
act  upon  them.  This  doctrine  was  called  ubi- 
quitatem  corporis  Christi,  and  the  advocates  of 
it  were  named  contemptuously  by  their  oppo- 
nents Ubiquitistse.  The  manner  of  the  union  of 
the  body  of  Christ  with  the  bread  and  wine  was 
declared  to  be  a  mystery,  (mysterium  unionis 
sacramentalis.}  And  on  this  account  the  framers 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord  would  not  decide  po- 
sitively of  what  nature  it  is,  but  only  negatively, 
what  it  is  not.  It  is  not  a  personal  union,  as  it 
is  explained  to  be  by  many  of  the  older  fathers, 
(vide  No.  2,)  nor  is  it  consubstantiatio ;  still  less 
is  it  a  union  in  which  a  change  of  the  substance 
is  effected,  (transubstantiatio  ,•)  nor  is  it  a  union 
in  which  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  in- 
cluded in  the  bread  and  wine,  (impanatio  ,•)  but 
of  an  entirely  different  nature  from  any  of  these 
mentioned,  and  one  which  exists  only  in  this  sa- 
crament, and  therefore  called  sacramentalis.  Cf. 
Plank,  Geschichte  des  Protestantischen  Lehrbe- 
grifFs  bis  zur  Einfiihrung  der  Concordienformel. 
But  these  fine  distinctions  established  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord  were  never  universally 
adopted  in  the  Lutheran  church.  And  espe- 
cially in  those  places  where  this  formula  had 
no  symbolic  authority  were  its  subtleties  re- 
jected. Many  of  the  Lutheran  theologians  are 
more  inclined  to  the  moderate  theory  of  Melanc- 
thon,  or  rather,  have  approximated  towards  it. 
Morus  truly  remarks  (p.  268,  n.  A.)  that  the 
whole  theory  established  in  the  Formula  of 
Concord  respecting  the  omnipresence  of  the  hu- 
man nature  of  Christ,  from  the  union  of  natures 
in  his  person,  isjusto  subtilior. 

II.  Critical  Remarks  on  these  different  Hypotheses. 

(1)  All  the  different  theories  here  stated  are 
attended  with  difficulties.  Transubstantiation 
contradicts  the  testimony  of  our  senses,  and  has 
no  scriptural  authority,  since  these  symbols  are 
called  in  the  scriptures  bread  and  wine,  and  are 
therefore  supposed  to  have  the  substance  of  bread 
and  wine. 

With  regard  to  Luther's  theory,  there  is  the 
difficulty  above  mentioned,  that  there  appears  to 
be  no  object  or  use  in  the  substantial  or  corpo- 
real presence  of  Christ;  though  this  objection 
in  itself  is  by  no  means  decisive,  since  there  are 

manv    t.hinas    whoso    ntilit.v   we>.    p.annnt    nnHpr. 


stand  which  are  yet  useful.  But  besides  this,! 
there  are  other  objections  to  the  Lutheran  theory. ! 
If  the  substantial  body  and  blood  of  Christ  arei 
present  in  the  sacramental  elements,  and  are! 
received  by  the  communicants,  how,  it  might  be! 
asked, 

(a)  Could  Christ,  at  the  institution  of  the 
Supper,  give  his  real  body  to  his  disciples  to  be 
eaten  by  them,  and  his  real  blood  to  be  drunken 
by  them,  while  they  saw  this  body  before  their 
eyes,  and  he,  yet  alive,  sat  with  them  at  table  ? 

(6)  How  can  the  body  of  Christ  be  present, 
as  to  its  very  substance,  in  more  than  one  place! 
at  the  same  time]  and  what  object  is  answeredl 
by  such  a  supposition1?  The  conclusions  de-j 
duced  from  the  doctrine  of  the  union  of  natures? 
afford  no  satisfactory  answer  to  these  questions.! 

(c)  How  can  the  theory  of  the  substantial! 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  of  i 
their  being  eaten  and  drunken  by  communicants,i 
be  reconciled  with  the  words  in  which  this  sup-! 
per  was  instituted?  For  Christ  did  not  speak 
of  his  body  then  living  upon  the  earth,  which 
they  saw  before  their  eyes,  and  of  the  bloodi 
flowing  in  it;  still  less  of  his  glorified  body  in 
heaven,  but  of  his  body  slain  on  the  cross,  (vrt^p 
vfjLw  8t,86fji,fvov,}  and  of  his  blood  there  shed, 
(a^ua  ixxwo/Asvov.}  If,  therefore,  the  substan- 
tial and  corporeal  presence  of  Christ  were  meant, 
it  must  be  the  substance  of  that  martyred  bodyf 
and  of  that  perishable  blood.  But  in  this  case 
we  cannot  understand  how  either  of  these  can 
be  still  present,  and  imparted  to  communicants. 

Difficulties  of  this  nature  induced  Melancthon, 
as  has  been  before  remarked,  to  modify  the  Lu 
theran  doctrine,  and  to  adopt  a  theory  less  repul 
sive.     But  the  theory  of  Calvin,  though  it  ap-j 
pears  to  be  so  easy  and  natural,  is  also  attended 
with  difficulties;  for  even  he  admits  of  the  pren 
sence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  only  noc 
as  to  their  substance,  but,  according  to  his  view.' 
believers  alone  receive  the  body  and  blood  of) 
Christ.     But  as  soon  as  I  admit  that  the  body 
of  Christ  is  present  to  believers  only,  this  canno 
be  reconciled  with  1  Cor.  xi.  27,  29,  as  the  op- 
ponents of  Calvin  have  always  remarked. 

The  better  way,  therefore,  in  exhibiting  eithei 
the  Lutheran  or  Calvinistic  doctrine,  is,  to  avoic 
these  subtleties,  and  merely  take  the  genera 
position,  that  Christ,  as  man  and  as  the  Son  oj 
God,  may  exert  his  agency,  may  act  wherever 
and  in  whatever  manner  he  pleases.  He  therefore 
may  exert  his  power  at  his  table  as  well  as  else-; 
where.  This  is  perfectly  scriptural,  (vide  s.  9£j 
and  s.  143,  ad  finem;)  and  it  is  a|^o  the  sensfi 
and  spirit  of  the  protestant  theory.  And  thi\ 
doctrine  respecting  the  nearness  of  Christ,  %his! 
assistance  and  strengthening  injluence,  in  his  pre; 
sent  exalted  state,  secures  eminently  that  propel 
inward  enjoyment  which  Lutheran  and  Reform 

prl   (Christians,  and  P.VPTI  r.at.hnlics.  with  all  thei' 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       513 


diversity  of  speculation  on  this  point,  may  have 
alike  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  Christ,  when  he  was 
about  to  leave  the  world,  no  more  to  be  seen  by 
his  followers  with  the  mortal  eye,  left  them  this 
Supper  as  a  visible  pledge  of  his  presence,  his 
protection,  and  love. 

(2)  There  are  some  theologians  who  think  that 
the  whole  doctrine  respecting  the  presence  of 
Christ  is  destitute  of  proof,  and  is  derived  merely 
from  the  misunderstanding  of  the  passage,  1 
Cor.  xi.,  and  from  the  false  interpretation  of  it 
given  by  the  fathers.  Their  hypotheses,  it  is 
said,  have  not  been  sufficiently  examined,  but 
have  been  too  credulously  admitted,  and  other 
theories  have  been  built  upon  them,  after  they 
had  been  previously  assumed  as  true.  This  opi- 
nion might  be  called  the  Pelagian  theory  ;  not 
because  it  can  be  shewn  that  it  was  held  by  Pe- 
lagius  himself,  but  because  it  has  been  usually 
adopted  by  those  who  are  of  the  Pelagian  way 
of  thinking  respecting  the  influences  of  grace. 
On  this  subject,  vide  Art.  xii.  They  contend 
that  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  we  are 
merely  reminded  of  Christ,  especially  of  his  body 
offered  and  his  blood  shed  on  our  account.  Ac- 
cording to  this  view,  his  body  and  his  blood, 
while  we  thus  commemorate  his  death,  are  pre- 
sent to  our  thoughts,  in  the  same  figurative  way 
as  the  body  of  a  deceased  friend  or  benefactor 
may  be  present  to  our  minds  when  we  are  think- 
ing of  him.  This  view  is  contrary  to  the  New 
Testament;  for  it  comes  to  nothing  more  than  a 
mere  remembrance  of  Christ,  and  an  assistance 
from  him,  improperly  so  called.  Vide  s.  98. 

They  go  on  to  say  that  Paul,  indeed,  in  1  Cor. 
xi.  27,  29,  uses  the  words  dw/tct  xo.1  al^a  Xpttfr'ov 
with  reference  to  this  ordinance ;  but  that  he  does 
not  affirm  that  the  communicant  eats  the  body  or 
drinks  the  blood  of  Christ,  but  merely  the  bread 
and  wine,  ver.  28 ;  and  that  although  the  ancient 
Christians  sometimes  spoke  as  if  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  were  really  received  by  commu- 
nicants, (as  was  very  natural,  in  accordance  with 
John,  vi.,)  yet  the  same  is  true  here  which  was 
spoken  by  Cicero,  (Nat.  Deor.  iii.  16,)  Cum 
fruges  CEREREM,  vinum  LIBERUM  dicimus,  (pa- 
nem,  corpus  Christi,  vinum,  sanguinem  Christi,) 
genere  nus  quidem  sermonis  utimur  usitato ;  sed 
quern  tarn  amentem  esseputas,  qui  illud,  quo  vcsca- 
tur,  De.um  (corpus  Christi)  credat  esse? 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  this  Pelagian 
theory,  which  leaves  the  Lord's  Supper  a  mere 
ceremony,  are  stated  by  Morus,  p.  267,  note  5. 
He  shews  very  clearly  that  this  theory  is  not  in 
the  spirit  of  the  other  Christian  ordinances.  Cf. 
Storr  on  this  article,  in  his  System.  The  attempts 
of  many  modern  writers  who  have  discussed  this 
point  (those,  e.  g.,  cited  by  Morus,  p.  266,  s.  7, 
in  the  note)  come  to  the  same  thing ;  for  to  many 
of  them  the  doctrine  of  the  nearness  of  Christ 
and  his  assistance — i.  e.,  of  his  uninterrupted 
65 


activity  in  behalf  of  his  followers,  is  extremely 
repugnant,  because  they  do  not  see  how  they 
can  reconcile  it  with  their  philosophical  hypo- 
theses, which,  however,  are  wholly  baseless. 
But  this  doctrine  is  clearly  taught  in  the  holy 
scriptures,  and  is  one  of  the  fundamental  truths 
of  apostolical  antiquity. 

(3)  Many  moderate  protestant  theologians  are 
now  of  opinion  that  nothing  was  plainly  and  de- 
finitely settled  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles  respect- 
ing the  manner  of  the  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  the  sacramental  elements,  and 
that  this  doctrine  cannot  therefore  be  regarded  as 
essential,  but  rather  as  problematical.  Formerly 
this  doctrine,  relating  merely  to  the  manner  of 
this  presence,  was  regarded  as  a  fundamental 
article  of  faith ;  hence  each  of  the  contending 
parties  adhered  zealously  to  its  own  theory,  re- 
garding it  as  the  only  scriptural  one,  and  looking 
upon  all  who  thought  differently  as  heretics. 
This  was  the  cause  of  that  unhappy  and  lasting 
division  which  took  place  in  the  sixteenth  century 
between  two  churches  which  agreed  on  funda- 
mental doctrines,  and  which  ought  mutually  to 
have  tolerated  their  disagreement  on  this  parti- 
cular point.  So  judged  Melancthon,  and  disap- 
proved of  the  violent  controversies  of  his  age. 
Even  in  his  learned  writings  he  passed  briefly 
over  topics  of  this  nature,  and  assigns  as  the 
reason  of  his  not  going  more  deeply  into  them, 
"  ut  a  quaestionibus  illis  juventutem  abducerem." 

Speculations  respecting  the  manner  of  the  pre- 
sence of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  have  not 
the  least  influence  upon  the  nature  or  the  efficacy 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  What  the  Christian  needs 
to  know  is,  the  object  and  the  uses  of  this  rite, 
and  to  act  accordingly.  Vide  s.  145.  He  must 
therefore  believe  from  the  heart  that  Christ  died 
for  him ;  that  now  in  his  exalted  state  he  is  still 
active  in  providing  for  his  welfare ;  and  that  hence 
it  becomes  him  to  approach  the  Lord's  table  with 
feelings  of  the  deepest  reverence  and  most  grate- 
ful love  to  God  and  to  Christ.  Upon  this  every- 
thing depends,  and  this  makes  the  ordinance 
truly  edifying  and  comforting  in  its  influence. 
These  benefits  may  be  derived  from  this  ordi- 
nance by  all  Christians;  and  to  all  who  have 
true  faith,  or  who  allow  this  ordinance  to  have 
its  proper  effect  in  awakening  attention  to  the 
great  truths  which  it  exhibits,  it  is  a  powerful, 
divinely-appointed  means  of  grace,  whatever 
theory  respecting  it  they  may  adopt, — the  Lu- 
theran, Calvinistic,  or  even  the  Roman-catholic 
transubstantiation,  gross  as  this  error  is. 

It  is  obvious,  then,  that  all  subtle  speculation 
respecting  the  manner  of  the  presence  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  should  have  no  place  in  po- 
pular instruction,  but  should  be  confined  to 
learned  and  scientific  theology.  In  the  present 
state  of  things,  however,  these  disputed  points 
cannot  be  wholly  omitted  in  public  teaching. 


514  CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


But  the  wise  teacher  will  skilfully  shew  that  he 
does  not  regard  these  as  the  principal  points  in 
this  doctrine,  according  to  the  views  just  given ; 
in  such  a  way,  however,  that  even  the  weak  will 
not  be  offended.  It  will  be  best  for  teachers,  in 
the  practical  exhibition  of  the  theory  of  the  Lu- 
theran and  Reformed  churches,  to  proceed  on  the 
principle  before  laid  down — viz.,  "  that  Christ, 
in  his  present  state  of  exaltation,  as  God  and  man, 
can  exert  his  power  when  and  where  he  pleases ; 
and  that,  as  he  has  promised  to  grant  his  presence, 
his  gracious  nearness  and  assistance  to  his  true 
followers  till  the  end  of  the  world,  they  may 
rejoice  in  the  belief  that  it  will  be  especially 
vouchsafed  to  them  during  this  solemn  festival 
in  commemoration  of  him."  This  principle  is 
wholly  scriptural. 


ARTICLE  XV. 

ON  DEATH,  AND  THE  CONTINUANCE  AND  DES- 
TINY OF  MEN  AFTER  DEATH;  OR  THE  DOC- 
TRINE RESPECTING  THE  LAST  THINGS. 


SECTION  CXLVII. 

OF  DEATH. 

I.  Different  Descriptions  and  Names  of  Death. 

(1)  No  logical  definition  of  death  has  been 
generally  agreed  upon.  This  point  was  much 
contested  in  the  seventeenth  century  by  the  Car- 
tesian and  other  theologians  and  philosophers. 
Since  death  can  be  regarded  in  various  points  of 
view,  the  descriptions  of  it  must  necessarily  vary. 
If  we  consider  the  state  of  a  dead  man,  as  it 
strikes  the  senses,  death  is  the  cessation  of  natural 
life.  If  we  consider  the  cause  of  death,  we  may 
place  it  in  that  permanent  and  entire  cessation 
of  the  feeling  and  motion  of  the  body  which  re- 
sults from  the  destruction  of  the  body.  Among 
theologians,  death  is  commonly  said  to  consist 
in  the  separation  of  soul  and  body,  implying  that 
the  soul  still  exists  when  the  body  perishes. 
Among  the  ecclesiastical  fathers,  Tertullian  (De 
Anima,  c.  27)  gives  this  definition :  Mors — dis- 
junctio  corporis  animxque ;  vita — conjunctio  cor- 
poris  animaeque.  Cicero  (Tusc.  i.)  defines  death, 
discessus  animi  a  corporc.  The  passage,  Heb. 
iv.  12,  is  sometimes  cited  on  this  subject,  but 
has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Death  does  not  con- 
sist in  this  separation,  but  this  separation  is  the 
consequence  of  death.  As  soon  as  the  body 
loses  feeling  and  motion,  it  is  henceforth  use- 
less to  the  soul,  which  is  therefore  separated 
from  it. 

(2)  Scriptural  representations,  names,  and 
modes  of  speech  respecting  death. 


(a)  One  of  the  most  common  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament is,  to  return  to  the  dust,  or  to  the  earth,  j 
Hence   the   phrase,   the  dust  of   death.     It  is 
founded  on  the  description,  Gen.  ii.  7,  and  iii.  j 
19,  and  has  been  explained  in  s.  52,  75.     The 
phraseology  denotes  the  dissolution  and  destruc- 
tion of  the  body.   Hence  the  sentiment  in  Eccles. 
xii.  7,  "The  body  returns  to  the  earth,  the  spirit 
to  God." 

(i)  A  withdrawing  exhalation,  or  removal  of 
the  breath  of  life.  Vide  Ps.  civ.  29.  Hence 
the  common  terms,  afyqxs,  jtapiSuxe  to  jtvs tyio, 
reddidit  animam,  iffrtvfvcfv,  exspiravit,  &c. 

(c)  A  removal  from  the  body,  a  being  absent 
from  the  body,  a  departure  from  it,  &c.     This 
description  is  founded  on  the  comparison  of  the 
body  with  a  tent  or  lodgment  in  which  the  soul 
dwells  during  this  life.   Death  destroys  this  tent 
or  house,  and  commands  us  to  travel  on.     Vide 
Job,  iv.  21 ;  Is.  xxxviii.  12 ;  Ps.  Iii.  7,  where  see 
my  Notes.    Whence  Paul  says,  2  Cor.  v.  1,  the 

'yftoj  jyjwwj/  oLxia,  t  ov  6xi]vovs  will  be  de- 
stroyed ;  and  Peter  calls  death  artc&fstj  tfov 

^uatos,  2  Pet.  i.  13,  14.  Classical  writers 
speak  of  the  soul  in  the  same  manner,  as  xara<j- 
xrtvovv  Iv  T'Q  (juytart.  They  call  the  body  axrtvos» 
So  Hippocrates  and  ./Eschines.  2  Cor.  v.  8,  9, 
txty/jLT-aai,  ix  fov  Otojua-r'os. 

(d)  Paul  likewise  uses  the  term  txovfG^ai  in 
reference  to  death,  2  Cor.  v.  3,  4  ;  because  the 
body  is  represented  as  the  garment  of  the  soul, 
as  Plato  calls  it.     The  soul,  therefore,  as  long 
as  it  is  in  the  body,  is  clothed  ;  and  as  soon  as 
it  is  disembodied,  is  naked. 

(e)  The  terms  which  denote  sleep  are  applied 
frequently  in  the  Bible,  as  everywhere  else,  to 
death.     Ps.  Ixxvi.  7;  Jer.  li.  39;  John,  xi.  13, 
et  seq.     Nor  is  this  language  used  exclusively 
for  the  death  of  the  pious,  as  some  pretend, 
though  this  is  its  prevailing  use.     Homer  calls 
sleep  and  death  twin  brothers,  Iliad,  xvi.  672. 
The  terms  also  which  signify  to  lie  down,  to 
rest,  (e.  g,  22";,  occumbere^  also  denote  death. 

(/)  Death  is  frequently  compared  with  and 
named  from  a  departure,  a  going  away.  Hence 
the  verba  eundi,  abeundi,  discedendi,  signify,  to 
die ;  Job,  x.  21 ;  Ps.  xxxix.  4.  The  case  is  the 
same  with  vrtayco  and  Ttopfvcywu  in  the  New 
Testament,  Matt.  xxvi.  24,  and  even  among 
the  classics.  In  this  connexion  we  may  men- 
tion the  terms  ava&viiv  and  dva>.vff(.£,  Phil.  i. 
23  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  6,  which  do  not  mean  dissolution, 
but  discessus.  Cf.  Luke,  xii.  36.  Vide  Wet- 
stein  on  Phil.  1. 

A~ote We  have  before  remarked,  in  the  Ar- 
ticle respecting  Sin,  that  death,  when  personi- 
fied, is  described  as  a  ruler  and  tyrant,  having 
vast  power  and  a  great  kingdom,  over  which 
he  reigns.  But  the  ancients  ako  represented  it 
under  some  figures,  which  are  not  common 
among  us.  We  represent  it  as  a  man  with  a 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       515 


iscythe,  or  as  a  skeleton,  &c. ;  but  the  Jews 
ijefore  the  exile  frequently  represented  death  as 
hunter,  who  lays  snares  for  men ;  Ps.  xviii. 
5,  6 ;  xci.  3.  After  the  exile  they  represented 
iim  as  a  man,  or  sometimes  as  an  angel,  (the 
ingel  of  death,)  with  a  cup  of  poison,  which  he 
reaches  to  men.  From  this  representation  ap- 
pears to  have  arisen  the  phrase,  which  occurs 
n  the  New  Testament,  to  taste  death,  Matt.  xvi. 
28;  Heb.  ii.  9;  which,  however,  in  common 
speech,  signifies  merely  to  die,  without  remind- 
ng  one  of  the  origin  of  the  phrase.  The  case 
s  the  same  with  the  phrase  to  see  death,  Ps. 
xxxix.  49 ;  Luke,  ii.  26. 

I.  Scriptural  senses  of  the  words  "  death"  and  "  to 
die;"  and  the  Theological  distinctions  to  which 
they  have  given  rise. 

(1)  Death  frequently  denotes  the  end  or  the 
Instruction  of  everything.   It  is  therefore  applied 
o  countries  and  cities  which  perish.    The  inha- 
)itants  of  them  are  compared  with  dead  men. 
The  restoration  of  them  is  compared  with  resur- 
ection  from  the  dead.    So  Isaiah,  xxvi.  19,  20; 
Szek.  iii.  7,  seq. 

(2)  Hence  arise  the  figurative  modes    of 
peech,  to  be  dead  to  anything,  as  to  the  law,  to 
in,  &c. ;  Gal.  ii.  19 ;  Rom.  vi.  2,  5,  &c. 

(3)  But  this  term  is  used  with  great  frequency 
n  a  moral  sense — e.  g.,  to  be  dead  to  all  good- 
ness, to  be  dead  to  sin — i.  e.,  to  be  disqualified 
'or  all  goodness  by  the  sin  reigning  within  us, 
Sphes.  ii.  1,  5;  v.  14.     Likewise  the  opposite, 
o  live,  to  be  alive  for  goodness — i.  e.,  to  be  active 
n  virtue  and  capable  of  performing  it.     (Mors 
3t  vita  spiritualis  et  moralis.) 

(4)  Death  is  conceived  to  be  the  substance 
md  sum  of  all  misery;  and  the  punishment  of 
leath  as  the  severest  punishment.  Accordingly, 

death  denotes  (a)  every  unhappy  condition  in 
which  human  beings  are  placed,  as  to  body  and 
soul.  The  opposite,  life,  denotes  welfare,  prospe- 
rity, Ezek.  xviii.  32 ;  xxxiii.  11;  Rom.  vii.  10, 13. 
Punishments,  as  the  unhappy  consequences 
)f  the  transgression  of  the  law.  In  this  sense, 
is  frequently  used  in  Syriac  and  Chaldee, 
and  death  in  the  New  Testament ;  Rom.  i.  32 ; 

John,  iii.  14  ;  James,  v.  20.  (e)  The  Jews 
called  the  punishments  of  the  lost  in  hell  the 
second  death — i.  e.,  the  death  of  the  soul,  which 
follows  that  of  the  body.  Traces  of  this  use 
are  found  in  Philo,  in  the  Chaldaic  paraphrases 
)f  the  Old  Testament,  and  very  frequently  among 
the  Rabbins.  In  this  sense  is  6  fovffpoj  ^tdvatos 

:d  in  Rev.  ii.  11;  xx.  6,  14;  xxi.  8.  Vide 
Wetstein  on  Rev.  ii.  So,  too,  ota^poj,  artwtata, 
x.  -t.  X. 

From  these  various  senses  of  the  word  death 
theologians  have  taken  occasion  to  introduce  the 
division  of  death  into  temporal  or  bodily,  spiri- 
tual, (by  which  is  meant  a  state  of  sin  and  in- 


capacity for  virtue,)  and  eternal,  (the  punish- 
ments of  eternity.)  The  latter  is  what  is  other- 
wise called  the  second  death,  mors  secunda,  cujus 
nulla  est  finis,  as  Augustine  remarks.  Vide  s. 
79,  No.  2.  The  Bible,  too,  gives  the  name  of 
death  (mors  spiritualis}  to  the  state  of  sin,  inas- 
much as  it  is  (a)  an  unhappy  state,  and  (6)  a 
state  which  incapacitates  sinners  for  all  good- 
ness. Hence  sinners  are  said,  Ephes.  ii.  5; 
Col.  ii.  13,  to  be  vfxpol  fa  rtopcwtT'uytaot,  partly 
because  they  are  unhappy  in  consequence  of 
sin,  (vide  the  opposite,)  and  partly  because 
they  are  dead  to  all  goodness,  or  are  incapaci- 
tated for  it.  Hence,  too,  those  sinners  who  are 
secure,  ignorant,  and  regardless  of  the  misery 
and  danger  of  their  situation,  are  said  to  sleep, 
or  to  dream,  Jude,  ver.  8,  (i 


III.  The,  Universality  or  Unavoidableness  of  Death  ; 
also  a  Consideration  of  the  Question,  whether 
Death  is  the  Punishment  of  Sin,  and  how  far  it 
is  so. 

(1)  Death  is  universal  and  inevitable.     None 
in  the  present  state  are  excepted.     This  is  the 
uniform    declaration    of   scripture.     Ps.   xlix. 
8—12  ;  Ixxxix.  49  ;  Rom.  v.  12;  1  Cor.  xv.  22  ; 
Heb.  ix.  27.     Christ  himself  was  not  excepted 
from  this  general  lot  of  mortality,  (though  he 
submitted  to  it  of  his  own  accord,)  John,  x.  17, 
18;  since  Paul  declares,  Heb.  ii,  14,  seq.,  that 
he  became  man,  that  he  might  be  able  to  die  for 
our  good. 

Some  exceptions  to  this  general  lot  are  men- 
tioned in  scripture,  (a)  In  ancient  times, 
Enoch,  of  whom  it  was  said,  Gen.  v.  24,  that 
God  took  him,  because  he  led  a  pious  life.  Some 
of  the  fathers  incorrectly  understood  this  pas- 
sage to  mean,  that  he  died.  Cf.  Heb.  xi.  5. 
Elias  is  another  exception,  2  Kings,  ii.  11.  Si- 
milar narratives  are  found  among  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  from  which  we  learn  that  it  was 
a  common  notion  among  the  ancient  people  that 
men  who  were  especially  beloved  by  the  Deity 
were  removed  from  earth  to  heaven  alive,  or 
after  their  death.  (6)  In  future  times.  Those 
who  are  alive  at  the  day  of  judgment,  according 
to  Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  coll.  1  Thess.  iv.  15, 
shall  not  die,  (xo^^rjffoi/T'at,)  but  shall  be 
changed  (dxxoy^cjox'T'at)  —  i.  e.,  their  body,  with- 
out previous  dissolution,  (death,)  shall  be  en- 
nobled by  a  simple  renovation  or  change  ;  since 
this  mortal  body  is  incapable  of  the  enjoyment 
of  heavenly  blessedness  ;  ver.  50,  53,  54,  coll. 
2  Cor.  v.  2  —  4,  trfEt'Sraaa^at,  oix-fr^iov  E|  ovpavov, 
(to  be  clothed.) 

(2)  The  mortality  of  the  human  body  is  ex- 
pressly derived  in  the  record  of  Moses,  Gen.  ii. 
17,  also  chap,  iii.,  from  the  taste  of  the  forbid- 
den fruit,  or  of  the  poisonous  tree.     It  was  by 
this  means  that  our  first  parents  themselves  be- 
came mortal,  and  thus  propagated  their  disor- 


516 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


dered  and  dying  bodies  to  all  their  posterity. 
Vide  s.  74,  75,  78.  The  universality  and  un- 
avoidableness  of  death  is  therefore,  according 
to  the  scriptures,  the  result  and  consequence  of 
the  transgression  of  the  first  parents  of  the  hu- 
man race.  And  so,  in  all  cases,  the  Bible  de- 
rives death  from  the  sin  of  the  first  man.  Rom. 
v.  12,  "Through  one  man  came  sin  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death  became 
universal  among  men,  (sis  rtdvto,$  dw^pwtoDj 
Snjj£e.)"  1  Cor.  xv.  21. 

Here  the  question  is  thrown  out,  whether  the 
death  of  the  posterity  of  Mam  is  to  be  regarded 
as  the  punishment  of  his  sin  ?  To  this  the  an- 
swer commonly  given  by  theologians  is,  that 
with  regard  to  the  wicked,  death  is  to  be  re- 
garded in  the  light  of  a  punishment,  but  not  with 
regard  to  the  pious,  but  that  to  them,  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  a  benefit.  Since  as  the  latter  are, 
by  means  of  death,  translated  into  a  more  happy 
condition,  it  must  be  looked  upon  as  a  benefit 
as  far  as  they  are  concerned ;  and  so  the  scrip- 
ture represents  it.  Vide  s.  148.  Still  (a]  death 
does  not  cease  to  be  a  great  evil,  in  itself  consi- 
dered, to  the  whole  human  race,  and  even  to  the 
pious.  Hence  Paul  denominates  it  6  e>£poj,  1 
Cor.  xv.  26;  and  considers  it  one  of  the  cala- 
mities befalling  our  race,  with  regard  to  which 
even  the  pious  man  cannot  be  indifferent.  He 
says  expressly,  2  Cor.  v.  4,  that  even  to  the 
Christian  it  is  no  pleasant  thing  to  be  unclothed 
— i.  e.,  stripped  of  his  body  by  death ;  but  that 
he  would  rather  be  clothed  upon — i.  e.,  be  in- 
vested with  his  heavenly  body  immediately, 
without  the  intervention  of  death.  (6)  When 
it  is  said  that  death,  in  the  posterity  of  Adam, 
is  the  punishment  which  they  must  undergo  on 
account  of  his  transgression,  the  term  punish- 
ment is  used  in  that  general  sense  in  which  it 
is  employed  in  common  life,  and  often  in  the 
scriptures.  But  if  it  be  taken  in  the  strict  phi- 
losophical sense,  (in  which  punishment  always 
presupposes  persona/ guilt,)  death  can  be  proper- 
ly called  the  punishment  of  sin  only  in  reference 
to  our  first  parents  themselves ;  with  regard  to 
others,  it  is  indeed  the  consequence  and  result  of 
the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  but  not  properly  its 
punishment.  Vide  s.  76,  III.,  s.  78,  III.  3,  &c. 
This  was  remarked  by  many  of  the  church  fa- 
thers, especially  before  the  time  of  Augustine ; 
and  they  therefore  objected  to  calling  the  death 
of  the  posterity  of  Adam  the  punishment  of  sin. 
Vide  s.  79,  No.  1,  2.  (c)  When  it  is  said  of 
Christ  that  he  frees  or  redeems  men  from  (bo- 
dily) death,  the  meaning  is,  that  men  owe  it  to 
him,  in  general,  that  the  terrors  of  death  are 
mitigated  with  regard  to  those  who  believe  on 
him;  and  in  particular,  that  our  bodies  are  re- 
stored at  the  resurrection.  Cf.  John,  xi.  25, 
26.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  redcmtio  a 
morte  corporalipcr  Christum,  s.  120,  coll.  s.  Ill, 


II.  1.  From  the  necessity  itself  of  dying  we 
could  not  be  freed,  unless  God  should  produce 
an  entirely  new  race  of  men.  Cf.  Cotta,  Theses 
Theologicee  de  Novissimis,  Speciatim  de  Morte 
Naturali;  Tubingen,  1762.  [Also  the  treatise 
of  Dr.  Wm.  Bates, "  On  the  Four  Last  Things," 
and  particularly  on  Death,"  chap.  iii.  and  iv. — 
TR.] 

SECTION  CXLVIII. 

OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CONTINU- 
ANCE OF  THE  HUMAN  SOUL,  AND  ITS  STATE 
AFTER  DEATH. 

IT  is  the  doctrine  of  Christ  that  the  life  of 
man  is  not  bounded  by  this  earthly  state,  but 
that,  although  he  does  not  exist  solely  for  the 
future,  his  life  extends  into  eternity.  The  ge- 
neral doctrine  of  the  Bible  respecting  the  desti- 
nation of  man,  as  a  rational  and  moral  being, 
has  been  already  exhibited  in  the  Article  on  the 
Creation  of  Man,  s.  51,  II.;  and  it  was  there 
shewn  to  be  holiness,  and  temporal  and  eternal 
happiness  standing  in  the  most  intimate  con- 
nexion with  it.  The  superiority  of  our  know- 
ledge of  the  state  of  man  after  death,  in  compa- 
rison with  that  possessed  by  the  ancient  world, 
is  not  to  be  ascribed  so  much  to  the  progress  of 
science  as  to  the  work  of  Christ,  and  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Christian  doctrine.  Those  who 
lived  before  Christ  were  not  indeed  wholly  des- 
titute of  knowledge  respecting  this  important 
truth  ;  indeed,  many  heathens,  both  before  and 
after  the  time  of  Christ,  suggested  very  import- 
ant arguments  in  behalf  of  immortality ;  still 
they  were  unable  to  attain  to  anything  more 
than  a  high  degree  of  probability  on  this  subject. 
Vide  s.  149.  Every  impartial  man  must  concede 
that  Christ  has  high  claims  to  gratitude  for  what 
he  has  done  in  relation  to  this  subject,  even  if  he 
does  not  allow  that  he  has  disclosed  anything 
new  with  regard  to  the  future  state  of  man. 

(1)  He  has  connected  this  truth  most  inti- 
mately with  the  other  practical  truths  of  religion, 
and  referred  all  the  rest  to  this  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  no  teacher  before  him  ever  did.  And 
now,  any  one  who  acknowledges  the  divine 
authority  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, obtains  a  satisfactory  certainty  respecting 
this  doctrine,  which  at  best  can  be  rendered  only 
highly  probable  by  the  light  of  nature.  And 
from  believing  this  doctrine,  all  religion  comes 
to  possess  for  him  a  new  interest;  and  he  finds 
in  it  the  greatest  consolation  in  sufferings  and 
hardships  of  all  kinds — the  most  effectual  en- 
couragement to  holiness,  and  the  greatest  dis- 
suasive from  sin. 

Note. — The  strongest  philosophical  proofs  in 
behalf  of  immortality  are  derived  from  the  im- 
possibility of  reconciling  the  destruction  of  the 
whole  man  with  the  object  of  his  existence,  and 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      517 


with  the  divine  attributes.  Vide  s.  149.  But 
a  satisfactory  certainty  on  this  subject,  and  a 
conviction  of  the  truth  of  immortality  raised 
above  all  doubt,  cannot  be  attained  in  this  way. 
For  the  simple  fact  that  we,  by  our  reason,  can- 
not reconcile  any  two  things,  does  not  prove 
that  they  are  irreconcilable;  nor  can  we  con- 
clude as  to  the  reality  of  anything,  merely  from 
the  fact  that  it  is  to  be  wished  for  by  us.  Cf. 
Seneca,  who  says,  Ep.  102,  Philosophi  rem 
hanc  gratissimam  PROMITTUNT,  magis  quam 

PROBANT. 

(2)  By  the  plain  instruction  which  Christ 
has  given  respecting  this  subject,  and  the  obvi- 
ous reasons  he  has  adduced  for  it,  he  has  made 
it  universally  intelligible,  and  in  a  very  high 
degree  comprehensible,  even  by  the  great  mass 
of  mankind.  He  has  done  this  especially  by 
the  connexion  in  which  he  has  placed  it  with 
the  history  of  his  own  person,  by  which  every- 
thing is  rendered  more  obvious,  and  receives  a 
greater  and  more  lively  interest.  Vide  s.  120. 
rlence  the  remark  of  Paul,  2  Tim.  i.  10,  is  very 
rue,  that  Christ  by  his  doctrine  has  taken  away 
he  power  of  death,  so  that  it  is  no  more  to  be 
feared ;  he  has  made  us  certain  of  blessedness, 
and  for  the  first  time  placed  the  doctrine  of  eter- 
nal life  (£co»;  xa,i  cw^optfu*)  in  a  clear  light  (<j>wn- 
.  Cf.  Einiges,  Ueber  das  Verdienst  der 
christlichen  Religion  urn  die  Lehre  von  der 
Jnsterblichkeit  der  Seele ;  Flensburg  und  Leip- 
zig, 1788,  8vo. 

The  following  are  the  chief  points  of  Chris- 
ian  instruction  respecting  the  life  of  the  soul 
after  death : — 

I.  Scripture  Proof  of  Immortality,  and  what  is 
implied  in  it. 

In  death,  the  body  only  dies ;  but  the  soul 
survives  the  body,  and  lives  on  uninterruptedly, 
and  is  immortal.  Here  belongs  the  text,  Matt. 
x.  28,  where  Christ  says  that  tyrants  and  per-' 
secutors  have  power  only  over  the  body,  and 
can  kill  that  only,  but  have  no  power  to  kill  the 
soul,  over  which  God  alone  has  rule  and  power. 
Again,  Luke,  xvi.  19,  the  parable  of  the  rich 
man  and  Lazarus,  ver.  22,  23,  seq. ;  Luke,  xx. 
38,  "  God  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the 
iving."  Also  many  passages  in  John,  in  which 
fesus  promises  an  immortality,  and  that  too  of 
>lessedness,  to  his  true  followers,  and  assures 
hem  that  in  death  their  souls  shall  not  perish — 
?.  g.,  John,  v.  24 ;  viii.  51 ;  chap.  xi. ;  xii.  24 — 
26 ;  xiv.  2,  3,  where  he  says  that  in  his  father's 
louse  there  are  many  mansions,  and  that,  he 
was  going  to  prepare  a  place  for  them,  and  to 
>ring  them  thither  unto  himself,  (by  death.) 
/f.  the  promise  given  to  the  malefactor  on  the 
cross,  Luke,  xxiii.  43. 

But  he  always  connects  this  doctrine  with 
that  respecting  his  own  person.  He  it  is  to 


whom  we  are  indebted  for  this  truth ;  without 
him  we  should  not  have  had  it.  He  is  the  pur- 
chaser and  the  giver  of  life,  and  of  a  blessed 
immortality ;  whoever  believes  in  him,  although 
he  may  die,  yet  lives ;  John,  xi.  25,  26.  With 
this  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles  agrees.  Vide 
2  Cor.  v.  1—10;  2  Tim.  i.  10;  1  Thess.  iv.  13, 
seq.;  Phil.  i.  23;  1  Pet.  iv.  6,  departed  Chris- 
tians (vExpot)  are  regarded  by  men  as  evil-doers, 
and  as  miserable  persons,  who  have  been  justly 
persecuted  and  punished;  but  their  spirit  is 
introduced  by  God  into  a  happy  life.  So  Matt. 
x.  28. 

It  pertains  essentially  to  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  that  our  self-consciousness  will  remain, 
and  that  we  shall  then  have  the  conviction  that 
our  state  after  death  is  the  consequence  of  the 
life  that  now  is;  as  the  parable,  Luke,  xvi.  22, 
seq.,  plainly  shews.  Cf.  Luke,  xx.  27,  and 
John,  viii.  56,  'AjSpaa^ — fibs  trp>  rjpspav  trjv 
£>^v,  xai  e%dpy.  C/.  also  2  Cor.  v.  8,  9,  and 
the  other  texts  cited  by  Morus,  s.  2,  note. 

The  doctrine  respecting  the.  sleep  of  the  soul 
does  not  agree  with  the  declarations  of  Christ, 
and  is  directly  opposed  to  them.  Some  have 
maintained  that  the  soul  after  death  remains,  for 
a  time  at  least,  in  a  state  of  insensibility  and 
unconsciousness,  which  they  compare  with 
sleep.  Vide  s.  150,  where  some  of  the  texts  to 
which  they  appeal  are  examined.  "They  sup- 
pose that  it  is  first  awakened  from  this  sleep  at 
the  last  day,  when  it  is  reunited  to  the  body. 
The  state  in  which  they  suppose  the  soul  to  be 
in  the  meantime  is  called  lethargus,  and  those 
who  hold  this  doctrine  are  called  vrtvo^vwtal, 
and  those  who  wholly  deny  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  ^vzoftawvxrtai,.  They  support  their 
doctrine  in  part  by  an  appeal  to  some  figurative 
representations  in  the  holy  scriptures  respecting 
the  kingdom  of  the  dead,  by  which  it  is  set  forth 
as  the  land  of  silence,  darkness,  and  forgetful- 
ness;  and  in  part  by  the  common  experience 
that  our  souls  do  not  feel  and  receive  sensations 
except  through  the  body  and  the  organs  of  sense, 
and  that  when  the  brain  is  injured,  conscious- 
ness and  memory  often  wholly  disappear.  To 
this  it  is  justly  objected,  that  it  is  impossible  to 
conclude,  without  the  greatest  fallacy,  merely 
from  the  present  constitution  of  man,  in  which 
soul  and  body  are  intimately  connected,  how  it 
will  be  hereafter,  when  the  soul  and  body  shall 
have  been  entirely  separated. 

Christ  and  the  apostles  held  no  principles 
that  could  lead  to  the  doctrine  of  the  sleep  of  the 
soul.  They  rather  regarded  the  earthly  body 
which  we  inherit  as  the  nearest  spring  and 
source  of  human  depravity,  and  of  the  sins  aris- 
ing from  it,  and  of  all  consequent  pain  and  mi- 
sery. Vide  s.  77,  II.  According  to  this  doc- 
trine we  obtain  by  death  a  release  from  many 
sufferings;  the  disembodied  spirit  can  exert  its 
2X 


518 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


energies  more  freely  than  before,  and  enters 
upon  a  far  greater  and  wider  sphere  of  action. 
Cf.  Rom.  viii.  23,  arto^v'fpua^  tov  utOjii.aT'of, 
Rom.  vii.  5,  18,  23,  24,  cfw^a  $avdtov,  1  John, 
iii.  2.  Vigilantius,  in  the  fifth  century,  was  ac- 
cused, though  unjustly,  by  Hieronymus,  of 
holding  this  opinion  respecting  the  sleep  of  the 
soul.  In  the  twelfth  century  it  was  condemned 
by  Innocent  III.  In  the  sixteenth  century  it 
was  advocated  again  by  some  anabaptists  and 
Socinians,  and  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries,  by  Christopher  Artobe,  John  Heyn, 
and  others. 

II.  T/ie  Connexion  of  the  Life  to  Come  with  the 
Present. 

On  this  point,  Christ  and  the  apostles  teach, 

(1)  That  the  life  after  death  is  an  immediate 
continuation  of  the  present  life.     The  soul  is 
not  altered  in  death,  but  takes  along  with  it  its 
dispositions,  its  habits,  and  whole  tendency, 
into  the  future  world.     The  life  to  come,  taken 
in  connexion  with  the  present,  make  together 
one  whole,  even  as  manhood  is  only  the  conti- 
nuation of  youth.   Morus  justly  observes,  tenore 
continue  nectifinem  vitx  et  initia  futurae  sortis. 

(2)  That  the  life  to  come  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  consequence  of  the  present,  since  the  conse- 
quences of  all  our  present  dispositions,  inclina- 
tions, and  actions,  continue  there.     Death  de- 
termines the  destiny  of  men  in  the  future  world. 
It  is  here  that  man  lays  the  foundation  either 
for  his  future  happiness  or  misery  ;  this  is  the 
state  of  probation,  that  of  retribution.     All  this 
is  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  sometimes 
literally,  and  at  other  times  figuratively  —  e.  g., 
it  is  sometimes  represented  under  the  image  of 
sowing  and  reaping,  a  contest,  and  the  crowning, 
&c.     Vide  Luke,  xvi.  25;   Hebrews,  ix.  27; 
Rom.  ii.  5—12;  2  Cor.  iv.  7;  v.  10;  1  Tim. 
vi.  18,  19;  Gal.  vi.  7,  10,  "What  a  man  sows, 
that  shall  he  also  reap;    he  that  follows  his 
carnal  appetites  shall  reap  $&opav;    the  pious 
Christian, 


III.  The  Intermediate  State  between  Death  and  the 
Judgment. 

The  restoration  of  the  body  (the  raising  of 
the  dead)  will  not  take  place  until  the  end  of 
the  world,  the  last  day  of  the  present  constitu- 
tion of  things  —  a  period  which  no  one  knows 
beforehand.  Vide  s.  151,  seq.  And  then  will 
every  one,  for  the  first  time,  receive  the  full 
measure  of  reward  or  punishment  allotted  him, 
according  to  his  conduct  in  the  present  life. 
Vide  Luke,  x.  12;  Rom.  ii.  16  ;  2  Cor.  v.  10. 

Before  this  time  shall  arrive,  the  disembodied 
spirit  will  be  in  a  certain  intermediate  state. 
The  exact  nature  of  this  state  is  not  indeed  par- 
ticularly described  to  us,  and  we  are  unable 


even  to  conceive  of  it  distinctly;  but  so  much  ! 
the   Bible  plainly   teaches,   that    immediately  J 
after  death  the  soul  passes  into  that  state  for 
which,  from  the  nature  of  its  previous  life,  it  is  i 
prepared,     immediately  after  death,  retribution  ! 
begins ;  the  pious  are  happy,  and  the  wicked  , 
miserable,  each  in  exact  proportion  to  his  feel-  ' 
ings   and   actions.     Vide   Luke,  xvi.  22 — 25,  ! 
(the  parable  respecting  Lazarus.)     This  truth,  j 
too,  is  always  placed  by  Christ  himself  and  his  ' 
apostles  in  intimate  connexion  with  his  own  ! 
person — e.  g.,  Luke,  xxiii.  43,  «« To  day  shalt 
thou  be  with  me  in  paradise."     Phil.  i.  23, 
xai  ovv  XptST^  slvcu ;  2  Cor.  v.  8,  Ix- 
EX  Hov  ffoyiaT'oj,  xai  Ev8fyiq6ai  jtpoj  -fbv 
Kvptoi/. 

In  what  the  rewards  and  punishments  of  this  ' 
intermediate  state  will  consist  cannot  be  deter- 
mined, nor  whether,  in  addition  to  those  which 
are  natural — the  necessary  consequences  of  ac- 
tion and  feeling, — there  will  also  be,  even  then, 
those  which  are  positive  and  result  from  the  free 
appointment  of  God.    As  to  those  who  are  lost,  i 
the  Bible  teaches  us  only  this,  that  their  pu-  i 
nishment — their  whole  state  of  misery — will  | 
commence  immediately  after  death ;  Luke,  xvi. 
22,  seq.     And  for  this  we  have  the  analogy  of 
what  the  New  Testament  teaches  respecting 
the  miserable  intermediate  state  of  the  evil  spi- 
rits, which  will  last  until  the  day  of  judgment,  i 
2  Pet.  ii.  4 ;  Jude,  7.    Vide  s.  63.    For  the  fate  i 
of  lost  men  is  described  as  one  and  the  same 
with  that  of  evil  spirits.     Vide  Matthew,  xxv.  \ 
41.    On  the  other  hand,  the  happy  intermediate  | 
state  of  the  pious  commences  also  immediately 
after  death.    The  texts  in  proof  of  this  are  cited 
by  Morus,  p.  289,  s.  1,  note  2.     Their  blessed- 
ness is  likened  to  that  of  the  holy  angels  ;  hence 
they   are    called  by  Jesus   himself  t(jayyf7.ot,  | 
Luke,  xx.  36. 

Since,  now,  the  destiny  of  man  is  decided  im- 
mediately after  death,  and  since  among  men  I 
such  a  decision  is  usually  made  by  a  judgment  j 
and  sentence,  there  is  no  more  proper  way  of  re-  j 
presenting  this  arrangement  of  God  with  re- 
spect to  the  future  destiny  of  men  than  by  com- 
paring it  with  a  judgment,  since  it  has  the 
same  effect  as  a  formal  judgment.     This  has 
given  occasion  to  the  division  of  judgment  into 
particular  or  preceding  (judicium  particulare, 
or  antecedens") ,   which   denotes  nothing   more 
than  the  determining  of  the  fate  of  men  imme- 
diately after  death ;  and  universal  or  subsequent,  ' 
(judicium  universale,  or  consequens.)     It  is  re-  : 
specting  the  former  that  Paul  speaks,  Heb.  ix.  i 
27,  "  It  is  appointed  to  all  men  once  to  die,  ! 
^ra  8s  tovto  *p<W — i'  e.,  then  follows  the  | 
determination  of  their  destiny,  whether  it  shall  ' 
be  happy  or  miserable.    Cf.  2  Cor.  v.  10.    The  ; 
Pharisees  also,  according  to  Josephus,  (Antiq.  | 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       519 


xviii.  2,)  taught  that  the  soul  is  immortal,  and 
after  death  is  judged  under  the  earth,  and  re- 
warded or  punished  according1  to  its  works. 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, therefore,  there  is  no  third  place,  or  me- 
dium, between  heaven  and  hell,  or  between 
being  happy  and  miserable,  although  there  are 
very  different  degrees  both  of  the  one  and  of  the 
other.  The  intermediate  condition  of  which 
we  have  spoken  must  not  be  understood  to  im- 
ply anything  like  this.  Still  an  opinion  like 
this  got  footing  very  early  in  the  Christian 
church.  Vide  s.  150.  And  this  gave  rise  to  the 
custom  of  praying  for  the  dead,  since  men  were 
foolish  enough  to  imagine  that  there  is  room  to 
obtain  an  alteration  in  the  yet  undecided  destiny 
of  departed  spirits,  while  in  truth  their  destiny 
must  depend  solely  upon  their  own  actions 
during  the  present  life.  This  custom  had  be- 
come very  general  in  the  fourth  century,  and 
was  at  that  time  opposed  by  Aerius,  presbyter 
of  Pontus,  as  we  learn  from  the  testimony  of 
Epiphanius,  (Haer.  75,)  who  is  very  indignant 
against  him  on  this  account.  It  was  also  op- 
posed by  the  Spanish  presbyter,  Vigilantius,  in 
the  fifth  century,  in  reply  to  whom  Hieronymus 
wrote  a  violent  book.  This  doctrine  was  after- 
wards brought  into  connexion  with  that  respect- 
ing purgatory,  (vide  s.  150 ;)  and  then  followed 
masses  for  souls,  as  sacrifices  for  the  departed. 
There  are  also  some  traces  of  prayers  for  the 
dead  even  among  the  Grecian  Jews — e.  g.,  2 
Mace.  xii.  43 — 46,  vrtep  vixpwv  jtpoasv%ka^tat. 

Note. — From  what  has  now  been  said,  it  ap- 
pears that  death,  so  far  as  it  is  the  transition  to 
a  higher  and  more  perfect  life,  and  the  means 
of  bringing  us  to  the  enjoyment  of  it,  ought  not 
to  be  terrible  to  us,  but  should  rather  be  regard- 
ed as  a  benefit.  Those  only,  however,  can  re- 
gard it  in  this  light  who  have  lived  here  accord- 
ing to  their  destination,  who  have  obtained  the 
forgiveness  of  their  sins  (Stxatov/ifyot),  and  who 
go  out  of  the  world  with  pious  and  godly  dis- 
positions. Vide  2  Cor.  v.  6—10;  Phil.  i.  21, 
23;  John,  xiv.  1—4;  1  John,  iii.  2,  3;  1  Peter, 
i.  4,  5,  &c. 

SECTION  CXLIX. 

HISTORICAL  ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE  VARIOUS  OPI- 
NIONS WHICH  HAVE  PREVAILED  IN  ANCIENT 
AND  MODERN  TIMES  RESPECTING  THE  CONTI- 
NUANCE OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER  DEATH  ;  AND  THE 
PROOFS  DRAWN  FROM  REASON  IN  FAVOUR  OF  IT. 

I.  Ideas  of  Rude  Nations. 

THE  ideas  of  most  rude  heathen  nations  re- 
specting the  state  of  man  after  death  are  indeed 
dark  and  obscure,  as  well  as  their  ideas  respect- 
ing the  nature  of  the  soul  itself,  which  they  re- 
gard as  a  kind  of  aerial  substance,  resembling 


the  body,  though  of  a  finer  material.  Vide  s. 
51,  I.  3.  Still  it  is  found  that  the  greater  part 
of  mankind,  even  of  those  who  are  entirely  un- 
cultivated, though  they  may  be  incapable  of  the 
higher  philosophical  idea  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  are  yet  inclined  to  believe  that  the  soul 
survives  the  body,  and  continues  either  for  ever, 
or  at  least  for  a  long  time.  Their  susceptibility 
for  this  faith,  and  their  inclination  to  it,  depend 
upon  the  following  circumstances — viz., 

(1)  Upon  the  love  of  life.,  which  is  deeply 
planted  in  the  human  breast,  and  operates  pow- 
erfully, and  leads  to  the  wish  and  hope  that  life 
will  be  continued  even  beyond  the  grave. 

(2)  Besides  the  traditions  in  behalf  of  this 
faith  which  uncultivated  nations  received  trans- 
mitted from  their  fathers,  they  often  had  dreams, 
in  which  the  dead  appeared  to  them  speaking 
and  acting;  and  in  this  way  they  found  their 
wishes,  and  the   traditions  they  had  received 
from  their  fathers,  confirmed  anew,  so  that  the 
hope  of  immortality  was  always  sustained  in 
them,  and  never  extinguished.     Thus  Homer 
represents  (II.  xxiii.  103,  seq.,)  that  Achilles 
first  became  convinced  that  souls  and  shadowy 
forms  have  a  real  existence  in  the  kingdom  of 
shades,  by  the  appearance  to  him  of  the  depart- 
ed Patroclus  in  a  dream.     So  too  it  is  repre- 
sented in  the  parable  of  Christ,  Luke,  xvi.  27, 
where  the  rich  man  wished  that  Lazarus  might 
be  sent  to  appear  before  his  living  brethren, 
since  if  one  of  the  dead  should  teach  them  re- 
specting the  state  and  destiny  of  the  dead,  they 
would  believe.     Moreover,  these  visions  were 
often  regarded  as  divine, — orap  tx  A^s  taft,  II. 
i.  63. 

But  we  find  that  many  heathen  nations,  long 
before  they  had  any  philosophy,  or  enjoyed  the 
light  of  revelation,  or  before  they  endeavoured 
to  prove  the  immortality  of  the  soul  by  argu- 
ments drawn  from  reason,  still  possessed  a  firm 
belief  of  the  continuance  of  the  soul.  So  it  was 
with  the  Egyptians,  the  Indians,  the  Thracians, 
the  Celtae,  the  ancient  Germans,  the  ancient 
Greeks  and  Romans,  and  so  it  is  with  many  of 
the  rude  heathen  nations  of  our  times.  Vide 
Meiners,  Geschichte  aller  Religionem,  s.  174,  f. 
Hence  we  find  necromancy  practised  among  the 
most  barbarous  people  of  all  ages ;  (vide  s.  66 ;) 
and  the  prevalence  of  this  presupposes,  of 
course,  a  belief  in  the  existence  of  the  soul  be- 
yond the  grave.  Vide  Scripta  Varii  Argumenti, 
Number  iii.,  "  Origo  opinionum  de  immortali- 
tate  animorum  apud  nationes  barbaras  atque  a 
cultu  veri  Dei  alienas." 

II.  Ideas  of  the  Jewish  Nation. 

(1)  Many  have  maintained  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  is  not  taught  in 
the  Old  Testament.  This  was  especially  main- 
tained by  many  Socinian  writers  of  the  sixteenth 


520 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


and  seventeenth  centuries.  Others  have  gone 
so  far  as  to  construe  the  supposed  silence  of  the 
Old-Testament  writers  on  this  subject  into  a 
formal  denial  of  the  doctrine,  and  have  attempt- 
ed to  justify  their  opinion  by  some  texts  in 
which  it  seems  to  be  said  that  all  is  over  with 
man  at  his  death — e.  g.,  Eccl.  iii.  19.  seq. ;  Is. 
xxxviii.  18;  Ps.  vi.  6;  xxx.  10;  Ixxxviii.  11; 
cxv.  17;  Job,  vii.  7 — 10;  x.  20 — 22;  xiv. 
7—12;  xv.  22.  The  Fragmentist  of  Wolfen- 
biittel  attacked  the  divine  authority  of  the  Jew- 
ish religion  in  the  most  odious  manner  by  these 
objections.  Cf.  the  fourth  Fragment  from  Les- 
sing's  Beytriigen  zur  Geschichte  und  Literatur 
aus  der  wolfentiittel'schen  Bibliothek,  th.  iv.  s. 
484,  f.  On  the  other  hand,  Warburton  (Divine 
Legation  of  Moses)  derived  one  of  his  main 
proofs  of  the  divine  mission  of  Moses  from  this 
his  supposed  silence  on  the  subject  of  immorta- 
lity. Moses,  he  argues,  being  sustained  in  his 
legislation  and  government  by  immediate  divine 
authority,  had  not  the  same  necessity  that  other 
teachers  have  for  making  use  of  threatenings 
and  punishments  drawn  from  the  future  world, 
in  order  to  furnish  motives  to  obedience. 

(2)  But  even  if  it  were  true  that  there  is  no 
text,  either  in  the  books  of  Moses  or  the  writ- 
ings of  a  subsequent  period,  in  which  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  is  distinctly  mentioned,  it 
would  by  no  means  follow  that  this  idea  was  at 
that  time  wholly  unknown  among  the  Israelites. 
Even  from  this  supposition  we  must  draw  the 
contrary  conclusion.     For,  not  to  mention  that 
the  Israelites  and  their  ancestors  were  in  Egypt, 
where  this  faith  was  very  ancient,  (according 
to  Herodotus,  ii.  123,  the  Egyptians  were  the 
first  who  entertained  it,)  it  is  proved  that  the 
Jews  held  this  doctrine  (a)  From  the  laws  of 
Moses  against  necromancy,  or  the  invocation  of 
the  dead,  which  was  very  commonly  practised 
by  the  Canaanites  also,  (Deut.  xviii.  9 — 12,) 
and  which,  notwithstanding  these  laws,  was 
for  a  long  time  afterwards  retained  among  the 
Israelites,  as  appears  from  1  Sam.  xxviii.,  and 
the  prophets,    (i)  From  the  appropriate  ancient 
Hebrew  name  for  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  Sisir 
(a8>?s),  which  so  often  occurs  in  Moses  and  the 
other  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  That  Moses 
did  not  in  his  laws  hold  up  the  punishments 
of  the  future  world  to  the  terror  of  transgressors, 
is  a  circumstance  which  redounds  to  his  praise, 
and  cannot  be  alleged  against  him  as  a  matter 
of  reproach,  since  other  legislators  have  been  re- 
proached with  being  either  deluded,  or  them- 
selves impostors  for  doing  this  very  thing.   And 
Moses  did  not  design  to  give  a  system  of  theo- 
logy in  his  laws. 

(3)  But  from  passages  in  his  writings  it  may 
be  seen  that  this  doctrine  was  not  unknown  to 
him.     These  passages  have  been  collected  by 
different  writers  with  different  success.     Vide 


Michaelis,  Argumenta  pro  Immortalitate  Animi 
e  Mose  Collecta,  in  Syntagm.  Comment,  t.  i. ; 
Gottingen,  1759.  Liiderwald,  Untersuchung 
von  der  Kenntniss  eines  kiinftigen  Lebens  im 
Alten  Testamente ;  Helmstadt,  1781.  Semler, 
BeantwortungderFragendeswolfenbiittel'schen 
Ungenannten.  Seiler,  Obserr,  ad  psychologiam 
sacram;  Erlangen,  1779. 

The  following  texts  from  the  writings  of 
Moses  may  be  regarded  as  indications  of  the 
doctrine  of  immortality — viz.,  Gen.  v.  22,  24, 
where  it  is  said  respecting  Enoch,  that  because 
he  lived  a  pious  life,  God  took  him,  so  that  he  was 
no  more  among  men.  This  was  designed  to  be 
the  reward  and  consequence  of  his  pious  life, 
and  it  points  to  an  invisible  life  with  God,  to 
which  he  attained  without  previously  suffering 
death.  Vide  s.  147,  iii.  1.  Gen.  xxxvii.  35, 
Jacob  says,  "I  will  go  down  into  SifXtf  unto  my 
son."  We  have  here  distinctly  exhibited  the 
idea  of  a  place  where  the  dead  dwell  connected 
together  in  a  society ;  vide  s.  150.  In  conformity 
with  this  idea  we  must  explain  the  phrase  to  go 
to  his  fathers,  Gen.  xv.  15;  or,  to  be  gathered  to 
his  people,  (more  correctly,  to  enter  into  their 
habitation  or  abode,}  Gen.  xxv.  8,  xxxv.  29; 
Num.  xx.  24,  &c.  In  the  same  way  many  of  the 
tribes  of  North- American  savages  express  their 
expectation  of  an  immortality  beyond  the  grave, 
by  saying  respecting  one  who  is  dead,  that  he 
will  now  see  his  father,  grandfather,  great- 
grandfather, &c. 

Paul  argues  from  the  text,  Gen.  xlvii.  9,  and 
similar  passages,  where  Jacob  calls  his  life  a 
journey,  that  the  patriarchs  expected  a  life  after 
death,  Heb.  xi.  13 — 16.  Only  he  says,  very 
truly,  rtdjj/jco^fv  Ibovtfs  TO.J  irtayytfaus-  In 
Matt.  xxii.  23,  Christ  refers,  in  arguing  against 
the  Sadducees,  to  Ex.  iii.  6,  where  Jehovah  calls 
himself  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
(i.  e.,  their  protector  and  the  object  of  their 
worship,)  long  after  their  death.  It  could  not  be 
that  their  ashes  and  their  dust  should  worship 
God  ;  hence  he  concludes  that  they  themselves 
could  not  have  ceased  to  exist,  but  that,  as  to 
their  souls,  they  still  lived.  Cf.  Heb.  xi.  13—17. 
And  this  passage  was  interpreted  in  the  same 
way  by  the  Jews  after  the  time  of  Christ.  Vide 
Wetstein,  ad.  h.  1. 

In  t>e  subsequent  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment the  texts  of  this  nature  are  far  more  nu- 
merous. Still  more  definite  descriptions  are 
given  of  SiSv:,  and  the  condition  of  the  departed 
there;  e.  g.,  Is.  xiv.  9,  seq.,  also  in  the  Psalms 
and  in  Job.  Vide  s.  150.  Even  in  these  texts, 
however,  the  doctrine  of  the  reward  of  the  right- 
eous and  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  in  the 
kingdom  of  the  dead  is  not  so  clearly  developed 
as  it  is  in  the  New  Testament;  this  is  true  even 
of  the  book  of  Job.  Vide  s.  151.  All  that  we 
find  here  with  respect  to  this  point  is  only 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       521 


bscure  intimation,  so  that  the  Pauline  ytbpfa&sv 
VTSS  is  applicable,  in  relation  to  this  doctrine, 
the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  well 
s  to  those  of  Moses.     In  the  Psalms  there  are 
ome  plain  allusions  to  the  expectation  of  reward 
nd  punishment  after  death,  particularly  Ps.  xvii. 
5;xlix.  15,  16;  Ixxiii.  24.  There  are  some  pas- 
ages  in  the  prophets  where  a  revimcation  of  the 
ead  is  spoken  of,  as  Is.  xxvi.  19 ;  Dan.  xii.  2 ; 
]zek.  xxvii.     But  although  these  do  not  teach 
literal  resurrection  of  the  dead,  but  rather  re- 
er  to  the  restoration  of  the  nation  and  land,  still 
lese  and   all    such   figurative  representations 
resuppose  the  proper  idea  that  an  invisible  part 
f  man  survives  the  body,  and  will  be  hereafter 
nited  to  it.     Very  clear  is  also  the  passage 
ccl.  xii.  7,  "The  body  must  return  to  the  earth 
om  whence  it  was  taken,  but  the  spirit  to  God 
ho  gave  it,"  evidently  alluding  to  Gen.  iii.  19. 
From  all  this  we  draw  the  conclusion  that  the 
octrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  was  not 
nknown  to  the  Jews   before  the  Babylonian 
xile.   This  appears  also  from  the  fact  that  a  ge- 
eral  expectation  existed  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ents  in  the  future  world;  although,  in  corri- 
arison  with  what  was  afterwards  taught  on  this 
oint,  there  was  at  that  time  very  little  definitely 
nown  respecting  it,  and  the  doctrine,  therefore, 
ood  by  no  means  in  that  near  relation  to  reli- 
on  and  morality  into  which  it  was  afterwards 
rought,  as  we  see  to  be  the  fact  often  in  other 
holly  uncultivated  nations.     Hence  this  doe- 
ine  is  not  so  often  used  by  the  prophets  as  a 
motive  to  righteousness,  or  to  deter  men  from 
evil,  or  to  console  them  in  the  midst  of  suffering. 
But  on  this  very  account  the  piety  of  these  an- 
cient saints  deserves  the  more  regard  and  admi- 
ration.    It  was  in  a  high  degree  unpretending 
and  disinterested.     And  although  the  prospect 
of  what  lies  beyond  the  grave  was  very  indis- 
tinct in  their  view,  and  although,  as  Paul  said, 
they  saw  the  promised  blessings  only  from  afar, 
they  yet  had  pious  dispositions,  and  trusted  God. 
They  held  merely  to  the  general  promise,  that 
God  their  Father  would  cause  it  to  be  well  with 
them  even  after  death.     Psalm  Ixxiii.  26,  28, 
"When  my  strength  and  my  heart  faileth,  God 
will  be  the  strength  of  my  heart,  and  my  portion 
for  ever." 

But  it  was  not  until  after  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity that  the  ideas  of  the  Jews  on  this  subject 
appear  to  have  become  enlarged,  and  that  this 
doctrine  was  brought  by  the  prophets,  under  the 
divine  guidance,  into  a  more  immediate  con- 
nexion with  religion.  This  result  becomes  very 
apparent  after  the  reign  of  the  Grecian  kings 
over  Syria  and  Egypt,  and  their  persecutions  of 
the  Jews.  The  prophets  and  teachers  living  at 
that  time  (of  whose  writings,  however,  nothing 
has  come  down  to  us)  must  therefore  have  given 
to  their  nation,  time  after  time,  more  instruction 
66 


upon  this  subject,  and  must  have  explained  and 
unfolded  the  allusions  to  it  in  the  earlier  pro- 
phets. And  so  we  find  that  after  this  time,  more 
frequently  than  before,  the  Jews  sought  and 
found  in  this  doctrine  of  immortality  and  of  fu- 
ture retribution,  consolation  and  encouragement 
under  their  trials,  and  a  motive  to  piety.  Such 
discourses  were  therefore  frequently  put  in  the 
mouths  of  the  martyrs  in  the  second  Book  of 
Maccabees — e.  g.,  vi.  26;  vii.  9,  seq.,  coll.  xii. 
43—45.  Cf.  also  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  ii.  1, 
seq.;  and  especially  iii.  1,  seq.,  and  the  other 
apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

At  the  time  of  Christ  and  afterwards  this  doc- 
trine was  universally  received  and  taught  by  the 
Pharisees,  and  was  indeed  the  prevailing  belief 
among  the  Jews;  as  is  well  known  from  the 
testimony  of  the  New  Testament,  of  Joseph  us, 
and  also  of  Philo.  Tacitus  also  notices  this 
firm  belief  of  the  Jews  in  the  immortality  of  the 
soul.  In  his  history  (ver.  5)  he  says,  animas 
prcclio  aut  suppliciis peremptorum  aeternaspulant. 
Cf.  an  Essay  comparing  the  ideas  of  the  Apo- 
cryphal books  of  the  Old  Testament  on  the  sub- 
jects of  immortality,  resurrection,  judgment, 
and  retribution,  with  those  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, written  by  Frisch,  in  Eichhorn's  Biblio- 
thek  der  Biblischen  Literatur,  b.  iv. ;  Ziegler's 
Theol.  Abhand.,  th.  ii.  No.  4.  Flugge,  Ges- 
chichte  des  Glaubens  an  Unsterblichkeit,  u.  s. 
w.,  th.  i.  But  the  Sadducees,  and  they  only, 
boasting  a  great  attachment  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  especially  to  the  books  of  Mose-s, 
denied  this  doctrine,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the 
existence  of  the  soul  as  distinct  from  the  body. 

But  Christ  did  more  to  illustrate  and  confirm 
this  consoling  doctrine  than  had  been  before  done 
among  the  Jews  or  any  other  people;  and  he 
first  gave  to  it  that  high  practical  interest  which 
it  now  possesses.  Vide  s.  148,  at  the  beginning. 

III.  Philosophical  Arguments. 

As  soon  as  they  began  in  heathen  nations  to 
philosophize,  and  to  investigate  more  closely  the 
doctrines  relating  to  God  and  the  nature  and  des- 
tination of  man,  they  saw  the  importance  and 
great  practical  interest  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul.  It  was  found  to  exist 
already  as  a  popular  belief,  but  they  now  endea- 
voured to  give  it  philosophical  proof  and  de- 
monstration. Here,  as  in  other  things,  the 
Greeks  distinguished  themselves  above  other 
nations.  They  laid  the  first  ground  of  those  phi- 
losophical proofs  which  were  afterwards  en- 
forced anew  by  Christian  philosophers,  and  cor- 
rected and  further  developed.  In  the  varied  web 
of  proof  in  our  modern  philosophical  schools, 
the  chief  threads,  and,  as  it  were,  the  entire  ma- 
terial, are  of  Grecian  origin.  According  to  the 
testimony  of  Cicero,  the  first  Grecian  philoso- 
pher who  investigated  this  subject  was  Phere- 
2x2 


522 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


cydes;  but  according  to  Diogenes  Laertius,  it 
was  Thdles.  The  followers  of  Socrates,  how- 
ever, did  the  most  for  this  doctrine,  and  espe- 
cially Plato,  in  his  Phaedon.  The  Platonic  ar- 
guments are  found  collected  in  the  Tusculan 
Questions  of  Cicero  (i.  23),  and  also  briefly 
stated  in  his  Treatise,  De  Senectute,  c.  21,  seq. 
With  regard  to  these  proofs,  it  is  difficult  for  us, 
with  our  present  ideas,  to  see  how  the  soul,  se- 
parated from  the  body,  could  maintain  its  own 
subsistence  or  personality,  since,  according  to 
Plato,  it  is  only  a  part  of  the  soul  of  the  world, 
to  which,  after  death,  it  will  return. 

There  were,  however,  some  among  the  Gre- 
cians who  denied,  or  at  least  doubted,  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul.  Among  these  was  Epi- 
curus. The  stoics  contended,  indeed,  for  the 
continuance  of  the  soul  after  death,  but  not  for 
its  absolute  immortality,  with  regard  to  which 
they  were  accustomed  to  speak  doubtfully;  as, 
for  example,  Seneca  often  does  in  his  epistles. 
The  opinions  of  Aristotle  on  this  subject  are 
doubtful ;  many  of  his  disciples  have  concluded 
from  his  principles  that  the  soul  is  not  immor- 
tal— e.  g.,  among  his  old  followers,  Dicaearchus ; 
among  the  later  Aristotelians,  Averrhoes,  in  the 
twelfth  century,  and  Peter  Pomponatius,  in  the 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  in  his  book, 
"  De  Animi  Immortalitate,"  edited  anew  by 
Prof.  Christi.  Gottfr.  Bardili ;  Tubingen,  1791, 
8vo.  He  endeavours  in  this  work  to  shew  that, 
according  to  the  principles  of  the  Averrhoistic- 
Aristotelian  philosophy,  the  immortality  of  the 
soul  cannot  be  demonstrated  on  natural  grounds. 

Even  among  Christians  there  have  been  some 
who  have  denied  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 
There  was,  for  example,  an  Arabian  teacher,  in 
the  third  century,  against  whom  Origen  wrote, 
who  maintained  that  the  soul  dies  with  the 
body,  but  is  again  raised  with  it  at  the  last  day ; 
an  opinion  which  was  revived  in  the  seventeenth 
century  by  William  Coward,  a  London  physi- 
cian. Still  more  strange  is  the  opinion  of  H. 
Dodwell,  who,  in  a  work  published  in  London, 
1706,  contended  that  souls  are  naturally  mortal, 
but  become  immortal  only  by  means  of  Chris- 
tian baptism. 

The  opinions  of  some  of  the  grosser  materi- 
alists of  modern  times  are  well  known — e.  g., 
of  Toland,  Helvetius,  de  la  Mettrie,  and  the 
author  of  the  Systeme  de  la  Nature,  who  were 
followed  in  this  by  many  of  the  so-called  philo- 
sophers who  wrote  during  the  French  Revolu- 
tion; also  many  of  the  sceptics,  who  thought 
nothing  could  be  determined  on  this  subject — 
e.  g.,  Hume. 

A  few  words  respecting  these  philosophic  ar- 
guments themselves.  It  has  been  justly  re- 
marked by  philosophers  of  modern  times,  espe- 
cially by  Wolf,  that  three  things  are  involved 
in  the  immortality  of  the  soul :  (a)  the  uninter- 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       523 


cities  for  ever  increasing1  moral  improvement, 
and  we  feel  a  longing  after  immortality,  in  order 
to  make  higher  advances  in  that  moral  and  spi- 
ritual perfection  in  which  the  attainments  of  the 
best  during  the  present  life  are  so  imperfect. 
These  capacities  and  this  longing  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  promises  from  the  Creator.  For 
were  they  never  to  be  satisfied,  he  would  not 
have  placed  them  in  the  soul,  as  it  could  not 
have  been  his  design  to  deceive  us.  If  our 
souls  are  not  immortal,  then  the  beasts,  which 
have  merely  an  animal  nature,  and  no  rational 
and  moral  part,  are  far  better  in  their  condition 
than  we,  to  whom  a  higher  destination  has 
plainly  been  given;  for  they  can  develop  their 
constitutional  capacities,  and  can  satisfy  the 
innate  propensities  of  their  natures.  And  shall 
not  we,  the  nobler  creation  of  God,  be  able  to 
develop  the  far  more  perfect  spiritual  and  moral 
powers  which  he  has  given  us,  and  to  satisfy 
our  spiritual  wants  1 

The  whole  system  of  the  rights  and  duties  of 
moral  beings  would  appear  to  be  a  web  of  incon- 
gruities if  the  present  life  were  the  only  one. 
And,  in  fine,  the  disorder  and  injustice  which 
are  obvious  in  the  destiny  of  men  in  their  earthly 
life  almost  irresistibly  compel  us  to  admit  this 
doctrine  to  be  true,  and  to  console  ourselves  in 
the  midst  of  these  disorders  by  the  belief  of  it. 
The  manifest  disorders  of  the  present  state  oc- 
casioned great  difficulty  to  all  thinking  men  of 
former  times,  who  did  not  fully  and  distinctly 
admit  the  truth  of  a  future  life  and  future  retri- 
bution. Vide  Job,  xxiv.  1,  seq. ;  Eccles.  viii. 
10,  11,  14;  ix.  1—3.  Vide  s.  71,  especially 
No.  VI.  ad  finem.  Cf.  L.  H.  Jacob,  Beweis 
fur  die  Unsterblichkeit  der  Seele  aus  dem  Be- 
griffe  der  Pflicht;  Zullichau,  1790,  8vo.  This 
proof  is  drawn  out  on  the  principles  of  the  Kant- 
ian philosophy,  and  was  written  in  answer  to 
the  prize-question  proposed  by  the  Stolpic  In- 
stitute at  Leiden,  "Whether  there  are  any  du- 
ties which,  on  grounds  of  reason,  a  man  would 
feel  himself  bound  to  perform  if  he  did  not  be- 
lieve the  soul  to  be  immortal  ?" 

Note. — The  following  are  some  of  the  princi- 
pal modern  writers  on  the  immortality  of  the 
soul : — Clark,  Sherlock,  Addison,  Reinbeck, 
Cans,  Reimarus,  Vornehmste  Wahrheiten  der 
rmtiirlichen  Religion,  10  Abhand.  Spalding, 
Die  Bestimmung  des  Menschen.  Jerusalem, 
Betrachtungen  iiber  die  Wahrheiten  der  Reli- 
gion, th.  1,  6  Beytr.  Noesselt,  Vertheidigung 
der  christlichen  Religion.  Mendelsohn,  Phae- 
don.  Villette,  Unterredungen  iiber  die  Gluck- 
seligkeit  des  kunftino-en  Lebens.  Kant,  Kri- 
tik  der  praktischen  Vernunft,  and  the  work  of 
Jacob  above  cited.  The  history  of  this  doctrine 
has  been  given  by  Oporin,  Franz,  Cotta,  Hen- 
nings,  and  Flugge,  with  which  cf.  Struvius, 
Historia  Doctr.  Graecor  et  Romanorum  Philos. 


de  Statu  Animarum  post  Mortem  ;  Alten,  1803, 
8vo.  Simon,  Geschichte  des  Glaubens  an  die 
Fortdauer  der  Seele  nach  dem  Tode,  an  Ges- 
penster,  u.  s.  w;  Heilbronu,  1804,  8vo.  Nic. 
Aug.  Herrich,  Sylloge  Scriptorum  de  Spiritibus 
Puris  et  Animabus  Humanis  Earumque  Mate- 
rialitate,  Immortalitate,  et  Statu  post  Mortem, 
deque  AnimaBestiarum;Regensburg,  1790,8vo. 
[Matth.  Claudius.  Wandsbecker,  Bote,  th. 
v.  Hahn,  Lehrbuch.  s.  634,  ff.,  and  his  history 
of  this  doctrine,  s.  641,  ff.— TR.] 

SECTION  CL. 

OF  SOME  OF  THE  MOST  IMPORTANT  OF  THE  VARI- 
OUS OPINIONS  RESPECTING  THE  PLACE  OF  DE- 
PARTED SOULS,  AND  THEIR  CONDITION  THERE. 

I.  The  Place  of  their  Abode. 

(1)  AMONG  many  rude  nations,  and  also 
among  some  which  are  cultivated,  (e.  g.,  in 
America,  Thibet,  and  Hindostan,)  the  opinion 
is  found  to  prevail  that  the  soul  passes  from  one 
body  into  another,  sometimes  another  human 
body,  sometimes  .that  of  beasts,  or  even  into 
plants  and  trees.  This  was  called  fist f^v^offtj, 
by  Pliny,  transfiguratio.  Originally  this  trans- 
migration of  souls  was  not  regarded  as  a  matter 
of  retribution,  or  as  a  means  of  purification. 
This  turn  was  not  given  to  the  doctrine  until  a 
period  of  higher  cultivation.  It  came  to  be  un- 
derstood in  this  light,  for  example,  by  Pytha- 
goras and  Plato  among  the  Greeks.  The  belief 
in  this  doctrine  seems  rather  to  have  rested,  at 
first,  upon  a  certain  supposed  analogy  in  nature, 
where  one  body  is  observed  always  to  pass  into 
another,  and  even  when  it  seems  to  perish  only 
alters  its  form  and  returns  in  a  different  shape. 
This  belief  may  have  also  sprung  in  part  from 
the  almost  universal  idea  that  every  thing  in 
the  whole  creation  is  animated  by  a  soul,  espe- 
cially everything  possessing  an  internal  life  and 
power  of  motion — e.  g.,  plants. 

This  doctrine  of  the  transmigration  of  souls 
has  also  been  held  in  modern  times  by  many  of 
the  Jews.  Vide  Eisenmenger,  Entdecktes  Ju- 
denthum,  th.  ii.  c.  61.  It  cannot,  however,  be 
shewn  that  this  opinion  prevailed  among  the 
Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ,  particularly  among 
the  Pharisees,  either  by  the  passages  of  the 
New  Testament  cited  in  favour  of  it,  or  by  those 
from  Josephus,  Antiq.  xviii.  2 ;  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  12. 

Among  Christians,  this  notion  has  met  with 
but  little  favour  ;  and  it  has  without  reason  been 
ascribed  to  the  Gnostics,  Manicheans,  and  even 
to  Origen.  The  reason  of  its  being  ascribed  to 
the  latter  was  his  belief  in  the  pre-existence  of 
the  soul  (vide  s.  57,  II.  1) — a  belief  which  in 
some  philosophical  systems  is  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  doctrine  of  the  transmigration 
of  the  soul.  Since  the  seventeenth  century  this 


524 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


has  been  again  regarded  as  a  probable  doctrine, 
on  account  of  some  analogy  in  the  material 
world,  and  has  been  again  advocated  by  Hel- 
mont,  Edelmann,  Lessing,  (Erziehung  des  Men- 
schengeschlechts.) 

[Note. — The  doctrine  of  the  transmigration 
of  souls  has  received  new  light  from  the  inves- 
tigations which  have  been  made  of  late  in  East- 
ern literature.  A  deeply  interesting  exhibition 
of  this  subject  is  given  by  Fred.  Schlegel  in  his 
"  Philosophic  der  Geschichte,"  b.  i.  s.  147.  He 
there  shews  that  this  is  one  of  the  most  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  faith  in  the  Eastern  world — 
that  it  rests  upon  a  religious  basis,  and  even  in 
the  earliest  periods  was  connected  with  the  idea 
of  retribution  and  sanctification.  The  soul,  it 
is  supposed,  after  having  been  soiled  and  cor- 
rupted by  its  contact  with  the  body  and  the 
world,  must  expiate  its  sins  by  wandering,  for 
an  appointed  cycle,  through  various  forms  of 
J*Y  uncongenial  matter.  By  enduring  these  penal 
sufferings  for  a  long  time  it  becomes  purified, 
and  prepared  to  mingle  again  in  the  original, 
pure  fountain  from  which  it  proceeded.  At  the 
bottom  of  this  whole  belief  Jies  the  deep  and 
just  feeling,  that  after  man  has  wandered  so  far 
from  God,  in  order  to  approach  him  again  he 
must  travel  with  great  labour  through  a  long 
and  dreary  way ;  and  also  the  conviction,  that 
nothing  which  is  imperfect  or  stained  with  sin 
can  enter  into  the  pure  world  of  blessed  spirits, 
or  be  for  ever  united  with  God. — TR.] 

(2)  Far  more  general  was  the  opinion  among 
the  ancient  nations  that  the  abode  of  departed 
spirits  is  under  the  earth ,-  because  the  dead  are 
laid  beneath  the  ground,  and  their  body  returns 
to  the  dust.  The  souls  there  separated  from 
their  bodies  were  regarded  as  a  sort  of  aerial 
beings,  or  shades,  (si'SwTia,  umbrae.)  Vide  s.  66, 
II.  coll.  s.  59, 1.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the  ancient 
Eastern  nations  and  the  Greeks  agreed  in  this 
point;  while  still  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose 
that  the  latter  borrowed  their  ideas  from  the 
former. 

This  place  was  denominated  by  the  Hebrews 
S*«E>,  by  the  Greeks,  aS^j — the  word  by  which 
the  LXX.  always  translate  h^i?.  The  term 
q8-/i$  is  explained  by  Plutarch  (De  Is.  et  Osir.) 
by  daiSfj,  doparov,  dark,  where  one  sees  nothing. 
It  is  allegorically  explained  by  Plato,  in  his 
Cratylus,  as  the  invisible  world,  because  the 
place  is  unseen.  Neither  of  these  terms  is  used 
in  the  scriptures  to  signify  exactly  the  grave, 
still  less  the  place  of  the  damned,-  nor  are  they 
used  in  this  sense  by  any  of  the  fathers  in  the 
first  three  centuries.  Vide  s.  96,  I.  The  same 
place  is  called  among  the  Hebrews  ?>*n  ni>nnn, 
as  in  Homer,  vrtb  ycuav,  vrtb  xfv$£<u  youac,  and 
the  entrance  to  it  is  placed  by  the  Greeks  in  the 
extreme  west.  Where  the  snn  goes  down,  and 
his  light  and  fire  are  extinguished,  there,  it  was 


naturally  supposed,  is  the  place  where  all  things 
perish,  and  where  darkness  reigns. 

Both  the  Hebrews  and  Greeks  describe  this 
under-world  as  a  great  kingdom,  and  both  use 
the  phrase,  gates  of  death,  or  Hades.  C  f.  H  omer. 
Here,  according  to  the  ideas  of  men  in  the  ear- 
liest ages,  the  shades  of  the  good  and  the  bad 
dwell  together,  without  any  distinction  or  any 
marked  separation.  Thus  it  is  where  Sixty  is 
introduced  in  the  Old  Testament — e.  g.,  Is.  xiv., 
where  there  is  a  kind  of  distinction  of  rank,  and 
kings  sit  upon  thrones  ;  but  where  nothing  de- 
finite and  clear  is  said  respecting  a  distinction 
in  the  places  of  the  pious  and  the  wicked.  Thus 
in  Homer,  too,  even  those  who  are  punished  are 
in  the  same  place  with  the  other  shades,  Odys. 
xi.  575,  seq. 

But  after,  a  time  these  places  in  the  lower 
world  were  divided,  and  the  residences  of  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  were  conceived  of  as 
separate.  Thus  Tartarus  among  the  Greeks, 
which,  during  the  time  of  Homer  and  Hesiod, 
was  regarded  merely  as  the  prison  of  the  Titans, 
became  gradually  the  universal  abode  of  the 
damnrd.  So  it  is  with  Plato  and  others,  who 
are  followed  by  Virgil,  JEn.  vi.  In  the  same 
way  did  the  conceptions  of  the  Jews  on  this 
subject  become  more  developed  in  later  periods. 
According  to  Luke,  xvi.  23 — 26,  both  the  rich 
man  and  Lazarus  are  in  Hades,  but  a  wide  gulf, 
(^cifyta  jus'ya,)  as  it  is  figuratively  represented 
in  the  parable,  separates  the  fields  of  the  blessed 
from  the  place  of  the  damned  ;  no  one  may  or 
can  pass  from  the  one  to  the  other.  The  Jews 
too,  in  imitation  of  the  Greeks,  called  the  place 
of  punishment,  where  wicked  men  and  angels 
are  reserved  unto  the  day  of  judgment,  Taptapoj. 
Vide  Joseph.  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  7;  2Pet.il.  4;  where 
Taprapow  appears.  Cf.  s.  63,  II. 

From  this  it  appears  that  the  sacred  writers 
retained  the-  phraseology  common  among  their 
contemporaries,  in  order  to  be  more  easily  un- 
derstood by  them,  and  to  make  a  stronger  im- 
pression upon  their  minds.  They,  however, 
used  all  this  only  in  the  way  of  figure  and  figu- 
rative representation,  by  which  they  designed 
to  set  forth  the  most  important  truths  with  re- 
gard to  the  state  of  departed  spirits;  as  any  one 
may  see  from  Luke,  xvi.,  2  Pet.  ii.,  &c. 

The  whole  kingdom  of  the  dead  is  described 
by  the  ancients  in  a  threefold  method — viz.,  (a) 
as  a  dark,  desolate,  silent  region,  the  land  of 
forgetful  ness,  rest,  and  inactivity;  since  the 
dead  rest  silently  in  the  grave  under  the  earth, 
and  are  cut  off  from  all  connexion  with  the  liv- 
ing world.  Cf".  the  texts  cited  from  the  Old 
Testament,  s.  149,  II.  (in  init.)  This  gave 
rise  to  the  idea  respecting  the  sleep  of  the  soul 
in  after  times.  (£>)  Again  it  was  described  as 
a  kingdom  full  of  motion  and  activity,  and  as 
resembling  as  nearly  as  possible  the  present 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      525 


world.  Cf.  Isaiah,  xiv.  (c)  But  in  process  of 
time  these  two  representations  were  connected 
together  in  a  great  variety  of  ways. 

Now  the  sacred  writers,  and  Christ  himself, 
often  make  use  of  figurative  expressions,  bor- 
rowed from  these  ideas,  though  they  also  fre- 
quently exchange  them  for  others  which  are 
more  literal.  Thus  what  Christ  represents  in 
Luke,  xxi.,  under  the  image  of  a  steep  walled 
grave,  he  describes  elsewhere  without  a  figure — 
viz.,  that  the  states  of  men  in  the  future  world 
will  be  very  diverse,  but  exactly  apportioned, 
both  as  to  happiness  and  misery,  according  to 
their  conduct  in  this  life;  and  that  it  will  not 
depend  upon  the  choice  of  men  to  pass  from 
one  state  to  the  other.  Cf.  Matt.  xxv.  The 
hindrances  here  are  as  great  and  insurmountable 
as  a  deep  chasm  is  to  one  who  would  pass  from 
one  place  to  another.  Cf.  s.  148,  I. 

The  ancient  languages  were  still  more  defi- 
cient than  those  of  the  present  day  in  philoso- 
phically definite  expressions  for  objects  beyond 
the  cognizance  of  the  senses.  Indeed,  many 
things  could  not  be  so  much  as  conceived  of 
without  a  symbolical  representation;  hence 
such  are  often  found  even  in  the  writings  of 
Plato,  and  other  Grecian  philosophers.  Ac- 
cording to  this  metnod,  one  could  not  indeed 
teach  in  so  exact  and  definite  a  manner;  but  he 
would  make  a  stronger  impression  upon  the 
feelings  and  desires,  and  succeed  better  in 
awakening  religious  dispositions  among  those 
who  were  unacquainted  with  philosophical  lan- 
guage. This  hint  is  very  important  for  the  re- 
ligious teacher.  If  he  follows  the  method  of 
instruction  pursued  in  schools  of  philosophy, 
and  adopts  their  phraseology,  he  will  accom- 
plish but  little,  and  often  be  entirely  unintelli- 
gible to  his  hearers.  He  must  follow  the  ex- 
ample of  the  Bible,  and  make  use  alternately 
of  figurative  and  literal  representations.  In  fact, 
the  whole  representation  of  the  invisible  world 
must  be  figurative  and  symbolical,  even  when 
we  make  use  of  the  most  literal  expressions  in 
our  power.  It  is  all  a  mere  comparison  of  the 
invisible  world  with  something  like  it  in  the 
world  of  sense.  For  what  the  apostle  said, 
"eye  hath  not  seen,  ear  hath  not  heard,"  &c., 
is  literally  true  in  application  to  this  subject. 

With  regard  to  Orcus,  and  the  different  views 
entertained  on  this  subject  among  Christians, 
cf.  Cotta,  De  Inferno  ejusque  Sede;  Tubingen, 
1775.  As  to  the  ideas  of  the  Hebrews,  cf.  the 
works  of  Ziegler  and  Ammon,  Ueber  das  Tod- 
tenreich  der  Hebraeer;  Erlangen,  1792.  Cf. 
also,  an  Excursus  of  Heyne  on  the  fourth 
jEneid,  and  other  works  cited  below. 

Note. — To  any  unprejudiced  observer  it  can- 
not but  appear  a  great  excellence  in  the  Bible, 
and  especially  in  the  New  Testament,  that  it 
takes  no  part  in  the  absurd  conceptions  which 


have  often  prevailed  on  this  subject,  and  from 
which  the  greatest  philosophers  are  not  alto- 
gether free — e.  g.,  Plato.  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Bible  is  equally  deserving  of  praise 
for  not  exhibiting  pure  truths  in  metaphysical 
language,  and  making  them  the  object  of  dry 
and  curious  speculation,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
in  the  highest  degree  intelligible,  so  that  their 
practical  application  is  obvious  to  every  one. 

(3)  But  many  believed  that  departed  souls 
remain  in  or  about  the  graves  or  dwellings  of 
the  dead,  either  for  ever,  or  for  a  long  time.  So 
many  nations  of  different  degrees  of  cultivation. 
The  opinion  was  formerly  very  widely  diffused, 
that  departed  spirits  linger  for  a  long  time 
around  the  dead  body,  or  at  least  sometimes 
return  to  it  from  the  kingdom  of  the  dead  ;  and 
hence,  in  part,  the  belief  in  spectres,  s.  66,  II. 
These  ideas  prevailed  to  some  extent  among 
the  Jews  and  many  Christians ;  and  even  at  the 
Concil.  Iliberit.  in  the  year  313,  it  is  forbidden 
to  kindle  a  light  in  burying-grounds,  lest  the 
spirits  of  the  saints  should  be  disturbed. 

II.  Opinions  respecting  the  state  of  Departed  Souls. 

(1)  It  is  apparent  from  what  has  been  said, 
that,  according  to  the  ideas  of  the  ancients,  the 
employments,  the  state  and  life  of  departed 
souls,  resemble  the  life  of  men  in  this  upper 
world — an  idea  in  which  many  germs  of  truth 
are  involved.  We  find  nothing  said  respecting 
the  sleep  of  the  soul  either  in  the  Old  or  New 
Testaments,  nor  in  the  earliest  monuments  of 
other  nations.  Vide  s.  148.  Quite  as  foreign 
from  the  conceptions  of  the  earliest  periods  is. 
the  idea  that  the  dead  have  no  recollection  of 
their  earthly  life,  and  take  no  interest  in  human 
affairs.  The  opposite  of  this  is  clear  from  the 
earliest  records — e.  g.,  from  Homer  (Odys.  xi. 
coll.  II.  xxii.  389,  390),  and  from  the  holy 
scriptures,  (Is.  xiv.,  Luke,  xvi.)  It  was  for 
this  reason  that  so  many  nations  believed  that 
the  dead  sometimes  return,  appear  to  men,  and 
have  personal  intercourse  with  the  living.  And 
hence  too  the  error  of  invoking  the  saints.  These 
superstitious  conclusions,  however,  are  not  fa- 
voured by  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  Vide  Luke, 
xvi.  27—31. 

It  was  very  natural,  even  for  nations  having 
no  direct  revelation,  to  come  to  the  thought  that 
the  shades  in  Hades  recognise  each  other,  have 
mutual  intercourse,  and  perpetuate  the  friend- 
ship begun  in  the  present  life.  This  idea 
might,  indeed,  like  many  others,  have  been 
abstracted  from  the  mere  phantoms  of  a  dream* 
For  in  dreams  our  departed  friends  appear  to 
be  cognizable,  as  Patroclus  did  to  Achilles, 
even  as  to  his  eyes,  voice,  and  stature,  II.  xxiiL 
G6,  seq.  107.  This  may  be  justified  also  by  an 
appeal  to  scripture,  Luke,  xvi.;  Heb.  xii.  23, 
and  Revelation.  The  soul,  indeed,  is  no  longer 


526 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


regarded  as  a  fine  material  substance,  as  it  often 
was  in  ancient  times ;  but  these  delightful  views 
lose  nothing  on  this  account,  as  some  have  most 
unphilosophically  supposed.  For  one  may  be 
recognised  otherwise  than  by  his  body,  and 
may  be  loved,  too,  otherwise  than  corporeally. 
Why  then  should  not  departed  souls  recognise 
each  other,  even  when  they  no  longer  possess 
bodies'? 

(2)  In  the  childhood  of  nations,  the  ideas  of 
men  have  been  commonly  very  vague  and  inde- 
finite with  regard  to  the  happy  or  miserable  state 
of  departed  souls.  Of.  Meiners,  Geschichte  der 
Religionen,  s.  174—178.  With  regard  to  what 
the  Israelites  in  the  earliest  times  knew  on  this 
subject,  while  they  yet  saw  the  promises  in  an 
obscure  distance,  cf.  s.  149,  II.  Many  of  the 
heathen  nations  represented  the  state  of  the 
dead,  not  indeed  as  wholly  miserable;  still  they 
regarded  it  as  not  altogether  desirable,  and  often 
as  rather  worse  than  better,  in  comparison  with 
their  state  in  this  world.  Achilles  in  Hades 
does  not  speak  of  death  very  favourably,  but 
would  rather  till  the  field  on  earth,  as  a  day 
labourer,  than  rule  all  the  hosts  of  the  shades; 
Odys.  xi.  487.  For  the  Elysium  in  Homer  is 
not  as  yet  the  residence  of  the  departed  souls  of 
men,  but  only  the  abode  of  heroes  or  demigods. 

But  by  degrees  they  advanced  to  more  en- 
larged and  correct  conceptions.  The  Greeks 
then  supposed  that  good  men  participate  here- 
after in  the  joys  of  Elysium,  and  that  crimes 
are  punished  in  Hades.  At  first,  however,  only 
the  grosser  offences  were  supposed  liable  to 
punishment  there,  and  in  Homer,  one  offence 
only— perjury  ,-  II.  iii.  278 ;  xix.  259,  260.  This 
indicates  the  great  simplicity  and  the  very  de- 
fective ideas  on  moral  subjects  which  still  pre- 
vailed, since  only  the  very  grossest  crimes  were 
regarded  as  worthy  of  punishment.  After- 
wards, in  the  greater  advance  of  cultivation,  and 
the  higher  perfection  of  moral  ideas,  the  number 
of  crimes  punished  in  Hades  was  very  much 
increased ;  and  at  length  it  was  believed  that 
every  virtue  is  there  rewarded  and  every  vice 
punished.  So  it  is  represented  by  Plato,  and 
other  Grecian  philosophers;  so  also,  in  imita- 
tion of  them,  by  Virgil,  ^Eneid,  vi.  Vide  Heyne, 
Excurs.  1  and  8. 

A  gradual  development  of  ideas  is  also  no- 
ticed among  the  Israelites.  In  general,  the 
great  multitude  among  them,  as  among  other 
people,  formed  very  gross  conceptions  respect- 
ing the  joys  and  pains  following  death,  and  re- 
garded them  as  merely  corporeal,  since  they 
were  unable  to  conceive  of  any  other.  Many 
understood  literally  the  expressions,  to  be  in 
Abraham's  bosom,  to  sit  down  at  table  with  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob;  the  more  enlightened, 
however,  used  them  only  as  figurative  expres- 
sions, as  Christ  himself  always  understood  and 


explained  them  in  his  instructions — e.  g.,  Luke, 
xvi. 

(3)  The  doctrine  respecting  an  intermediate 
state  of  departed  souls,  and  respecting  purga- 
tory. Cf.  s.  148,  III.,  and  Morus,  p.  290. 
Such  a  state,  in  which  the  fate  of  men  is  unde- 
cided until  the  day  of  judgment — a  state  which 
is  neither  heaven  nor  hell,  neither  being  blessed 
nor  damned,  was  supposed  by  many  of  the 
church  fathers — e.  g.,  Justin  the  Martyr,  Ire- 
nseus,  and  Tertullian.  Only  some  eminent 
saints  and  martyrs,  it  was  supposed,  come  at 
once  into  heaven;  and  only  the  grossest  sinners 
go  at  once  into  hell.  This  intermediate  state 
they  call,  taking  the  appellation  from  Luke, 
xvi.,  Sinum  Abrahami.  To  this  they  referred 
the  text,  1  Pet.  iii.  19,  ta  ev  fyvhaxy  rCviv/taTta,. 
Vide  s.  96.  Thither  Christ  went,  and  rescued 
from  thence  the  patriarchs  and  other  pious  men 
who  had  died  before  his  atonement  was  made. 
This  place  was  afterwards  called  limbus  (supe- 
rior or  exterior  pars  inferni)  patrum  ,•  and  a  lim- 
bus infantium  was  also  supposed  (and  is  still 
believed  by  the  Romish  church)  into  which 
children  go,  because  they  are  not  actually  con- 
demned, having  committed  no  peccata  aclualia, 
while  still,  in  consequence  of  original  sin,  they 
are  unable  to  attain  to  the  blessed  vision  of 
God. 

The  foundation  for  the  doctrine  of  purgatory 
is  found  even  in  the  second  and  third  centuries. 
Its  origin  may  be  traced  back  to  the  Pythago- 
rean or  Platonic  philosophy.  Souls,  according 
to  Plato,  are  a  part  of  the  divine  nature,  which, 
however,  are  confined  in  the  body,  as  in  a  pri- 
son. Vide  s.  74, 1.  ad  finem.  Now,  even  after 
the  soul  of  man  is  disembodied,  there  still 
cleaves  to  it  much  sin  and  impurity,  acquired 
from  its  contact  with  the  body,  and  this  im- 
purity is  regarded  by  Plato  as  a  natural  sick- 
ness. It  cannot  therefore,  immediately  on  leav- 
ing the  body,  return  again  to  its  original  source. 
With  some,  the  disorder  is  incurable,  and  these 
are  the  lost,  who  go  at  once  to  Tartarus ;  with 
others,  it  is  curable,  and  these  are  purged  and 
purified  in  Hades.  This  process  Plato  com- 
pared with  purification  (xc&apcnj)  by  water,  air, 
and  fire;  and  represented  this  state  as  an  inter- 
mediate one.  Vide  Plato,  Phaedon,  c.  62;  and 
Virgil,  ^Eneid,  vi.  735— 751,  and  Heyne,  Ex- 
cur,  xiii. 

This,  with  many  other  Platonic  doctrines  and 
fables,  was  early  transferred  to  Christianity. 
We  find  traces  of  it  among  the  Gnostics,  (ac-j 
cording  to  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus,  ii.  51,  seq.,)  j 
in  the  writings  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  the  I 
second  century,  and  of  Origen,  in  the  third.  Butj 
after  the  fourth  century  it  was  more  widely  dif-i 
fused  through  the  Latin  church.  It  is  found; 
in  Hieronymus,  Lactantius,  Ambrosius,  andj 
even  Augustine;  the  latter  of  whom,  however, 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      527 


though  he  speaks  of  ignis  purgatorius,  regards 
the  subject  as  doubtful.  In  the  sixth  century 
this  doctrine  was  taught  by  Gregory  the  Great, 
in  the  eighth  by  Beda,  Boniface,  and  others.  It 
was  supposed  that  those  Christians  only  who 
commit  no  deliberate  sin  after  baptism  are  ex- 
empt from  this  punishment,  or  such  as  become 
martyrs,  or  who,  by  assuming  the  monastic  life, 
have  made  atonement  for  their  sins.  Gross  of- 
fenders— those  who,  according  to  Plato,  are 
irrecoverably  disordered,  pass  immediately  after 
death  into  hell.  Those  who  have  not  sinned  so 
grossly,  (who  are  recoverable,)  or  whose  repent- 
ance commences  in  the  present  life,  but  remains 
imperfect,  although  they  are  not  eternally  con- 
demned, yet  do  not  attain  at  once  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  God.  Such  persons,  it  was  supposed, 
need  to  be  purified  and  to  make  expiation  for 
their  sins  by  the  endurance  of  certain  penalties 
appointed  by  God,  conceived  of  under  the  image 
of  purifying  by  fire.  The  advocates  of  this  view 
endeavoured  to  support  it  by  such  texts  of  scrip- 
ture as  the  following — viz.,  1  Cor.  iii.  13,  (as 
by  fire ;)  Jude,  ver.  23  ;  Malachi,  iii.  2 ;  2  Mace, 
xii.  39. 

This  doctrine  became  connected  with  many 
opinions  and  practices  equally  unscriptural,  es- 
pecially with  offering  prayer  for  the  dead,  and 
making  satisfaction  to  relieve  them  from  punish- 
ment; and  also  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  dead — a  doctrine 
which  prevailed  during  the  eleventh  and  twelfth 
centuries ;  at  which  time,  also,  masses  offered 
in  order  to  free  souls  from  purgatory  became 
common.  As  early  as  the  eleventh  century,  the 
feast  of  all  souls  was  appointed  by  Pope  John 
XVIII.  This  doctrine  was  now  adopted  by  the 
schoolmen  into  their  systems — e.  g.,  by  Peter 
of  Lombardy,  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  others. 
The  most  frightful  representations  were  given 
of  purgatory,  founded  upon  stories  of  the  appa- 
rition of  souls  from  thence,  &c.  The  theolo- 
gians, too,  contended  respecting  the  place,  man- 
ner, and  duration  of  this  punishment.  And  the 
council  at  Florence,  in  1439,  gave  this  doctrine 
the  authority  of  a  formal  article  of  faith.  As 
such,  it  still  continues  in  the  Romish  church, 
and  was  re-established  by  the  council  at  Trent. 

This  doctrine,  however,  of  the  Romish  church 
respecting  purgatory,  as  it  has  been  gradually 
developed  by  the  schoolmen,  and  as  it  was  es- 
tablished by  the  council  at  Florence,  differs  in 
two  essential  points  from  the  old  Platonic  no- 
tion which  was  adopted  by  Origen  and  other 
church  fathers — viz.,  (a)  According  to  Origen 
and  the  Platonists,  all  without  exception  are 
subjected  to  this  purification,  although  some 
need  it  more,  and  others  less.  But  according 
to  the  opinion  of  the  Romish  church,  those  only 
go  into  purgatory  who,  though  they  have  been 
baptized  and  believe,  are  not  of  perfect  virtue. 


(6)  According  to  Origen  and  the  Platonic  idea, 
the  whole  design  of  this  suffering  is  to  promote 
the  moral  improvement  and  perfection  of  men ; 
but  according  to  the  conception  of  the  Romish 
church,  it  is  designed  to  make  atonement  and 
expiation  for  sin. 

Note. — Works  on  this  subject,  (a)  Histori- 
cal: Jac.  Windet,  Stpupa'tfvs  ijtia-tofaxos  de 
Vita  Functorum  Statu  ex  Hebraeorum  et  Grae- 
corum  comparatis  Sententiis  concinnatus;  Lon- 
dini,  1663 — 64.  Systeme  des  Anciens  et  des 
Modernes  sur  1'Etat  des  Ames  separees  de 
Corps  ;  &  Londres,  1757,  2  torn.  8vo.  Thorn. 
Burnet,  De  Statu  Mortuorum  et  Resurgentium  ; 
London,  1757;  against  which,  and  in  behalf  of 
the  Romish  doctrine,  there  were  treatises  writ- 
ten by  Muratori,  Columna,  and  others.  Baum- 
garten,  Hist.  Doctrinae  de  Statu  Animarum  se- 
paratarum;  Halae,  1754.  Gotta,  Recentiores 
quaedarn  Controversies  de  Statu  Animi  post 
Mortem;  Tubingen,  1758.  (6)  Philosophical 
and  doctrinal  works  :  Wernsdorf,  De  Animarurn 
separatarum  Statu,  earumdemque  cum  Vivis 
commercio,  in  his  "Collec.  Disputt."  torn.  i. 
No.  15.  The  best  and  latest  works  on  the  state 
of  the  soul  after  death  are  collected  by  Loscher,  , 
Dresden,  1735.  Meier,  Phibsophische  Be- 
trachtung  vom  Zustande  der  Seele  nach  dem 
Tode;  Halle,  1769.  J.  E.  Schubert,  Gedanken 
vom  ewigen  Leben,  und  Zustand  der  Seele  nach 
dem  Tode;  Jena,  1747.  J.  C.  Lavater,  Aus- 
sichten  in  die  Ewigkeit;  Zurich,  1773,  3  th. 
8vo.  Other  works  are  cited  s.  160. 

SECTION  CLI. 

WHAT  IS  UNDERSTOOD  BY  THE  "RESURRECTION 
OF  THE  DEAD  ;"  THE  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD 
"  RESURRECTION  ;"  AND  WHAT  IS  TAUGHT  RE- 
SPECTING IT  BY  THE  JEWS. 

I.   What  is  understood  by  the  Resurrection  of  the 
Dead. 

BY  this  is  meant,  the  revivification  of  the  hu- 
man body  after'  it  has  been  forsaken  by  the 
soul,  or,  the  reunion  of  the  soul  hereafter  with 
the  body  which  it  had  occupied  in  the  present 
world.  Death  was  compared  with  sleep,  and 
the  dead  body  with  a  sleeping  person,  D-ODI^, 
xoifi^evess,  s.  147, 1.  Hence  the  terms  which 
literally  signify  to  awake,  to  rise  up,  to  rise  out 
of  sleep,  are  also  used  to  denote  the  resurrection 
of  the  lifeless  body — e.  g.,  in  Hebrew,  the 
terms  op,  DV?n,  and  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  dia- 
dvajTT'cwij,  (with  the  Rabbins,  npp^), 
and  e'yj-ptftj  ix  vfxpuv.  Of  the  literal 
sense  of  these  terms,  examples  may  he  found 
everywhere;  cases  of  the  derived  signification 
occur  where  these  terms  are  used  with  the  qua- 
lification tx  vsxpuv — e.  g.,  where  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  is  spoken  of,  and  that  of  others 


528 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


whose  body  is  to  be  restored  like  his.  Vide 
John,  v.  21,  28;  1  Cor.  xv.  3,  4,  20,  53. 

The  Jews  were  also  accustomed  to  speak  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  under  the  image  of 
a  new  or  second  birth,  to  which  they  were  led 
by  the  passage  Is.  xxvi.  19,  "The  earth  will 
again  bring  forth  her  dead."  Vide  Michaelis's 
Commentary  on  Heb.  i.  5.  Again,  avifrtrjfu, 
was  used  even  by  the  ancient  classical  Greeks 
to  denote  the  returning  of  the  dead  to  life.  So 
it  was  in  Homer,  II.  xxi.  54,  seq.,  where 
Achilles  says,  "  What  a  wonder !  all  the  Tro- 
jans slain  by  me  shall  again  arise  from  the 
kingdom  of  the  dead,  (avafffjjcroi/T'at.)"  Cf.  II. 
xxiv.  756.  Cicero  and  Livy  designate  this  idea 
by  the  phrase  ah  inferis  exsistere.  In  ^Eschy- 
lus,  the  term  avdotaais  is  used  for  the  same 
thing. 

But  the  same  terms  which  signify  arising, 
and  the  being  awakened  from  sleep,  also  denote 
figuratively,  (1)  a  restoration  to  a  more  happy 
condition,  in  opposition  to  a  state  of  fall  and 
prostration.  In  this  general  sense  they  are  used 
in  two  ways — viz.,  physically — e.  g.,  a  sick 
man  rising  from  his  bed  and  recovering  his 
health  is  said  ai/acr^i/cu,,  Is.  xxxviii.  9 ;  and 
again  in  a  moral  sense,  used  with  reference  to 
the  reformation  of  a  man  who  rises  from  his  fall. 
And  so  (2)  the  terms  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
and  being  raised  from  the  dead,  denote,  figura- 
tively, (a)  external  and  physical  restoration  to 
a  happy  condition,  death  being  the  representa- 
tive of  misery,  and  life  of  happiness — e.  g.,  Is. 
xxvi.  19,  20;  Ezek.  xxxvii.;  where  the  subject 
is  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  after  a  long  and 
terrible  persecution,  and  the  reward  of  the  vir- 
tuous. Cf.  Dathe,  a.  1.  (6)  A  moral  restora- 
tion or  renovation  of  men — e.  g.,  Eph.  v.  14, 
£y£tpf  ....  avaata  ix  vfxpwv,  coll.  i.  19,  20,  and 
Rom.  viii.  10,  &c. 

II.  Doctrine  of  the  Jews  respecting  the  Resurrec- 
tion of  the  Dead. 

(1)  There  are  obvious  traces  of  the  doctrine 
that  the  soul  will  survive  the  body,  even  in  the 
oldest  Jewish  writings,  (vide  s.  149,  II.;)  but 
of  the  doctrine,  that  the  body  will  hereafter  be 
raised  to  life  and  the  whole  man  be  restored, 
there  are  no  very  clear  intimations  in  the  ear- 
liest writings.  There  is  nothing  in  these  writ- 
ings which  is  inconsistent  with  such  a  doctrine, 
or  opposed  to  it;  but  neither,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  there,  in  those  early  ages,  any  distinct  in- 
formation or  revelation  communicated  on  this 
subject.  The  passage,  Job,  xix.  25,  seq.,  is  in- 
deed cited  in  behalf  of  this  opinion,  and  such  a 
construction  of  this  passage  is  strenuously  vin- 
dicated by  Michaelis  and  Schultens.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Vulgate,  which  Luther  for  the  most 
part  follows,  this  passage  very  clearly  teaches 
this  doctrine ;  and  many  persons,  having  been 


accustomed  to  this  rendering  from  their  youth, 
are  startled  by  any  doubts  with  respect  to  it. 
But, 

(a)  It  is  remarkable,  that  neither  the  ancient 
Jewish  teachers,  nor  Christ  or  his  apostles,  ever  i 
appealed  to  this  passage  which  appears  so  plain  ' 
to  us.  This  explanation,  therefore,  appears  to 
have  been  unknown  to  them,  nor  can  there  be 
found  any  trace  of  it  in  the  Septuagint. 

(6)  It  is  not  in  itself  probable  that  this  doc- 
trine should  have  been  at  once  so  clearly  re- 
vealed in  so  ancient  a  writing.  This  would  be 
contrary  to  all  analogy.  For  knowledge  of  this 
kind  has  always  been  gradually  developed,  and 
the  revelations  made  to  man  follow  in  regular 
gradation  one  after  another. 

(c)  If  Job  had  such  distinct  expectations  andj 
hopes,  it  is  hard  to  account  for  it  that  he  did  not! 
earlier  express  them,  that  he  did  not  oftener' 
console  himself  with  them,  and  that  he  con- 
stantly recurs  to  his  old  complaints  and  doubts, 
which  would  have  been  entirely  set  aside  and  an- 
swered by  the  knowledge  of  any  such  doctrine. 

(rf)  Nor  can  it  be  accounted  for  that  his! 
friends  should  have  replied  nothing  to  the  state- 
ment of  such  a  doctrine  as  this,  since  they  take 
up,  one  by  one,  all  his  remarks,  his  complaints, 
and  his  consolations,  and  refute  them.  Would 
they,  now,  have  passed  by  unnoticed  this  most 
important  of  all  his  arguments'? 

(e)  From  many  passages  in  the  book  of  Job 
it  is  clear  that  he  was  indeed  acquainted  with  aj 
life  after  death  (he  speaks  of  Sxir) ;  but  therej 
is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  he  believed  in  a 
state  of  retribution  beyond  the  grave.  Vide 
ch.  xiv.  7 — 12;  vii.  6;  ix.  25;  xvii.  11 — 16; 
xvi.  22,  seq. 

(/)  The  common  translation  of  this  passage, 
according  to  which  it  is  made  to  teach  so  plainly) 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  does  violence  toj 
the  words  of  the  original,  and  is  contrary  to  the 
whole  usus  loquendi  of  the  Bible.  This  Mi4 
chaelis  perceived.  He  therefore  alters  the  text, 
and,  by  a  comparison  with  the  ancient  dialects, 
makes  out  an  artificial  rendering,  according  to 
which  the  passage  treats  of  the  resurrection. 

The  most  natural  construction  of  this  passage 
is,  to  understand  it  as  relating  to  Job's  restoraJ 
tion  to  health  and  recovery  from  sickness,  which| 
he  so  ardently  wished  and  hoped  for.  Vide! 
Morns,  p.  293.  This  text  would  then  be  illus4 
trated  by  one  still  more  plain  in  the  same  bookj 
viz.,  ch.  xlii.  25.  He  refutes  the  national  preju-j 
dice  which  his  friends  were  continually  object-; 
ing  against  him,  that  sickness  and  other  externalj 
calamities  are  always  to  be  regarded  as  the  con-| 
sequence  of  sins  committed  by  the  sufferer.  Hej 
pleads  that  even  piety  and  rectitude  are  not  al-j 
ways  exempt  from  these  calamities.  It  is  onj 
this  account  that  he  cherishes  the  hope,  which 
he  elsewhere  expresses,  that  God  will  justify) 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       529 


him  in  the  view  of  his  enemies  and  accusers,  by 
an  entire  restoration;  and  this  hope  becomes 
here  so  strong  that  it  leads  him  to  look  upon  his 
recovery  as  certain.  Cf.  Eichhorn's  Essay, 
Hiob's  Hoffnungen,  in  his  "  Allgemeinen  Bibli- 
othek.  der  biblischen  Literatur,"  b.  i.  s.  367 ;  also 
Henke,  Narratio  Crilica  de  Interpretatione  loci, 
Job,  xix.  25,  27,  in  Antiqua  Ecclesia,  Helmst. 
1783,  4to.,  (in  his  "Opusc.") 

According  to  this  view,  the  text  may  be  trans- 
lated as  follows: — "I  know  that  my  Redeemer 
lives.  And  ere  long,  he,  who  now  lies  in  the 
dust,  will  arise,  (he  who  is  deeply  bowed  down 
by  sickness  and  pain  will  recover;)  although 
my  skin  is  consumed,  I  shall  yet  in  this  body  see 
God,  (i.  e.,  have  in  him  a  gracious  God,  be 
blessed  and  restored  by  him;)  as  a  friend  shall 
I  see  him,  and  no  more  as  an  adversary.  I  wait, 
full  of  longing  desire,  for  his  help.  Then  shall 
ye  say,  when  my  innocence  is  clear,  why  did 
we  persecute  this  man]"  Ilgen,  in  his  work, 
*'Jobi  antiquissimi  carminis  Hebraici  natura 
atque  virtutes,"  p.  161,  seq.,  thus  translates: 
"  Vivit,  scio  enim,  causae  mess  patronus.  Qui 
contemtus  in  pulvere  jacet,  victor  caput  attolet. 
Haerebo  adhuc  in  cute,  dira  hac  vi  contusa :  ex 
hac  cuticula  videbo  Deum.  Quern  ego  mihi 
videbo  propitium,  quern  hisce  oculis  cernam 
animo  non  alienatum.  0  quam  enecat  renes 
desiderii  ardor !" 

There  are  no  distinct  intimations  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Moses,  or  in  the  Psalms ;  for  Ps.  xlix. 
15,  does  not  relate  to  this  subject,  still  less  does 
Ps.  civ.  29,  30,  though  cited  by  Theodoret  as 
one  of  the  proof-texts  of  this  doctrine.  Isaiah 
is  the  first  writer  who  compares  the  restoration 
of  the  Jewish  people  and  state  with  a  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead;  ch.  xxvi.  19,  20.  In  this 
he  was  followed  by  Ezekiel  at  the  time  of  the 
exile,  ch.  xxxvii.  From  these  passages,  we  must 
conclude  that  something  respecting  this  doctrine 
was  known  at  that  time  among  the  Israelites ; 
still  they  do  not  seem  to  have  seen  it  in  that 
clear  light  in  which  it  was  afterwards  revealed; 
since  in  that  case  the  prophets  would  probably 
have  mentioned  it  oftener  and  more  distinctly  in 
their  writings.  But  the  text,  Dan.  xii.  2,  leads 
very  plainly  to  this  doctrine,  for  here  is  some- 
thing more  than  a  mere  civil  restoration.  "  Those 
who  lie  asleep  under  the  earth  will  awake ;  some 
to  eternal  life,  others  to  everlasting  shame  and 
contempt." 

Judging  then  from  the  writings  of  the  Jews, 
they  appear  to  have  been  destitute  of  any  com- 
plete knowledge  of  this  doctrine  until  the  exile, 
and  indeed  for  a  considerable  period  after.  Still, 
there  is  nothing  in  the  Old  Testament  which 
contradicts  this  doctrine,  it  is  only  not  plainly 
revealed.  For  where  it  is  said,  (e.  g.,  Psalm 
Ixxxviii.  10,)  "that  the  dead  shall  not  rise  again 
67 


and  praise  God,"  it  is  plainly  meant  that  they 
will  never  return  to  this  upper  world,  and  into 
the  society  of  men  living  upon  the  earth ;  they 
can  never  again,  in  company  with  us,  and  in  the 
circle  of  the  living,  praise  God.  Cf.  Ps.  vi.  6, 
xxx.  10;  Is.  xxxviii.  18,  coll.  ver.  20. 

(2)  It  was  not,  then,  until  the  Babylonian 
exile,  and  more  especially  after  this  period,  that 
this  doctrine  was  developed  and  diffused  among 
the  Jews.  We  are  not  acquainted  with  the  more 
particular  occasion  which  led  to  this  develop- 
ment, or  what  prophets  or  teachers  after  Daniel 
were  employed  in  giving  this  doctrine  a  wider 
circulation.  For  just  in  this  place  there  is  a 
great  gap  in  the  doctrinal  history  of  the  Jews, 
since  no  writings  of  the  prophets  or  teachers  of 
this  period  have  come  down  to  us.  So  much 
only  is  known  on  this  subject  from  the  informa- 
tion which  has  come  down  to  us — viz., 

(a)  About  the  time  when  the  Jews  came  under 
the  Grecian  dominion,  the  doctrine  of  a  future 
retribution  was  more  developed  among  them 
than  it  had  before  been,  and  was  employed  by 
them  in  a  practical  way,  as  a  means  of  consola- 
tion under  suffering  and  persecution.  Vide  s. 
149,  II. 

(6)  It  is  known  also,  that  even  at  that  time 
the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  was 
most  intimately  connected  with  the  doctrine  of 
retribution.  It  was  then  taught  that  the  perfect 
and  happy  condition  of  man  would  first  com- 
mence, when  his  soul  should  be  hereafter  united 
again  to  his  body.  They  did  not  therefore  com- 
monly separate  these  two  things  in  their  concep- 
tions, but  always  connected  the  thought  of  the 
continuance  of  the  soul  after  death  with  the  idea 
of  its  future  union  with  the  body;  indeed,  they 
supposed  that  the  blessedness  of  man  could  not 
be  complete  until  his  soul  should  be  reunited  to 
his  body.  Hence  they  comprehend  under  the 
term  OVOCTT'CKUJ,  the  entire  future  condition  of 
man.  For  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews, 
with  which  the  holy  scriptures  accord,  man  is 
not  merely  in  this  life  a  being  compounded  of 
sense  and  reason,  but  he  will  continue  the  same 
in  the  life  to  come,  except  only  that,  in  the  case 
of  the  good,  there  will  be  none  of  that  prepon- 
derance of  sense  over  reason  which  has  its  foun- 
dation in  our  earthly  bodies.  Cf.  the  Essay, 
"  De  nexu  resurrectionis  J.  C.  e  mortuis  et  mor- 
tuorum,"  in  Scripta  Varii  Argument!,  Num.  ix. 

Thus  we  find  it,  for  the  first  time,  in  the  se- 
cond book  of  Maccabees,  where  the  martyrs  are 
made  to  expresss  the  hope,  by  which  they  were 
consoled,  of  a  coming  resurrection — e.  g.,  vii.  9, 
ftj  cu'wrtov  cwafiiucsiv  £w?j  ^aj  cU/acr-r^im, 
and  ver.  14,  jtOKiv  dvatf-r'^tffc&cu  vrio  ©tov,  and 
dvacyrcKHs  ftj  ^COTJV,  also  verses  23,  29,  36,  but 
especially  chap.  xii.  43 — 45,  where  it  is  said  it 
would  be  foolish  to  pray  for  the  dead  if  they  did 
not  rise  again.  And  so  we  find,  both  among  the 
2  Y  • 


530 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


later  Jewish  and  earlier  Christian  writers,  that 
there  is  no  distinction  made  between  immortality 
and  the  resurrection,  but  that  both  are  considered 
as  the  same  thing.  Vide  the  passages  from  the 
Rabbins  cited  in  Schottgen's  Hor.  Heb.  ad  Joh. 
v.  It  is  the  same  frequently  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment— e.  g.,  Matt.  xxii.  31,  where  the  avda-taais 
vsxpuv  is  argued  from  the  fact,  that  God  calls 
himself  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
even  after  their  death ;  although,  according  to 
our  present  usage,  in  which  resurrection  and 
immortality  are  distinguished,  this  fact  would 
only  prove  the  continuance  of  the  soul  after 
death.  Again,  1  Cor.  xv.  32,  el  vtxpoi  ovx 
tytCpovtai,  tydyupsv  xai  rtitofiEV,  x.  •(.  X-.  But 
wherever  avdataais  of  Q  ^u  a  T*  o  5,  or  (japxoj  is 
spoken  of,  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  its 
connexion  with  the  soul  are  alone  intended. 

The  Jews,  therefore,  would  regard  the  resto- 
ration of  man  as  incomplete  unless  his  body 
were  restored.  They  believed  the  latter  essential 
to  the  entire  restitution  of  man,  because  in  the 
present  life  he  consists  of  both  soul  and  body. 
And  as  the  body  here  participates  in  our  virtues 
and  vices,  and  their  consequences,  so  they  sup- 
posed it  would  hereafter  participate  in  our  re- 
ward or  punishment.  Hence  they  represent  the 
intermediate  state  in  which  the  soul  exists  with- 
out the  body,  as  an  imperfect  state.  It  is  com- 
pared by  them  to  nakedness,  (and  the  same  is 
done  by  Plato,}  e.  g.,  in  the  Chaldaic  para- 
phrases, Job,  xxxviii.  14,  &c.  So  Paul,  o-O 
yvpvoi  tvp^^aof/Lf^a,  2  Cor.  v.  2 — 4. 

The  greater  part  of  the  Jews  formed  very 
gross  conceptions  respecting  the  rewards  and 
enjoyments  of  the  blessed  in  the  future  state,  and 
many  of  them  perverted  the  doctrine  of  the  re- 
surrection of  the  body  to  suit  these  conceptions. 
For  they  were  for  the  most  part  better  acquainted 
with  the  grosser  corporeal  pleasures  than  with 
the  higher  spiritual  joys,  for  which  indeed  they 
had  but  little  taste  or  capacity.  They  thus  pic- 
tured to  themselves  the  future  life  as  entirely 
resembling  the  present,  except  in  being  exempt 
from  all  sufferings  and  unpleasant  sensations. 
They  believjed  that  men  would  eat  and  drink, 
and  satisfy  their  other  animal  appetites,  in  the 
same  way  there  as  here.  Doctrines  like  these 
were  taught  by  many  of  the  most  distinguished 
Rabbins  who  lived  after  the  time  of  Christ,  and 
even  by  Maimonides.  It  is  said  in  Rev.  ii.  7, 
and  xxii.  2,  14,  that  the  tree  of  life  is  placed  in 
heaven,  and  its  fruit  is  there  eaten,  as  the  means 
of  obtaining  immortality.  This  representation 
is  figurative;  but  many  of  the  Jews  understood 
such  descriptions  literally,  and  believed  in  a 
kind  of  food  for  angels  or  gods,  like  nectar  and 
ambrosia.  It  was  against  such  gross  material 
representations,  which  have  no  necessary  con- 
nexion with  this  doctrine,  but  which  were  often 
associated  with  it,  that  the  Sadducees  directed 


their  wit;  and  they  made  these  incongruities 
ridiculous.  This  was  their  object  when  they 
proposed  to  Jesus  the  case  of  the  woman  who 
had  several  brothers,  one  after  another  in  suc- 
cession, for  husbands,  Matthew,  xxii.  24,  seq. 

Others,  better  instructed,  separated  from  their 
conceptions  of  the  future  state  these  grosser  in- 
dulgences, and  thus  escaped  this  ridicule.  They 
taught  that  we  shall  hereafter  possess  a  more 
refined  body,  which  will  not  be  dependent  for  its 
nourishment  upon  food,  and  which  will  not  pro- 
pagate the  race.  This  was  the  opinion  of  most 
of  the  Pharisees  at  the  time  of  Christ,  and  the 
same  was  afterwards  maintained  by  most  of  the 
Jewish  teachers.  For  when  Christ  said  that 
"  the  risen  saints  would  not  marry,  but  be  as  the 
angels  of  God,"  the  Pharisees  entirely  assented, 
Matt.  xxii.  30,  coll.  Luke,  xx.  39,  and  the  texts 
cited  from  the  Rabbins  in  Wetstein  on  Matt. 
xxii.  30.  With  regard  to  the  use  of  food,  Paul 
says  expressly  that  it  will  entirely  cease  in  the 
future  world,  ®tb$  xoifaav  xal  J3pw/*cwa  xafapyj^f  & 
— i.  e.,  he  will  take  them  away,  and  enable  us 
to  do  without  them. 

The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
was  therefore  common  among  the  Jews  at  the 
time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  Vide  Matt. 
xxii. ;  Luke,  xx. ;  Acts,  xxiii.  G — 8.  So,  in 
John,  xi.  24,  the  Jewess  Martha  speaks  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  as  a  thing  well  known 
and  undoubted.  Josephus  indeed  (Ant.  xviii. 
2)  expresses  himself  doubtfully  with  regard  to 
the  Pharisees — "  they  believe  that  the  soul  is 
immortal,  and  can  easily  return  to  life  (drajSuo- 
cjcu) ;"  and  again,  (Bell.  Jud.  ii.  7,)  "they 
maintain  that  the  souls  of  the  pious  pass  into 
other  bodies,  (pstapaivsiv  tig  tttpov  (jc^ua.)" 
Here  Josephus,  in  his  usual  manner,  so  repre- 
sents designedly  the  Jewish  doctrine,  that  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  to  whom  the  resurrection 
of  the  body  appeared  absurd,  should  suppose 
the  transmigration  of  souls  to  be  intended,  while 
at  the  same  time  the  Jews  should  understand 
that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  was  spoken  of. 
But  from  the  texts  cited  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  appears  that  the  Pharisees,  like  the 
other  Jews,  believed  in  a  resurrection. 

There  were  some  among  the  Jews  of  the 
opinion  that  the  wicked  would  not  receive  a 
body  in  the  future  world.  Josephus  says,  in  the 
passage  cited,  that  even  the  Pharisees  believed 
that  the  souls  of  the  wicked  would  not  pass  into 
other  bodies,  (i.  e.,  that  the  wicked  would  not 
rise  again,)  but  that  they  would  be  eternally 
punished.  It  may  perhaps  be  that  this  was 
taught  by  some  at  the  time  of  Josephus;  but 
during  the  first  century  it  was  the  more  prevail- 
ing belief,  even  among  the  Pharisees,  that  both 
the  righteous  and  the  wicked  would  share  in 
the  coming  resurrection.  For  in  Acts,  xxiv. 
15,  Paul  says  expressly  that  he  agrees  with  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION. 


531 


Pharisees  and  other  Jews  (in  opposition  to  the 
Sadducees)  in  maintaining  the  drnfffaotv,  and 
that  not  only  of  the  righteous,  but  also  of  the 
wicked  (Stxauov  *ts  xai  dSi-Wv.)  But  frequent 
traces  of  this  opinion  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Chaldaic  Paraphrases,  and  in  the  writings  of 
the  Rabbins  after  the  time  of  Christ,  although 
it  never  became  general  among  the  Jews.  This 
opinion  came  naturally  from  the  idea  that  the 
happiness  of  the  good  would  be  incomplete 
without  the  body ;  and  so  it  was  made  a  part 
of  the  wretchedness  of  the  wicked  not  to  come 
again  into  possession  of  a  body.  Another  cause 
of  this  opinion  is  the  allegorical  explanation 
which  they  gave  to  some  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament — e.  g.,  Ps.  i.  5,  nw1}  w;?^s6,  Sept. 
ovx  avaatrfiovtat,  ol  aaej3£i$.  Indeed,  many  main- 
tained the  entire  annihilation  of  the  wicked, 
I  both  as  to  soul  and  body.  Vide  Theod.  Das- 
sovii  Dissert,  qua  Judaeor.  de  resqrrectione  mor- 
tuorum  sententia  explicatur,  c.  4 ;  also  Menasse 
ben  Israel,  De  Resur.  Mort.,  1.  iii. ;  Amst.  1636, 
where  many  of  the  Jewish  fancies  respecting 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  are  collected  toge- 
ther. This  opinion  respecting  the  non-resur- 
rection of  the  wicked  has  found  advocates  even 
among  Christian  writers,  especially  of  the  Soci- 
nian  party. 

Note. — The  term  uvdcrtqvfu  ex  vsxpuv  is  used 
once  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote  the  return 
of  a  departed  soul  to  the  world,  and  its  re-ap- 
pearance in  its  supposed  body  of  shade — viz., 
Luke,  xvi.  31,  coll.  ver.  27,28,30;  like  the 
sense  in  which  the  phrase  ab  inferis  exsistere  is 
sometimes  used. 

(3)  Since  the  doctrine  of  the  future  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body  was  not  very  plainly  taught  in 
the  books  of  Moses,  or  elsewhere  in  the  Old 
Testament,  (as  it  seems  not  to  have  been  fully 
revealed  in  those  earlier  ages,)  it  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at  that  some  of  the  Jews  took  occa- 
sion, or  derived  a  pretext  from  this,  either  to 
deny  this  doctrine,  or  to  doubt  respecting  it. 
This  was  done  not  merely  by  the  Sadducees, 
who  denied  in  general  that  the  soul  of  man  is 
of  a  nature  different  from  his  body,  and  that  it 
can  continue  after  death,  (vide  Acts,  xxiii.  8, 
seq.,  and  Josephus,  in  the  passage  before  cited,) 
on  the  ground  that  this  doctrine  is  not  taught 
by  Moses,  or  in  all  the  Old  Testament;  but  also 
by  other  Jews,  especially  those,  it  seems,  who 
had  imbibed  the  Grecian  (the  Pythagorean  or 
Platonic)  philosophy,  or  who  at  any  rate  enter- 
tained ideas  respecting  the  body  similar  to  those 
taught  in  this  philosophy,  making  it  ^prison  for 
the  soul,  from  which  it  is  freed  by  death  when 
it  returns  to  God. 

Thus,  according  to  Josephus,  (Bell.  Jud.  ii. 
7,)  did  the  Essenes  believe.  They  seem,  there- 
fore, not  to  have  maintained  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  although  they  believed  in  the  immor- 


tality of  the  soul.  Even  Josephus  carefully 
avoids  the  words  avdataais  and  aviatr^i,  when 
he  describes  the  doctrines  of  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees,  and  expresses  himself  ambiguously, 
in  order  not  to  displease  the  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans, for  whom  he  principally  wrote,  and  to 
whom  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  would  appear  not  only  new,  but,  according 
to  the  principles  of  the  philosophy  prevailing 
among  them,  offensive  and  absurd.  And  so 
Paul  was  ridiculed  at  Athens  by  the  Grecian 
philosophers  when  he  taught  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  Acts,  xvii.  32,  coll.  xxvi.  6 — 8, 
and  ver.  23,  24.  At  a  later  period,  Lucian  and 
Celsus  employed  their  wit  against  the  same 
doctrine  in  Origen  and  others ;  and  Pliny  says, 
(Hist.  Nat.  ii.  7,)  that  if  it  is  impossible  for 
God  to  destroy  himself,  it  is  equally  impossible 
for  him,  mortales  seternitate  donare,  et  in  vitam 
revocare  defunctos.  There  have  always  been 
some  among  the  modern  Jews  who  have  been 
inclined  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Sadducees,  and 
who  have  frequently  been  opposed  by  the  Rab- 
bins. Vide  Wetstein  on  Matt.  xxii. 

SECTION  CLII. 

THE  CHRISTIAN   DOCTRINE    RESPECTING   THE    RE- 
SURRECTION OF  THE  BODY. 

I.  What  Christ  and  the  Apostles  have  done  for  this 
Doctrine,  and  respecting  the  Doubts  of  some 
Christians. 

AT  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  this 
doctrine  had  already  become  prevalent  among 
the  Jews,  s.  151,  II.,  although  it  was  not 
clearly  revealed  in  their  older  religious  books. 
Through  Christ  it  was  now  for  the  first  time 
distinctly  established  anew,  and  revealed  on 
divine  authority.  In  those  very  discourses  of 
our  Saviour  in  which  he  designs  to  prove  him- 
self divine  in  the  highest  sense,  he  plainly  and 
definitely  brings  forward  this  doctrine  as  a  con- 
stituent part  of  his  religious  system — e.  g., 
Matthew,  xxii.;  John,  v.,  viii.,  xi.  Without 
this  explanation  and  positive  assurance  on  his 
part  and  that  of  his  disciples,  this  doctrine 
would  still  have  been  doubtful.  But  those  who 
regard  Christ  and  his  apostles  as  being  what 
they  profess  to  be,  ought  not  and  cannot  be  any 
longer  in  doubt. 

Christ  and  his  apostles,  however,  corrected 
the  false  notions  on  this  subject,  which  at  that 
time  prevailed  among  at  least  a  large  portion  of 
the  Jews,  and  made  the  whole  matter  more  ob- 
vious and  intelligible.  But  this  doctrine  has 
derived  a  special  interest  and  demonstration 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  placed  in  the  most  inti- 
mate connexion  with  the  history  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  and  that  he  is  represented  as  the  one 
to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  this  benefit.  It  is 


532 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


most  intimately  connected  with  his  death,  his 
resurrection,  and  his  exalted  state  in  heaven. 
Vide  s.  119,  ad  finem,  and  s.  120,  I.  The 
apostles  rested  the  doctrine  of  our  resurrection 
mainly  upon  that  of  Christ,  (cf.  1  Cor.  xv. ;  1 
Thess.  iv.  14;)  they  preached  through  Jesus 
(ev  f  9  'Irjuov)  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  Acts, 
iv.  2 ;  and  hence  they  call  him  the  first  that  rose 
from  the  dead ;  Acts,  xxvi.  23 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  20, 
et  alibi.  And  from  this  Paul  argues  that  if  it  is 
acknowledged  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead, 
there  can  be  no  reason  to  deny  or  think  it  impos- 
sible that  there  should  be  a  general  resurrection 
of  all  men,  1  Cor.  xv.  12,  seq.  Cf.  Mosheim, 
Diss.  "  Qua  docetur  Christum  Resurrectionem 
Mortuorum  Corporum,  Qualem  Christian!  Cre- 
dunt,  e  Tenebris  in  Lucem  Revocasse  et  De- 
monstrasse,"  in  his  Dissertations  "Ad  Hist. 
Eccl.  Pertinent,"  vol.  ii.  p.  586.  Cf.  also  the 
Essay,  "De  Nexu  Resurrectionis  Christi  e 
Mortuis  et  Mortuorum,"  in  "Scripta  Varii  Ar- 
gumentii,"  Num.  ix. 

But  this  doctrine  has  been  doubted  or  denied 
by  many  Christians  in  modern  times. 

(1)  It  appears  from  1  Cor.  xv.  and  2  Timo- 
thy, ii.  18,  that  even  during  the  life  of  the  apos- 
tles there  were  Christians  to  whom  this  doctrine 
seemed  doubtful,  if  they  did  not  wholly  deny 
it,  because  it  did  not  accord  with  their  precon- 
ceived opinions,  although  it  cannot  be  shewn 
that  they  at  the  same  time  denied  the  immorta- 
lity of  the  soul.  These  may  have  been  either 
Gentile  converts  (for  this  doctrine  was  pecu- 
liarly offensive  to  the  heathen,  vide  s.  151,  ad 
finem,)  or  converts  from  Judaism,  who  had 
agreed  on  this  point  with  the  Essenes  or  the 
Sadducees.  To  the  latter  class  belong  Hyme- 
naeus  and  Philetus,  xlyovi'sj  tvjv  avdotadiv  ^8tj 
ysyovsrai.  They  probably  understood  the  term 
avast  aortj,  as  used  in  the  Old  Testament  and  by 
Christ,  to  signify  the  introduction  of  a  person  into 
a  better  state,  or  improvement  of  life.  Vide  s. 
151,  I.  This  they  supposed  was  already  ac- 
complished by  Christ,  and  that  a  resurrection 
in  the  literal  sense  is  not  to  be  looked  for. 
Hence  Paul  endeavours  (1  Cor.  xv.)  in  part  to 
obviate  the  objections  of  the  Sadducees  and 
Gentiles,  and  in  part  to  separate  and  distinguish 
the  true  doctrine  from  the  gross  and  earthly 
conceptions  of  many  of  the  Jews. 

Still  the  opinion  that  there  will  be  no  restora- 
tion of  the  body  has  always  found  place  among 
some  Christians,  especially  among  the  Gnos- 
tics, who  were  led  to  reject  this  doctrine  by 
their  views  respecting  matter,  and  by  their 
method  of  interpreting  scripture.  So  thought 
Manes,  in  the  third  century,  and  his  numerous 
followers  in  after  times;  also  the  Priscillianists 
in  Spain;  likewise  Hierax  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  fourth  century,  who  would  allow 
of  only  a  spiritual  resurrection,  or  a  resurrection 


of  the  soul.  And  so  in  all  succeeding  ages 
there  have  always  been  those  among  Christians 
who  have  either  secretly  doubted  or  openly  reject- 
ed this  doctrine.  Cf.  Dr.  Hammer,  Mortuorum 
in  Vitam  Revocatio,  Sermonibus  Christi  Histori- 
cse  Interpretations  ope  Vindicata ;  Lips.  1794. 

(2)  In  modern  times,  many  protestant  theo- 
logians— e.  g.,  Eckermann,  Henke,  Ammon, 
&c. — have  endeavoured  to  explain  away  from 
the  New  Testament  the  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead.,  notwithstanding  the  many 
clear  passages  by  which  it  is  supported.  They 
have  maintained  that  this  dogma  is  no  part  of 
the  Christian  system.  It  was,  in  their  view, 
through  mere  condescension  to  the  prevailing 
opinions  of  the  Jews  that  Christ  and  the  apos- 
tles employed  the  common  language  on  this 
point,  which  must  accordingly  be  understood 
in  a  different  sense — viz.,  a  sense  agreeing  with 
the  philosophical  ideas  prevailing  in  the  nine- 
teenth century.  There  is  not,  however,  the 
remotest  hint,  in  all  the  words  of  Christ  and 
the  apostles,  that  they  meant  to  be  understood 
figuratively ;  and  if  this  method  of  interpretation 
were  adopted,  nothing  of  the  Christian  system 
would  be  left  behind.  That  the  words  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles  are  to  be  understood  literally 
on  this  subject  is  plain  from  this,  that  it  is  af- 
firmed of  Christ  that  he  himself  now  possesses 
a  body  in  his  heavenly  state  in  the  kingdom  of 
the  blessed,  and  that  we  shall  hereafter  resem- 
ble him  in  this  respect,  and  possess  a  body 
which  will  be  like  his  glorious  body,  s.  153. 

II.  Biblical  Representation. 

The  principal  texts  of  scripture  which  relate 
to  this  subject  are,  John,  v.  21 — 29  ;  vi.  39, 
40  ;  Matthew,  xxii.  23,  seq. ;  1  Cor.  xv. ;  Acts, 
xxiv.  14,;15;  1  Thess.  iv.  13;  Phil.  iii.  21. 
With  regard  to  the  principal  points  taught  in 
these  passages,  we  remark, 

(1)  The  raising  of  the  dead  is  ascribed  ex- 
pressly to  Christ,  and  it  is  represented  as  the 
last  work  which  will  be  undertaken  by  him  for 
the  salvation  of  man.  Paul  says,  1  Cor.  xv. 
22,  seq.,  "  As  through  Adam  all  die,  so  through 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive ;  through  him 
shall  death,  the  last  enemy,  be  conquered  ;  and 
then  shall  his  work  as  Messiah  be  completed, 
and  he  will  lay  down  his  government."  Christ 
himself  said  that  he  had  received  power  for  this 
purpose  from  the  Father;  John,  v.  21,  "'The 
dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God,  and 
live.  For  as  the  Father  ^w^v  *#«  h  twee?  (i. 
e.,  is  the  original  source  of  all  life,  and  pos- 
sesses, as  Creator,  all-quickening  power)  he 
hath  given  to  the  Son  also  power  to  quicken  the 
dead."  And  in  John,  xi.  25,  where  he  is  about 
to  raise  the  lifeless  body  of  Lazarus,  he  says 
respecting  himself,  that  he  is  ^  wuaiaais  xai  i\ 
£co>j,  the  one  who  would  raise  the  body,  and 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       533 


give  life  to  the  dead.     Cf.  1  Thess.  iv.  14,  and 
Rev.  i.  18,  t^et  xtei$  TOV  a.8ov  xai,  tov  §a,vatov. 

(2)  Jill  the  dead  will  hereafter  be  raised,  with- 
out respect  to  age,  rank,  or  moral  character  in 
this  world.     So  the  New  Testament  teaches 
throughout;  especially  in  opposition  to  the  opi- 
nions of  some  Jews,  s.  151,  II.  2,  ad  finem, 
coll.  s.  120,  I.  2,  note.     So  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  iv 

t,,  to  which  is  opposed 
t.  Acts,  xxiv. 
15,  amffr'atftf  vexp&v  Stxaiuv  tie  xai  aSixczv.  And 
Christ  himself  says,  John,  v.  28,  29,  "  All  who 
are  in  their  graves  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the 
Son  of  man,  and  those  who  have  done  well 
IJ  avdafaaiv  £co^$,  (i.  e.,  ct's  £co»ji>,) 
those  who  have  done  evil,  ct$  awdrstaaw  xptojcoj. 
This  was  a  common  mode  of  speech  among  the 
Fews,  (vide  Mace.  vii.  14,  coll.  xii.  43,  avdataai$ 
which  is  obviously  taken  from  Dan. 
xii.  2. 

(3)  The  resurrection  of  the  body,  however, 
will  not  take  place  before  the  end  of  the  world, 
or  the  general  judgment.     This,  too,  was  the 
common  doctrine  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of 

!hrist;  hence  Martha  says,  John,  xi.  24,  "that 
she  knows  her  brother  will  rise  at  the  last  day, 
-ty  £<3%d<ty  ^uspa.)"  And  this  opinion  is 
everywhere  confirmed  by  Christ.  In  John,  v. 
21,  he  not  only  connects  the  resurrection  and 
judgment  most  intimately  together,  but  in  John, 
vi.  39,  40,  he  expressly  promises  his  followers, 
iv  tfij  foxafff  g^utpa.  And 
so  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22 — 28,  the  resurrection  is 
slaced  in  obvious  connexion  with  the  rtapouca'a 
of  Christ,  after  which  the  end  of  the  world 
will  immediately  come;  and  in  1  Thess.  iv.  15, 
t  is  said  that  those  who  survive  the  jtapovaiav 
of  Christ  will  not  attain  either  sooner  or  later  to 
the  enjoyment  of  heavenly  blessedness  than 
;  but  that  the  dead  and  living  will 
meet  Christ  at  the  same  time,  that  they  may  be 
forever  with  him.  Cf.  Rev.  xx.  11,  seq.  The 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  then,  will  take  place 
when  the  Christian  church  on  earth  shall  cease ; 
but  this,  according  to  the  clear  declarations  of 
Christ,  shall  last  until  the  end  of  the  world. 

This  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  hypothe- 
sis of  Priestley,  who  attempts  to  shew  that  the 
resurrection  will  take  place  immediately  after 
death.  The  same  hypothesis  has  been  advo- 
cated in  a  work  entitled,  "  Auferstehung  der 
Todten  nach  der  eigentlichen  Lehre  Jesu 

!hristi,"  by  Job.  Fr.  des  Cotes,  court  preacher 
at  Nassau ;  and  still  better  in  the  «  Beytragen 
zur  Beforderung  des  verniinftigen  Denkens  in 
der  Religion,"  2tes,  Heft,  s.  76,  f.,  and  3tes, 
Heft,  s.  39,  f.  It  is  indeed  true  that  the  disem- 
bodied existence  of  the  soul  beyond  the  grave 
is  comprehended  in  the  writings  of  the  Jews 
and  of  the  New  Testament,  under  the  term 
but  this  is  not  all  which  is  comprised 


in  this  term ;  and  the  avdotasif  will  not  be  com- 
plete and  perfect  until  the  body  also  is  raised. 
Vide  s.  151,  II.  2. 

Again;  these  Pauline  texts  are  opposed  to 
the  opinion  of  the  Chiliasts,  that  there  is  a  two- 
fold resurrection;  an  earlier,  that  of  the  pious, 
and  a  later,  that  of  the  wicked,  or  of  the  hea- 
then. An  avdataait  rtpurty  is,  indeed,  mentioned 
in  Rev.  xx.  5,  6,  but  the  phrase  admits  easily 
of  another  interpretation. 

(4)  As  to  the  manner  in  which  the  resurrec- 
tion will  take  place,  the  New  Testament  gives 
us  no  definite  information  by  which  our  curio- 
sity can  be  wholly  satisfied  ;  and  this,  doubt- 
less, because  such  information  could  be  neither 
intelligible  to  us  nor  of  any  use.  The  whole 
matter  lies  beyond  the  sphere  of  our  knowledge. 
In  speaking  on  this  subject,  Christ  and  the 
apostles  sometimes  make  use  of  expressions 
which  are  figurative,  (and  of  such  there  were 
many  current  among  the  Jews,)  and  sometimes 
they  content  themselves  with  proving  the  possi- 
bility and  intelligibleness  of  the  thing,  in  oppo- 
sition to  doubters  and  scoffers,  and  with  making 
it  plain  by  examples. 

(a)  Among  the  more  figurative  representa- 
tions and  expressions,  at  least  among  those  in 
which  there  is  some  intermixture  of  what  is 
figurative,  the  representation  contained  in  John, 
v.,  is  commonly  reckoned — viz.,  the  representa- 
tion that  the  voice  of  Christ  will  penetrate  the 
graves  in  order  to  awaken  the  dead.  The  image 
is  here  that  of  a  sleeper  who  is  aroused  by  a 
loud  call ;  and  some  understand  the  representa- 
tion as  so  entirely  figurative  that  they  exclude 
any  audible  or  perceptible  sound.  It  cannot, 
however,  be  shewn  that  Christ  meant  to  ex- 
clude these.  For  in  the  resurrection  of  Laza- 
rus, of  the  young  man  at  Nain,  and  the  daugh- 
ter of  Jairus,  the  voice  of  Christ  was  heard  by 
them,  and  was  the  means  of  raising  them  to 
life.  Still  the  voice,  merely  as  such,  is  not  the 
efficient  cause  of  the  work,  but  the  almighty 
power  accompanying  it ;  and  so  it  is  said  of 
God,  when  he  produces  any  effect  by  his  cre- 
ative power,  that  he  speaks,  his  voice  sounds  forth. 

The  Jews  supposed  that  the  dead  would  be 
awakened  by  the  sound  of  a  trumpet.  Traces 
of  this  opinion  are  to  be  found  in  the  Chaldaic 
paraphrasts.  At  first  this  representation  be- 
longed only  to  the  figurative  phraseology  of 
prophecy;  for  the  people  were  commonly  as- 
sembled by  the  sound  of  the  trumpet,  as  was 
the  case  in  the  assembling  at  Sinai;  and,  in 
general,  a  trumpet  was  used  to  give  signs  and 
signals — e.  g.,  for  an  onset  in  battle,  &c.  Af- 
terwards, this  representation  was  literally  un- 
derstood, and  the  size  of  the  trumpet  was  sup- 
posed to  be  a  thousand  yards,  and  that  it  was 
blown  seven  times.  Vide  Wetstein  and  Sem- 
ler  on  1  Cor.  xv.  52.  In  this  passage  Paul  uses 
2  v2 


534 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


the  term  tv  taxd-tv]  adMiyyi 
j'Fxpofc  $ytp$r((foirt(u,.  The  same  poetic  phrase- 
ology is  employed  in  1  Thess.  iv.  16,  "Christ 
will  come  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the 
archangel,  and  iv  odhrtiyyi,  ©EOV  (the  trump 
given  him  by  God),  xal  ol  vixpoi  d^acrT'^fTovt'at." 

In  this  representation  there  is  much,  indeed, 
which  is  figurative,  and  which  belongs  to  the 
prophetic  imagery,  (as  in  Matt.  xxiv.  and  in 
the  Apocalypse,)  and  we  are  not  now  able  to 
determine  the  meaning  of  all  the  particular  traits 
in  this  picture.  But  the  great  thought  which 
we  must  hold  fast  is  very  obvious — viz.,  Christ 
will  solemnly  and  visibly  appear  in  his  majesty, 
and  by  his  divine  power  raise  all  the  dead.  In 
other  passages  this  truth  is  literally  expressed — 
e.  g.,  Phil.  iii.  21,  where  it  is  said  that  Christ 
will  do  this  by  the  power  by  which  he  is  able 
to  subdue  all  things  to  himself— i.  e.,  by  his 
si'f'pyfta,  his  omnipotence,  which  surmounts  all 
difficulties  and  hindrances,  and  brings  to  pass 
what  appears  to  men  impossible. 

(6)  The  possibility  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  is  illustrated  by  Paul,  in  opposition  to 
those  who  regarded  it  as  impossible  or  contra- 
dictory, 1  Cor.  xv.  35,  seq.,  by  comparing  it 
with  events  of  common  occurrence  in  the  natu- 
ral world,  which  seem  to  us  less  wonderful 
only  because  they  are  common.  "  How  is  it 
possible,"  it  was  asked,  "  that  the  dead  should 
be  raised  ?"  (rtw$  tysipov-tat,  vexpoi.)  He  re- 
plies: "The  grain  of  corn  cast  into  the  ground 
cannot  rise  (^wortotsfrfat)  until  it  die,"  (drto^ai^, 
vide  John,  xii.  24.)  This  appears  unintelligi- 
ble; and  we  should  regard  it  as  impossible  if 
we  did  not  see  it  actually  accomplished.  Why 
then  should  not  God  be  able  to  raise  men,  and 
from  their  present  bodies  to  produce  others? 
This  is  a  fine  comparison  to  illustrate  the  pos- 
sibility of  this  event.  Again  ;  he  shews,  by  the 
example  of  Christ,  that  the  dead  can  be  raised, 
ver.  12 — 14.  And  so  the  apostles  always — e. 
g.,  Acts,  iv.  2,  xa-fayysM^£i,v  iv  -tip  'IrjSov  t1jv 
avdtrt&rtw  j/fxpwv.  Cf.  Morus,  Diss.  Inaug.  ad 
1  Cor.  xv.  35 — 55;  Lipsiae,  1782. 

Note. — Many  modern  writers  also  have  en- 
deavoured in  various  other  ways  to  shew  the 
possibility  of  the  resurrection,  and  in  this  have 
availed  themselves  of  the  observations  of  natu- 
ralists. The  common  fault  with  these  compa- 
risons is,  that  either  the  alleged  facts  are  untrue 
and  imaginary,  or  have  nothing  resembling  the 
resurrection.  It  must  be  considered  a  fault  of 
the  first  kind,  to  endeavour,  as  Fecht,  Von 
Frankenau,  and  others,  have  done,  to  illustrate 
the  resurrection  by  the  alleged  palingenesia  of 
plants,  or  their  restoration  from  their  ashes,  by 
means  of  a  chemical  process,  which,  in  fact,  is 
nothing  more  than  an  exhibition  of  the  image 
of  the  plant.  Vide  Wiegleb,  Natiirliche  Magie. 


It  is  a  fault  of  the  other  class  to  apply  to  this 
subject  the  observation,  that  there  is  only  one 
mass  of  matter  upon  the  earth,  and  that  nothing 
is  lost,  nothing  perishes,  but  still  reviyes  again, 
only  under  forms  which  are  ever  new.  But 
this  revivification  is  very  different  from  the  re- 
surrection of  the  dead;  for  in  the  former  case 
there  is  no  consciousness  of  the  previous  state. 
The  inanimate  body  of  a  man  may  furnish  nour- 
ishment to  a  beast  of  prey  or  to  a  vegetable, 
so  that  its  parts  will  become  incorporated  with 
those  of  the  beast  or  the  plant,  and  contribute 
to  their  nourishment  and  growth ;  but  is  this  re- 
surrection ?  The  principal  thing  in  the  resur- 
rection is  the  reunion  of  the  soul  with  the  body. 
But  if  these  attempts  have  not  succeeded,  it 
is  equally  vain  to  attempt,  by  reasons  a  priori^ 
to  prove  the  impossibility  of  the  restoration  of 
the  body.  Respecting  the  question,  whether 
our  souls  will  remain  after  death  without  a 
body,  nothing  can  be  definitely  determined  by 
philosophy ;  but  the  negative  opinion  is  not 
only  liable  to  no  philosophical  objection,  but  has 
in  its  favour  this  fact,  which  is  universally  ob- 
served, that  the  different  species  of  beings  are 
not  essentially  altered,  or  as  it  were  made  anew, 
through  all  the  changes  to  which  they  are  sub- 
ject, but  still  preserve  their  peculiar  and  cha- 
racteristic features ;  so  that  the  wonderful  gra- 
dation in  the  works  of  God  is  preserved  unbroken. 
Thus  there  are  beings  wholly  spiritual,  (as  the 
angels  are  described  to  be  in  the  scriptures ;) 
there  are  beings  composed  of  reason  and  sense, 
(as  men,  and  perhaps  many  in  other  worlds;) 
and,  finally,  there  are  animate  beings,  consist- 
ing wholly  of  sense,  and  having  no  moral  na- 
ture, (such  as  the  beasts.)  Since,  now,  the 
latter  class  subsists  by  itself,  and  is  so  separate 
from  the  foregoing  that  there  is  no  example  of 
a  mere  animal  becoming  a  rational  being,  it  may 
from  this  analogy  be  expected  that  it  will  be  the 
same  with  man,  and  that,  even  in  the  future 
world,  he  will  not  become  a  merely  spiritual 
being,  but  remain,  as  now,  compounded  of  spirit 
and  matter,  and  consequently  will  hereafter  be- 
come again  possessed  of  a  body. 

SECTION  CLIII. 

DOCTRINE  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  RESPECTING 
THE  NATURE  OF  THE  BODY  WHICH  WE  SHALL 
RECEIVE  AT  THE  RESURRECTION;  AND  THE  OPI- 
NIONS OF  THEOLOGIANS  ON  THIS  POINT. 

I.  Difference  of  the  Future  Body  from  the  Present. 
THAT  there  is  a  difference  between  the  two 
in  respect  to  their  entire  constitution  and  the 
objects  of  their  existence,  we  are  taught  by  the 
New  Testament.  The  body  received  at  the  re- 
surrection will  be  immortal,  and  is  designed  for 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       535 


an  entirely  different  world  from  the  present. 
The  chief  characteristic  of  the  resurrection-body 
is  placed  by  the  New  Testament  in  its  d^op- 
,  and  its  other  excellences  are  derived  from 
this.  Vide  the  texts  cited  by  Morus,  p.  292, 
note  8.  It  cannot  therefore  be  wholly  consti- 
tuted like  our  present  body,  which  is  designed 
only  for  this  world. 

One  of  the  most  important  texts  on  this  sub- 
ject is  1  Cor.  XV.  50,  crapf  xai  al/ia  jSaut^ftar 
v  x7^r^ovop.tiv  ov  Svj/a-rcu, — i.  e.,  man,  in  the 
present  imperfect  state  of  his  body,  (Theodoret 
well  says,  q  SvtjtJi  <}>t><jtj,)  is  incapable  of  hea- 
venly bliss.  For  the  mortal  body  (<j£opa — i. 
e.,  OMfia  (j^aptfdv,)  cannot  partake  of  eternal 
life,  (duj^opat'a,  immortality.)  Blood,  according 
to  the  conception  of  the  whole  ancient  world, 
is  found  only  among  men  and  other  animals 
who  are  nourished  by  the  food  of  our  earth,  and 
not  among  the  immortals,  who  do  not  taste  of 
this  food.  The  gods,  therefore,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  ancient  Greeks,  had  no  blood,  (they  were 
ipovs $,)  and  were  immortal,  because  they  ate 
no  bread  and  drank  no  wine. 

In  Homer,  (II.  v.  341,  seq.,  vi.  142,)  men  arc 
called,  in  opposition  to  the  gods,  jSporW,  those 
who  eat  the  fruit  of  the  field.  The  body  of  the 
gods  was  regarded  by  them  as  a  true  body,  and 
in  human  form,  but  only  framed  more  perfectly, 
and  from  a  finer  material ;  it  was  by  no  means 
that  shadowy  body  ascribed  to  departed  souls. 
Vide  s.  150,  s.  66,  II.  And  so  was  the  body  of 
those  raised  up  at  the  last  day  conceived  of,  as 
no  mere  shadowy  form,  but  as  a  true  body, 
though  without  flesh  and  blood. 

The  Greeks  supposed  that  their  gods  ate  a 
food  peculiar  to  themselves,  nectar  and  ambro- 
sia,- and  so  the  great  multitude  of  the  Jews 
supposed  that  those  who  are  raised  to  be  inha- 
bitants of  heaven  partake  of  a  kind  of  heavenly 
food.  Vide  s.  151,  II.  2,  and  s.  59,  II.,  respect- 
ing angels.  There  have  always  been  Chris- 
tians who  have  maintained  the  same  thing;  and 
even  in  modern  times  some  have  expressed 
themselves  at  least  doubtfully  on  this  point — e. 
g.,  Michaelis.  But  the  passage,  1  Cor.  vi.  13, 
(already  cited,  s.  151,)  teaches  exactly  the  con- 
trary. The  gods  of  the  Greeks  were  supposed 
to  marry  and  to  indulge  in  the  sexual  propensi- 
ties ;  and  some  Jews  imagined  the  same  thing 
with  regard  to  the  angels  and  those  raised  from 
the  dead;  but  this  idea  is  rejected  by  Christ, 
Matt.  xxii.  30.  Cf.  the  sections  before  cited. 

Here,  then,  is  a  separation  between  what  is 
true  and  false  in  the  prevailing  popular  concep- 
tions, which  is  worthy  of  notice.  In  these  con- 
ceptions, there  is  often  much  which  is  true,  and 
the  germ  of  truth,  which  is  fully  developed.  But 
the  learned  often  mistake  in  rejecting  certain 
ideas  merely  because  they  are  the  common  con- 


ceptions of  the  people.  Not  so  Christ  ;  he  only 
distinguishes  between  what  is  false  and  true  in 
these  conceptions. 

Respecting  the  nature  of  the  heavenly  body, 
and  its  difference  from  the  earthly,  Paul  ex- 
presses himself  very  fully  in  1  Cor.  xv.  35,  seq., 
7toi<p  tfctytcwt  epxovtaAj  sc.  e  sepulcris.  (a)  He 
takes  a  comparison  from  a  grain  of  wheat,  from 
which  an  entirely  new  body  is  developed,  whose 
form  and  properties  are  very  different  from 
those  of  the  seed  sown.  (5)  God  makes  mate- 
rial things  in  very  different  forms  and  with  dif- 
ferent constitutions,  on  account  of  their  differ- 
ent destination.  The  body  of  fishes,  of  birds, 
and  of  beasts,  is  not  the  same;  their  nature  and 
attributes  are  wholly  different,  ver.  39  —  41. 
And  so  must  our  heavenly  body  be  organized 
differently  from  the  earthly,  because  it  has  a 
different  end.  (c)  The  heavenly  body  will  have 
great  pre-eminence  over  the  earthly.  Ver.  42, 
seq.,  tfjtf/psr'tu  (i.  e.,  sepelitur,  sc.  oft^ua)  ev 
$£opa  —  i.  e.,  ty^aptov,  perishable.  The  sequel 
is  to  be  explained  in  the  same  way  :  for  Iv 
afi^ta  read  dt't^of,  deformed,  disfigured  ,•  aa^svs  j, 
feeble,  powerless  ;  ^VXLXO,  carnal,  animal;  be- 
cause in  this  life  the  animal  propensities  must 
be  indulged.  But  when  it  is  raised  it  will  be 
a  body  sv  oQfripctia  —  i.  e.,  d$dapfo9>,  immortal, 
indestructible  ;  iv§o%6v,  beautified,  glorious  ,-  8v- 
vatov,  strong  and  mighty  ,-  and  rtvt  vp-aiUxov,  spi- 
ritual, exempt  from  everything  which  is  imper- 
fect in  the  material  body  ;  —  in  short,  our  earthly 
body  is,  like  Adam's,  from  the  earth,  (tx  yijj, 
Xo'Cxw  ;.)  the  future  body  will,  like  that  which 
Christ  now  possesses,  be  a  heavenly  body,  (i| 


And  here  Paul  makes  the  observation,  that 
Christ  had  not  at  first  (rtpZitov,  while  he  here 
lived  upon  the  earth,)  that  more  perfect  spiri- 
tual body,  (jtvfvpatixov,')  but  that  which  was 
natural  (^vzixov,)  and  afterwards  (erttrta,  after 
his  ascent  to  heaven)  that  which  was  spiritual. 
Therefore  he  did  not  possess  it  immediately 
after  his  resurrection,  while  he  was  yet  upon 
the  earth,  for  he  then  ate  and  drank,  John,  xxi., 
but  he  first  received  it  when  he  passed  into  the 
heavens.  Cf.  s.  97,  II. 

That  our  body  will  be  like  that  of  Christ  is 
plainly  taught,  ver.  49  ;  fyopseofjuv  fvjv  eixova  tov 
irtovpaviov  [Xptffr'ov]  ;  and  still  more  plainly, 
Phil.  iii.  21,  "Christ  will  transform  ((jLctaazq- 
Hortiati)  our  earthly  perishable  body  (sw^a  fa- 
rt? tvQUfwj)  into  the  resemblance  of  his  heavenly 
body,  (crwiua  8o|^.)  Cf.  Rom.  vi.  9.  This 
heavenly  body  is  commonly  called  glorified,  for 
so  SfSofiatyuW  is  translated.  This  translation, 
however,  may  give  occasion  to  unfounded  ac- 
cessory conceptions  with  regard  to  the  splen- 
dour &c.  of  the  heavenly  body.  The  simple 
idea  conveyed  by  this  expression  is,  glorioust 


536 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


excellent,  perfected,  ennobled.  Vide  Morus,  p. 
292,  n.  8. 

Those  who  are  alive  at  the  last  day  will  not 
indeed  die,  like  other  men,  s.  147,  II.  Still, 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  their  bodies 
must  undergo  a  change,  like  that  which  it  was 
necessary  for  the  earthly  body  of  Christ  to  ex- 
perience before  it  entered  the  heavens.  Vide 
1  Cor.  xv.  51,  Ttayffj  ^£1;  ov  (non  sollicitanda 
lectio,)  xotyi^Jtyffo/tf^ct,  rtdvfis  8s  aM.ay^ffo^s^a — 
i.  e.,  their  bodies  must.be  changed,  in  order 
that  they  may  be  adapted  to  their  future  desti- 
nation and  abode,  and  be  no  more  perishable 
and  destructible.  For  the  mortal  body  must 
become  immortal,  ver.  53,  coll.  2  Cor.  v.  4; 
1  Thess.  iv.  15,  seq.  In  Phil.  iii.  21,  this 
change  is  expressed  by  the  word  fitt 'aiszyuat v 
£av.  Some  of  the  Jews  also  appear  to  have 
maintained  that  such  a  change  would  take  place 
with  those  alive  at  the  last  day.  Vide  Wetstein 
on  1  Cor.  xv.  54. 

Such  is  the  doctrine  which  we  are  plainly 
taught  in  the  New  Testament  respecting  the 
constitution  of  our  future  body.  Let  not,  there- 
fore, the  Christian  doctrine  be  charged  with  all 
the  absurdities  and  fancies  which  dreaming 
heads  have  suggested  respecting  the  nature, 
form,  size,  and  uses  of  the  spiritual  body,  nor 
with  the  fictions  even  of  some  theologians  re- 
specting corpore  pellucido,  penetranti,  illocali, 
inviaibili,  prxfulgido,  impalpabili,  &c.  From 
the  texts  already  cited,  as  well  as  from  others, 
it  is  plain  that  the  more  perfect  body  which  we 
shall  hereafter  receive  will  contribute  very  much 
to  our  heavenly  blessedness,  as,  on  the  other 
hand,  out  present  frail  body  greatly  conduces 
to  our  present  suffering  and  imperfection.  But 
how  far  our  glorified  body  will  affect  our  future 
blessedness  cannot  be  definitely  determined 
from  the  holy  scriptures.  Vide  Morus,  p.  299, 
300,  s.  10. 

Note. — The  Bible  says  indeed  plainly,  that 
the  bodies  even  of  the  wicked  will  be  again 
raised,  but  it  nowhere  informs  us  particularly 
what  their  nature  and  state  will  be.  The  first 
Christian  teachers,  however,  imagined  without 
doubt  that  their  state  would  be  such  as  to  ag- 
gravate the  sufferings  of  the  wicked ;  as  they 
supposed,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  body 
which  the  ri-ghteous  would  receive  would  con- 
tribute to  the  heightening  of  their  joys  and 
blessedness. 

II.  Identity  of  the  Future  with  the  Present  Body. 
Notwithstanding  the  difference  between  the 
body  which  we  now  have  and  that  which  we 
shall  possess  hereafter,  it  is  still  taught  in  the 
schools  of  theology  that  our  future  body  will 
be,  in  substance,  the  same  with  the  present. 
Vide  Morus,  p.  291,  seq.,  s.  3,  note  6.  This, 


however,  is  denied  by  some,  who  maintain  that 
the  body  which  believers  will  receive  at  the  re- 
surrection will  be  entirely  new,  of  a  totally  dif- 
ferent kind,  and  not  having  a  particle  of  the 
present  body  belonging  to  it.  So  in  modern 
times  have  some  Socinian  theologians  taught ; 
also  Burnet  in  his  work,  De  Statu  Mortuorum 
et  Resur gentium,  c.  9;  likewise  Less,  in  his 
"Praktische  Dogrnatik,"  and  others.  They 
ground  their  opinion  upon  the  fact  that  the  parts 
of  oar  body  in  the  process  of  time,  and  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature,  became  incorporated 
with  many  thousand  other  human  bodies.  To 
which,  therefore,  they  ask,  of  all  these  thou- 
sand, do  they  appropriately  belong1?  And  if 
every  human  body  should  again  receive  all  the 
parts  which  ever  belonged  to  it,  it  would  be  a 
monster. 

In  order  to  obviate  these  difficulties,  it  is  justly 
remarked  by  others,  that  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  each  and  every  part  of  the  earthly 
body  will  be  hereafter  raised,  but  only  that  its 
finer  elementary  materials  will  be  restored.  For 
the  grosser  parts  of  the  body,  which  appear  to 
exist  only  for  the  filling  out  of  the  whole,  and 
for  holding  it  together,  (like  the  stones  for  fill- 
ing up  in  a  building,)  are  in  constant  flux,  and 
fall  off  from  the  body  while  yet  it  cannot  be  said 
that  we  have  lost  our  body  or  received  a  new 
one.  In  respect  to  these  grosser  parts,  our  body 
in  early  childhood  was  totally  different  from  our 
present  body,  and  in  old  age  it  will  be  different 
from  that  which  we  now  have.  Still  we  call  it, 
through  these  different  period's,  our  body,  and 
regard  it  as  being  the  same.  In  common  language, 
we  say,  with  our  eyes  we  have  seen,  or  with  these 
hands  we  have  done,  what  took  place  twenty  or 
thirty  years  ago.  In  this  way  we  may  speak 
of  identity  in  a  more  general  and  popular  sense, 
and,  understood  in  this  sense,  the  identity  of  the 
body  through  all  the  periods  of  its  existence 
may  be  spoken  of  without  impropriety.  It  is 
not  implied  in  this  that  the  body  will  be  here- 
after constituted  of  precisely  the  same  materials 
which  it  here  possesses,  nor  that  it  will  again 
have  the  same  form,  limbs,  and  organs,  which  it 
now  has,  but  that,  from  all  the  parts  of  which 
our  present  body  is  composed,  the  most  fit  and 
the  most  noble  will  be  chosen  by  God,  and  of 
these  the  heavenly  body  will  be  constructed. 

What  conceptions  the  first  Christian  teachers 
formed  as  to  the  manner  of  this,  we  cannot 
clearly  ascertain;  nor  is  it  possible  that,  while 
we  remain  upon  the  earth,  we  should  be  able  to 
understand  this  matter  fully.  So  much,  how- 
ever, is  plain,  that  the  inspired  teachers  did  not 
believe  that  an  entirely  new  body  would  be 
hereafter  created  for  us,  but  that  there  would  be 
a  kind  of  identity,  in  the  popular  sense  of  the 
term,  between  the  heavenly  and  earthly  body. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      537 


Such  is  the  implication  of  the  terms  so  often 
employed  by  them,  to  awaken  or  call  forth  the 
dead  from  their  graves,  (vide  John,  v.  28,  29;) 
also  of  the  representation  that  the  sea  and  Sheol 
should  give  up  their  dead,  Rev.  xx.  13,  seq. ; 
and  especially  of  the  passage,  1  Cor.  xv.  35 — 38. 
It  is  here  plainly  implied,  that  the  present  mor- 
tal body  contains  the  germ  of  the  heavenly  body, 
in  the  same  way  as  the  germ  of  the  plant  lies  in 
the  seed,  from  which,  after  it  is  dissolved  and 
dead  in  the  earth,  the  plant  is  developed,  and, 
as  it  were,  raised  to  life.  Hence,  according  to 
Paul,  the  future  body  has  at  least  as  much  in 
common  with  the  present  as  a  plant  has  with 
the  seed  from  which  it  springs.  It  will  be  still 
the  same  body  which  we  shall  hereafter  possess, 
only  beautified  and  ennobled  (/»t'ctazwM»f<£o? 
ptvovj  Phil.  iii.  21 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  42,  52,  53.  This 
is  thus  expressed  by  theologians :  there  will  be 
a  renovation  of  one  and  the  same  substance, 
and  not  the  production  of  a  wholly  new  mate- 
rial. Vide  Morus,  p.  291,  292,  note  6,  ad  s.  3. 
Some  modern  writers  have  endeavoured  to  illus- 
trate this  matter  by  the  application  to  it  of  the 
whole  of  Bonnet's  Theory  of  Development; 
but  this  is  not  contained  in  the  words  of  Paul, 
although  his  doctrine  bears  some  resemblance 
to  it. 

The  church-fathers  are  not  entirely  unanimous 
in  their  opinions  respecting  the  identity  of  the 
body.  The  earlier  fathers  gave  no  very  definite 
opinion  on  the  subject,  but  contented  themselves 
with  saying  in  general  that  we  should  receive 
again  the  same  body ;  so  Justin  the  Martyr,  and 
Athenagoras,  and  Tertullian,  in  their  books,  De 
Resurrectione.  They  appear,  however,  to  have 
had  rather  gross  conceptions  on  this  subject. 
Origen,  in  the  third  century,  was  the  first  who 
philosophized  with  regard  to  the  heavenly  body, 
and  undertook  to  determine  accurately  respecting 
its  nature.  He  defended  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  against  those  who  denied  it,  and  taught  at 
the  same  time  that  the  substance  of  the  human 
body — the  essential  and  characteristic  form  by 
which  it  is  to  be  discerned  and  distinguished 
from  others — remains  unaltered.  He  also  con- 
troverted the  opinion  of  some  who  supposed  that 
those  who  are  raised  will  again  be  invested  with 
the  same  gross,  material  body  as  before.  It  was 
his  opinion  that  the  grosser  parts  will  be  sepa- 
rated, and  that  only  the  germ  or  fundamental 
material  -for  the  new  body  will  be  furnished  by 
the  old.  He  and  others  expressed  their  views 
by  the  following  formula — viz.,  we  shall  here- 
after have  tfwjtia  lov-to  (idem}  plv,  aM,'  ov  toiov-to 
(ejusmodi,')  De  Prin.  ii.  10. 

But  such  a  statement  was  far  from  being  satis- 
factory to  many  at  that  period,  and  especially  to 
the  gross  Chiliasts.  They  wished  to  keep  alive 
the  hope  of  having  still  the  same  flesh  as  at  pre- 


sent, in  order  to  their  eating,  drinking,  &e.  So 
Nepos,  Methodius,  Theophilus  of  Alexandria, 
and  others.  With  these  Hieronymus,  in  the 
fourth  century,  agreed,  and  opposed  the  opinion 
of  Origen,  contending  that  the  same  body  would 
be  raised,  with  the  same  limbs  and  nerves,  and 
with  flesh  and  blood  in  the  proper  sense,  and 
even  with  distinction  of  sex,  although  he  did  not, 
indeed,  affirm  that  the  animal  and  sexual  appe- 
tites would  be  indulged  in  the  heavenly  world. 
Epiphanius,  however,  who  was  a  declared  oppo- 
nent of  Origen,  says  expressly  that  the  bodies 
of  the  raised  must  have  teeth,  since  otherwise 
they  could  not  eat.  What  kind  of  food  they 
would  have  he  did  not  pretend  to  say,  but  left 
for  God  to  determine. 

The  opinion  of  Origen  was  adopted,  in  the 
fourth  century,  by  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  Basi- 
lius,  Chrysostom,  and  all  the  opponents  of  the 
Chiliasts.  Those  who  maintained  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body  in  its  grosser  parts  were  all, 
with  the  exception  of  Hieronymus,  Chiliasts. 
The  opponents  of  Origen,  among  the  Greeks  and 
Latins,  began  now  to  insist,  that  not  merely  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  (corporis)  should  be 
taught,  but  also  carnis  (crassse.}  The  older  fa- 
thers used  corpus  and  caro  interchangeably  (as 
was  also  done  in  the  older  symbols),  and  in- 
tended by  the  use  of  these  terms  to  denote  only 
that  there  would  be  no  new  creation  of  a  body, 
since  both  of  these  terms,  according  to  the  He- 
brew usus  loquendi,  are  synonymes ;  as  when  we 
speak,  in  reference  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  of  the 
CORPUS  and  CARO  Christi.  But  since  the  term 
caro  implies,  according  to  the  same  idiom,  the 
associated  idea  of  weakness  and  mortality,  it  was 
abandoned  by  many  who  wished  to  use  language 
with  more  precision,  and  instead  of  it,  the  phrase 
resurrectio  corporis  was  adopted.  It  was  on  this 
account  that  the  Chiliasts  insisted  so  much  the 
more  urgently  upon  retaining  the  terms  crap! 
and  caro. 

Note. — Works  on  this  subject,  Gotta,  Theses 
Theol.  de  Novissimis,  in  Specie  de  Resurrec- 
tione Mortuorum ;  Tub.  1762.  Hermann,  Pflug, 
Beweiss  der  Moglichkeit  und  Gewissheit  der 
Auferstehung  der  Todten,  1738.  On  the  history 
of  this  doctrine,  besides  the  works  of  Hody  and 
Burnet,  cf.  Ge.  Calixtus,  De  Immortalitate 
Animi  et  Resurrectione  Carnis,  and  especially, 
W.  A.  Teller,  Fidei  Dogmatis  de  Resurrectione 
Carnis,  per  quartuor  priora  saecula  enarratio ; 
Halle  and  Helmstadt,  1766,  8vo;  with  which, 
however,  the  student  should  compare  the  addi- 
tions and  corrections  made  by  Ernesti  in  his 
"  Neues  Theol.  Bibliothek,"  b.  ix.  s.  221—244. 
[Cf.  Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s.  658,  s.  152.  Nean- 
der,  All.  K.  Geschichte,  b.  i.  Abth.  iii.  s.  1088, 
and  especially  1096;  also  b.  ii.  Abth.  iii.  8. 
1404— 1410.— TR.] 

68 


538 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


SECTION  CLIV. 

OF  THE  LAST  APPEARING   OF   CHRIST  BEFORE  THE 

END  OF  THE  WORLD  ;  THE  VARIOUS  OPENIONS  ON 
THIS  SUBJECT;  ALSO  RESPECTING  THE  MILLEN- 
NIAL KINGDOM,  AND  THE  UNIVERSAL  CONVER- 
SION OF  JEWS  AND  GENTILES. 

I.  The.  Last  Appearing  of  Christ. 

CHRIST  often  spoke  of  his  future  coming  (rta- 
poucua),  using  this  phrase  in  different  senses. 
It  sometimes  denotes  figuratively  the  destruction 
of  the  Jewish  state,  and  the  consequences  of 
this  event,  particularly  the  advantages  which 
would  result  from  it  to  the  Christian  doctrine 
and  church ;  as  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ 
could  not  be  truly  established  in  the  earth  until 
this  event  should  take  place ;  Matt.  xxiv.  and 
xvi.  27,  28.  Again,  it  denotes  his  visible  appear- 
ing to  judge  the  world;  Matt.  xxv.  31,  seq. 
When  Jesus  spoke  of  his  appearing,  his  disciples 
during  his  life  commonly  conceived  at  once  of  his 
coming  to  establish  an  earthly  kingdom.  And 
when  he  spoke  of  his  coming  at  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  they  supposed  that  he  would  then, 
with  his  followers,  destroy  the  hostile  Jerusa- 
lem, triumph  over  his  opponents,  and  commence 
his  new  earthly  kingdom. 

The  24th  of  Matt,  was  for  the  most  part  under- 
stood in  this  way  by  many  at  that  time.  With 
this  they  then  connected  the  idea  that  the  end  of 
the  world  was  near  at  hand,  because,  according 
to  the  opinion  of  the  Jews,  Jerusalem  and  the 
temple  would  stand  until  the  end  of  the  world. 
Vide  s.  98,  II.  3.  Hence  in  the  passage,  Matt. 
xxiv.  3,  the  disciples  of  Jesus  connect  the  two 
questions,  when  will  the  temple  be  destroyed?  and, 
what  are  the  signs  of  the  end  of  time?  In  what 
Christ  said,  Matt,  xxiv.,  he  referred  to  the  dif- 
fusion of  his  new  religion,  the  establishment 
and  confirmation  of  his  spiritual  and  moral 
kingdom,  on  which  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem would  have  a  favourable  influence.  Vide 
Matt.  x.  23 ;  Luke,  xii.  40.  But  he  said  this  in 
part  in  the  style  of  prophetic  imagery,  as  in 
Matt.  xvi.  xxiv.  To  these  questions  Christ  re- 
plied with  great  wisdom  and  forecast — to  the 
first,  in  Matt.  xxiv.  4 — 25,  30 ;  and  to  the  se- 
cond, Matt.  xxv.  31—46.  He  taught  them 
plainly  only  so  much  as  it  was  needful  for 
them  to  know  at  that  time.  The  rest  he  taught 
them  in  prophetic  figures,  which  were  not  as 
yet  entirely  intelligible  to  them,  and  the  mean- 
ing of  which  they  afterwards  learned.  Their 
false  expectations  were  not  therefore  cherished 
and  approved,  but  neither  were  they  prema- 
turely contradicted.  Full  information  on  this 
subject  was  among  those  things  which  they 
were  not  then  able  to  bear,  and  respecting 
which  they  were  to  receive  more  full  informa- 
tion after  the  ascension  of  Christ  to  heaven; 


John,  xvi.  12.  And  this  more  full  information 
they  actually  received.  For  from  that  time  they 
abandoned  their  expectations  of  a  Jewish  king- 
dom, and  thenceforward  looked  for  no  other 
coming  of  Christ  than  that  at  the  general  judg- 
ment. As  to  what  Christ  and  his  apostles 
taught  respecting  the  nature  and  extent  of  his 
spiritual  and  heavenly  kingdom,  vide  s.  97 — 99. 

II.  The  Belief  of  a  Millennial  Kingdom  of  Christ 
upon  the  Earth,  or  Chiliasm. 

(1)  Origin  of  this  belief.  The  Jews  supposed 
that  the  Messiah  at  his  coming  would  reign  as 
king  upon  the  earth,  and  would  reside  at  Jeru- 
salem, the  ancient  royal  city.  The  period  of  his 
reign  they  supposed  would  be  very  long,  and 
therefore  put  it  down  at  a  thousand  years,  which 
was  at  first  understood  only  as  a  round  number. 
Respecting  the  Jewish  ideas  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom,  cf.  s.  89,  and  s.  118,  I.,  together  with 
Wetstein's  selections  from  Jewish  authors  on 
Rev.  xx.  2.  This  period  was  conceived  of  by 
the  Jews  as  the  return  of  the  golden  age  to  the 
earth,  and  each  one  formed  to  himself  such  a 
picture  of  it  as  agreed  best  with  his  own  dispo- 
sition, and  that  degree  of  moral  and  intellectual 
culture  to  which  he  had  attained.  Many  anti- 
cipated nothing  more  than  merely  sensual  de- 
lights, others  entertained  better  and  more  pure 
conceptions,  &c. 

The  same  remark  applies  to  many  of  the  Ju- 
daizing  Christians.  Although  Jesus  had  not 
yet  appeared  as  an  earthly  king,  yet  these  per- 
sons were  unwilling  to  abandon  an  expectation 
which  to  them  was  so  important.  They  hoped, 
therefore,  for  a  second  coming  of  Christ  to  es- 
tablish an  earthly  kingdom,  and  transferred  to 
this  kingdom  everything  which  the  Jews  had 
expected  of  the  first.  The  apostles  wholly 
abandoned  this  opinion  after  the  ascension  of 
Christ,  and  expected  no  other  coming  than  that 
at  the  judgment  of  the  world,  1  Cor.  xv.,  and 
elsewhere.  The  fact,  however,  that  these  Jew- 
ish ideas  had  taken  deep  root  in  the  minds  of 
many  Christians  in  the  apostolic  age,  may  be 
argued  from  1  Thess.  iv.  13,  seq.,  ch.  v.,  and 
2  Thess.  ii. 

Many  have  endeavoured  to  find  this  idea  even 
in  the  Apocalypse,  especially  xx.  1 — 8.  But 
John  does  not  there  speak  of  Christ  reigning 
visibly  and  bodily  on  the  earth,  but  of  his  spi- 
ritual dominion,  resulting  from  the  influence  of 
Christianity,  when  it  shall  at  length  be  univer- 
sally diffused  through  the  earth — a  kingdom 
which  will  last  a  thousand  years,  used  as  a 
round  number  to  denote  many  centuries,  or  a 
long  period.  Thus  does  it  appear  that  even 
during  the  first  century  there  were  many  opi- 
nions upon  this  subject  among  Christians  which 
deviated  widely  from  the  doctrine  of  the  apos- 
tles. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       539 


[Note. — The  scriptural  ideas  upon  which  the 
belief  in  a  millennium  rested  are  more  specifi- 
cally stated  by  Neander,  Kirchengesch.  b.  i. 
Abth.  iii.  s.  1089.  As  the  world  was  made  in 
six  days,  and,  according  to  Ps.  xc.  4,  a  thou- 
sand years  is  in  the  sight  of  God  as  one  day,  so 
it  was  thought  the  world  would  continue  in  the 
state  in  which  it  had  hitherto  been,  for  six  thou- 
sand years;  and  as  the  Sabbath  is  a  day  of  rest, 
so  will  the  seventh  period  of  a  thousand  years 
consist  of  this  millennial  kingdom  as  the  close 
of  the  whole  earthly  state. — TR.] 

(2)  In  the  second  century,  the  doctrine  of  the 
future  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ  became  more 
and  more  widely  diffused,  and  in  a  large  portion 
of  the  Christian  world  it  was  finally  predomi- 
nant. Its  first  zealous  advocate  was  Papias,  in 
the  second  century;  and  he  was  followed  by 
Justin  the  Martyr,  Tertullian,  and  most  of  the 
Montanists.  This  doctrine  was  also  adopted  by 
some  of  the  heretics — e.  g.,  by  Cerinthus.  It 
was  not,  however,  held  by  all  in  the  same  man- 
ner. Most  taught  that  the  church  would  have 
to  suffer  much  from  Anti-christ  (the  seducer  and 
persecutor) ;  and  that  Christ  would  then  visibly 
return  and  destroy  his  power ;  2  Thess.  ii.  Then, 
it  was  supposed,  all  worldly  power  would  cease, 
the  pious  be  raised  from  the  dead  (rtptotfj?  cwaG'ta,- 
(jtj),  assemble  in  Jerusalem,  and  standing  under 
Christ,  iheir  king,  would  reign  with  him  a  thou- 
sand years. 

As  to  the  pleasures  then  to  be  enjoyed,  the 
conceptions  of  some  were  very  gross,  those  of 
others  more  chastened.  In  forming  their  pictures 
of  this  period  they  drew  largely  from  the  Apo- 
calypse, which  they  interpreted  in  many  different 
ways.  Origen,  in  the  third  century,  was  the 
first  who  wrote  in  opposition  to  this  doctrine,  and 
who  gave  a  different  interpretation  to  the  texts 
of  scripture  to  which  appeal  was  made  by  the 
Chiliasts.  On  this  account,  this  doctrine  fell 
into  disesteem  among  the  learned.  In  the  third 
century,  Dionysius,  Bishop  at  Alexandria,  wrote 
against  Chiliasm  in  opposition  to  Nepos,  Bishop 
in  Egypt,  and  in  his  work  denied  that  John 
wrote  the  Apocalypse,  because  his  opponents 
were  accustomed  to  derive  their  doctrine  princi- 
pally from  this  book. 

[Note. — It  was  in  Phrygia,  the  seat  of  the 
spirit  of  religious  enthusiasm,  that  Chiliasm 
chiefly  prevailed;  and  from  thence  it  spread. 
Here  belonged  Papias,  Irenseus,  Justin  the  Mar- 
tyr, &c.  Two  causes  contributed  to  prevent 
this  doctrine  from  becoming  more  universally 
prevalent  in  the  early  church — viz.,  opposition 
to  Montanism,  and  the  influence  of  the  school  at 
Alexandria.  The  visionary  conceptions  which 
the  Montanists  entertained  and  inculcated  re- 
specting what  would  take  place  in  the  millen- 
nium, brought  the  whole  doctrine  into  disrepute ; 
and  all  the  opponents  of  Montanism  opposed 


these  gross  Chiliastic  conceptions  as  belonging 
essentially  to  that  scheme.  The  allegorizing  me- 
thod of  interpretation  adopted  by  the  teachers  of 
the  Alexandrine  school  enabled  them  to  avoid 
the  gross  conceptions  of  the  millennium  to  which 
those  who  adopted  the  literal  mode  of  interpre- 
tation were  led.  By  applying  this  principle  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  Apocalypse,  they  could 
take  away  the  support  which  the  Chiliasts  de- 
rived from  it  without  excluding  the  book  from 
the  sacred  canon. — TR.] 

(3)  The  seed  of  the  doctrine  of  gross  Chili- 
asm  has  always  remained  in  the  Christian 
church.  This  doctrine,  however,  has  shewn 
itself  in  different  forms,  and  has  be-en  taught 
sometimes  in  a  more  visionary  manner,  and  at 
other  times  less  so.  Respecting  the  time  when 
this  millennial  kingdom  will  commence,  there 
has  been  no  general  agreement  of  opinion. 
Many  suppose  it  will  take  place  before  the  re- 
surrection; others,  not  until  afterwards. 

At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  this  belief  in 
a  millennial,  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ  was  re- 
vived and  widely  spread  by  the  enthusiastic  ana- 
baptists, Thomas  Miinzer  and  his  adherents. 
They  themselves  wished  to  establish  this  king- 
dom of  Christ  with  fire  and  sword,  and  to  put 
an  end  to  all  worldly  power ;  they  encouraged 
rebellion.  Hence  Luther  and  Melancthon  set 
themselves  against  this  doctrine  with  great  zeal 
and  earnestness.  Vide  Augsb.  Conf.  Art.  xviii. 
It  shewed  itself  again,  however,  in  the  protest- 
ant  church. 

In  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  century 
Spener  was  charged  with  teaching  Chiliasm ;  but 
he  was  far  removed  from  this.  He  only  expressed 
frequently  the  hope  that  the  spiritual  kingdom 
of  Christ  would  not  only  continue  in  the  world, 
but  would  be  much  more  widely  diffused  than  it 
now  is,  and  hereafter  would  become  absolutely 
universal.  And  this  expectation  (spes  meliorum 
temporum)  is  perfectly  accordant  with  the  holy 
scriptures.  This  is  the  point  to  which  all  the 
middle  part  of  the  Apocalypse  refers — viz.,  from 
chap.  xii.  18  to  xx.  10,  the  victory  of  Christ  over 
heathenism,  and  all  sin  and  corruption  on  the 
earth,  and  the  general  diffusion  of  Christianity ; 
after  which  the  end  of  the  world  and  the  kingdom 
of  the  saints  will  follow,  chap.  xx.  11 — xxii.  5. 
This,  one  might  call  (if  he  wished)  Biblical 
Chiliasm;  in  this  there  is  nothing  of  enthusiasm  ; 
and  even  for  those  who  do  not  live  to  see  this 
period  the  anticipation  of  it  is  consoling  and 
animating. 

But  Petersen,  who  came  from  the  school  of 
Spener,  at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  and  com- 
mencement of  the  eighteenth  century,  inculcated 
in  his  writings  various  enthusiastic  ideas  on  this 
subject.  The  same  doctrine  was  taken  into  fa- 
vour about  the  same  time  by  Burnet,  in  England, 
in  his  work,  "  De  Statu  Mort.  et  Resurg."  At 


540 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


a  later  period,  Bengal,  in  Germany,  went  a  great 
deal  too  far  in  many  points  in  his  interpretation 
of  the  Apocalypse.  So,  many  theologians  of 
Wurtemberg,  Crusius  and  his  disciples,  and  La- 
vater  in  Switzerland. 

A  good  development  of  the  history  of  this  doc- 
trine is  contained  in  Corrodi's  "  Kritische  Ge- 
schichte  des  Chiliasmus;"  Frankfort  und  Leip- 
zig, 1781 — 1783.  It  was  principally  occasioned 
by  Lavater's  views  on  this  subject. 

[Note. — Neander,  in  his  history  of  this  doc- 
trine, (b.  i.  Abth.  iii.  s.  1090,)  suggests  the  im- 
portant caution  that  we  should  not  allow  our- 
selves, through  disgust  at  the  extravagant  visions 
of  enthusiasts  about  the  millennium,  to  decide 
against  what  we  are  really  justified  in  hoping  and 
expecting  as  to  the  future  extension  of  the  king- 
dom of  Christ.  As  the  Old  Testament  contains 
an  intimation  of  the  things  of  the  New,  so 
Christianity  contains  an  intimation  of  a  higher 
order  of  things  hereafter,  which  it  will  be  the 
means  of  introducing;  but  faith  must  necessa- 
rily come  before  sight.  The  divine  revelations 
enable  us  to  see  but  a  little,  now  and  then,  of 
this  higher  order,  and  not  enough  to  form  a 
complete  picture.  As  prophecy  is  always  ob- 
scure until  its  fulfilment,  so  must  be  also  the 
last  predictions  of  Christ  respecting  the  destiny 
of  his  church,  until  the  entrance  of  that  higher 
order. 

There  are  three  degrees  in  the  manner  of 
holding  this  doctrine,  described  as  crassus,  sub- 
tilis,  subtilissimus,  according  to  the  proportion 
in  which  enthusiastic  and  visionary  conceptions 
are  mingled  with  the  scriptural  idea  of  the 
future  kingdom  of  the  Messiah.  The  lowest 
kind  is  characterized  by  the  belief  of  the  visible 
appearance  and  reign  of  Christ  upon  the  earth, 
a  resurrection  of  the  saints  before  the  general 
judgment,  and  their  living  with  Christ  in  the 
enjoyment  of  worldly  splendour  and  luxury  for 
a  thousand  years.  In  this  form  it  was  held  by 
many  of  the  ancient  Montanists,  and  by  the 
anabaptists  in  the  sixteenth  century.  The  more 
refined  and  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  millen- 
nium, as  held  by  Spener,  Vitringa,  and  others, 
excludes  the  idea  of  the  visible  appearance  of 
Christ,  and  does  not  insist  upon  the  definite 
period  of  a  thousand  years,  but  only  holds  to 
the  future  universal  extension  of  the  spiritual 
kingdom  of  Christ.  Cf.  Hahn,  Lehrbuch,  s. 
665.— -TR.] 

III.  Future  Conversion  of  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

The  doctrine  of  the  universal  conversion  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  especially  of  the  Jews,  to  be 
hoped-for  hereafter,  has  been  for  the  most  part 
taught  by  the  advocates  of  the  grosser  kind  of 
Chiliasm.  Still  the  former  doctrine  stands  in 
no  necessary  connexion  with  the  latter.  And 
many  protestant  theologians,  who  are  far  from 


assenting  to  any  unscriptural  views  of  the  mil- 
lennium, have  adopted  this  doctrine — e.  g.,  Mi- 
chaelis,  Kopp.e,  and  others  still  more  lately. 
But  some  theologians  connected  with  both  of 
these  doctrines  other  opinions  which  do  not  en- 
tirely accord  with  scripture,  or  which  at  least 
are  not  in  all  parts  clearly  demonstrable  from 
scripture — e.  g.,  Burnet,  Bengel,  Crusius. 
Hence  Ernesti  and  his  whole  school  were  very 
much  opposed  to  this  doctrine,  and  would  not 
at  all  allow  that  even  the  remotest  hope  of  the 
conversion  of  the  Jews  is  authorized  by  the 
New  Testament. 

It  has  happened  with  regard  to  this  subject, 
as  it  often  does  in  all  the  departments  of  human 
knowledge,  that  opinions  in  which  there  has 
been  an  intermixture  of  what  is  erroneous  and 
incapable  of  proof  have  been  on  this  account 
entirely  rejected,  instead  of  being  carefully 
sifted,  in  order  to  separate  the  true  from  the 
false,  that  which  may  be  proved  from  that 
which  is  incapable  of  demonstration.  The  doc- 
trine itself  of  the  future  conversion  of  the  Jews 
involves  nothing  questionable  or  enthusiastic, 
if  it  be  understood  only  to  imply  that  the  apos- 
tles believed  and  taught  that  the  Jews  would 
hereafter  abandon  their  prejudices  and  their 
hardness  of  heart,  possess  a  taste  and  suscepti- 
bility for  Christianity,  and  cordially  unite  them- 
selves with  the  Christian  church.  When  this 
will  take  place,  and  by  what  means  it  will  be 
brought  about,  the  apostles  determine  nothing; 
and  with  regard  to  these  points  nothing  is 
known.  But  an  expectation  of  this  event  is 
found  in  their  writings. 

Two  things  on  this  subject  are  certain — viz., 
(1)  That  it  was  always  a  current  doctrine  among 
the  Jews  that  all  the  Gentiles  would  at  last  be- 
come incorporated  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 
siah ;  and  with  reference  to  this  event  they  ex- 
plained many  passages  in  their  prophets,  which, 
when  read  impartially,  plainly  teach  this  very 
thing — e.  g.,  Ps.  xxii.  28;  Is.  ii.,  xii.,  xl. — Ixvi.; 
Zech.  xiv.  9,  16,  coll.  Rev.  xv.  4.  And  this 
same  hope  is  clearly  expressed  by  Paul,  espe- 
cially in  Rom.  xi. 

(2)  The  Jews,  at  the  time  of  the  apostles  and 
afterwards,  explained  many  passages  in  their 
prophets  as  referring  to  the  future  restoration 
of  their  people  at  the  time  of  the  Messiah, 
(Deut.  xxx. ;)  and  these  passages  are  refer- 
red in  the  New  Testament,  and  by  Paul,  to 
the  same  event;  from  whence  it  is  clear  that 
the  apostles  taught  and  inculcated  the  same 
thing  with  the  ancient  prophets — e.  g.,  Isaiah, 
x.  21;  lix.  20;  Jer.  xxxi.  1,  seq. ;  Hosea,  iii. 
5  ;  Zech.  xiv.  6  ;  ix.  10.  These  passages,  in- 
deed, have  all  been  differently  interpreted  in 
modern  times.  Cf.  Doederlein's  work,  "  Giebt 
uns  die  Bible  Hoffnung  zu  einer  allgemeinen 
JudenbekehrungT'  But  the  Jews  understood 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       541 


these  passages  to  refer  to  the  restoration  of 
their  nation,  and  the  New  Testament  gives 
them  the  same  explanation.  This  is  histori- 
cally certain ;  and  upon  this  everything  de- 
pends, when  the  question  is,  Whether  the  New 
Testament  teaches  this  doctrine  ?  Vide  Schottgen, 
in  the  book,  "Jesus,  der  wahre  Messias;" 
Eisenmenger,  Entdecktes  Judenthum ;  and 
Koppe  on  Rom.  xi. 

We  may  come  now  more  easily  to  the  exa- 
mination of  the  celebrated  passage,  Romans, 
xi.  25,  seq.  Ernesti  and  others  understand  the 
rtaj  'itfpcMj*.  tfco^cte tfac.  thus :  all  "  Israel  can  be 
delivered ;"  but  this  does  not  accord  with  ver. 
31,  'iva  ojv-tol  itej^wcfc,  and  ver.  32,  tov$  rtdvtas, 
tterfiy.  We  cannot  render  these  clauses,  in 
order  that  God  CAN  have  pity ;  no,  he  will  ac- 
tually have  mercy  upon  them.  Nor  can  we  see 
any  reason,  according  to  this  interpretation,  why 
Paul  should  adopt  such  a  high  and  elevated  tone 
with  regard  to  a  matter  which  is  self-evident,  or 
how  he  could  call  this  fiv<rtr$iov.  It  is  also 
equally  unintelligible,  if  this  were  all,  what 
should  have  induced  Paul  so  solemnly  to  cele- 
brate and  magnify  the  divine  wisdom,  ver.  33 — 
36.  But  everything  is  plain  and  consistent  if 
Paul  is  understood  here  to  speak  the  language 
of  prophecy.  He  proceeds  on  the  ground  of  the 
expectation  universally  prevalent  among  his 
countrymen,  and  authorized  by  the  ancient  pro- 
phets ;  he  rectifies  their  ideas  with  regard  to 
their  future  restoration,  discards  their  false  con- 
ceptions, their  hopes  of  earthly  good,  and  then 
says,  with  great  Assurance,  that  all  Israel  will 
hereafter  be  converted  to  Christ,  as  all  the  Gen- 
tiles will  come  to  worship  him ;  although,  when 
he  wrote,  there  was  no  human  probability  of 
either  of  these  events.  But  in  all  this  he  does 
not  give  the  least  countenance  to  the  enthusi- 
astic conceptions  frequently  entertained  on  this 
subject.  He  does  not  fix  any  definite  time.  But 
theologians  have  often  been  unwilling  to  allow 
that  Paul  affirmed  the  final  conversion  of  the 
Jews,  because  enthusiastic  ideas  have  often 
been  connected  with  this  doctrine,  or  because 
they  have  regarded  this  event  as  either  impos- 
sible or  improbable,  since  after  the  lapse  of 
eighteen  centuries  there  are  no  signs  of  its  ac- 
complishment. 

The  sentiment  of  this  passage  is  as  follows : 
«« I  must  propose  one  other  important  subject  for 
your  (i.  e.,  the  Gentile  converts)  consideration — 
a  subject  with  which  you  have  been  hitherto  un- 
acquainted, and  which  has  therefore  been  disre- 
garded by  you — in  order  that  you  may  not  be 
proud  of  your  advantages  over  the  unbelieving 
Jews :  namely,  some  of  the  Jews  will  continue 
unbelieving  until  all  the  Gentiles  who  are 
chosen  by  God  (rttojpcojua  s^i/wj/)  shall  have 
believed  in  Christ.  (This  will  therefore  first 
take  place.)  But  when  this  is  first  brought 


about  (x&i  oi>Vco  for  xal  tote  or  erteita,  vide 
Koppe)  —  i.  e.,  when  all  the  Gentiles  have  first 
become  believers,  (now  follows  the  jwu(jt'^ptov,) 
then  will  the  nation  of  the  Israelites  also  experi- 
ence salvation,  (ao^df-r'ac,)  by  embracing  the 
Christian  faith.  For  thus  it  is  said  in  the  scrip- 
tures, —  The  Deliverer  (Messiah)  will  come  out 
of  Zion  (David's  line),  and  then  will  I  free 
Jacob  from  his  sins,  (Is.  xlix.)"  Cf.  Koppe 
on  this  passage.  Paul  here  quotes  the  same 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament  from  which  the 
Jews  had  always  proved  that  an  entire  restora- 
tion of  their  nation  was  predicted  by  the  pro- 
phets ;  though  he  did  not  understand  them,  as 
they  often  did,  to  refer  to  an  external,  civil  re- 
storation. 


SECTION  CLV. 

OF   THE    GENERAL   JUDGMENT,    AND    THE    END   OP 
THE  PRESENT  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  WORLD. 

I.  The  General  Judgment. 

THE  following  texts  may  be  considered  as  the 
most  important  relating  to  the  last  judgment  — 
viz.,  Matt.  xxv.  31;  John,  v.  ;  2  Thess.  i.  7  — 
10;  1  Thess.  iv.  16,  17;  2  Pet.  iii.  7—13;  1 
Cor.  xv.  ;  and  Rev.  xx.  11.  In  illustration  of 
this  doctrine,  it  may  be  observed, 

(1)  According  to  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the 
scriptures,  the  judgment  of  the  world  will  fol- 
low immediately  after  the  general  resurrection  ; 
and  then  will  be  the  end  of  the  world,  or  of  its 
present  constitution.     Cf.  1  Cor.  xv. 

(2)  This  doctrine  of  a  general  judgment  of 
the  world  was  also  prevalent  among  the  Jews 
at  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  ;  although 
they  frequently  associated  with  it  many  incor- 
rect notions.     This  doctrine,  as  well  as  that  of 
future  retribution  and  resurrection,  was,  without 
doubt,  more  and  more  developed  and  illustrated, 
under  the  divine  guidance  and  direction,  by  the 
prophets  and  teachers  of  the  Jewish  nation  who 
lived  after  the  exile.     Vide  s.  149,  II.  2.     This 
was  done  more  particularly  at  the  same  period 
of  time  in  which  those  other  doctrines  were  de- 
veloped.   But  there  are  also  passages  in  Daniel 
which  allude  to  this  event  —  e.  g.,  chap.  xii. 

Before  the  exile  the  doctrine  of  the  judgment 
as  a  solemn,  formal  transaction  at  the  end  of  the 
world,  was  not  clearly  taught.  At  that  time  the 
Jews  held  only  the  general  truth,  that  God  is 
the  righteous  Judge  of  the  world,  who  in  his 
own  time  would  pronounce  righteous  sentence 
upon  all  men,  according  to  their  deserts,  and 
bring  all  their  works,  even  the  most  secret,  to 
light.  Vide  Ps.  ix.  5—9  ;  Eccles.  ix.  9  ;  xii.  13, 
14.  The  doctrine  which  was  afterwards  deve- 
loped among  the  Jews,  and  in  the  form  in  which 
it  existed  among  them  at  the  time  of  Christ, 
was  expressly  authorized  and  confirmed  by  him 
2Z 


542 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


as  true,  and  as  constituting  a  part  of  his  reli- 
gious system ;  in  such  a  way,  however,  as  to  ex- 
clude the  false  additions  of  the  Jewish  teachers. 

(3)  The  holding  of  this  judgment  as  well  as 
the  raising  of  the  dead  is  commonly  ascribed  in 
the  New  Testament  to  Christ,  and  represented 
as  a  commission  or  plenipotentiary  power,  which 
the  Father  had  given  to  the  man  Jesus  as  Mes- 
siah.  Thus  it  is  said,  Rom.  ii.  16,  0a6j  (cf.  ver. 
6)  xpwti  tfa  xpvrt-ta,  di^pwrtcov  6ta  'irjaov,  and 
Christ  himself  says,  John,  v.  22,  25,  xplaw 
ftdsav  SfSwxf  fo  viy.     Vide  Matthew,  xvi.  27; 
Acts,  x.  42;  x'vii.  31.     Cf.  s.  98,  II.  3,  and 
Morus,  page  294,  note  8 ;  and  page  296,  note  3. 
Christ  himself  assigns  it  as  the  reason  why  God 
had  entrusted  to  him  the  holding  of  this  judg- 
ment, that  he  is  a  man,  (utoj  ob^pwrtoi; ;)  John, 
v.  27,  coll.   Acts,  xvii.  31,  CM/J?P.    God  has  con- 
stituted him  the  Judge  of  men,  because  he  is 
man,  and  knows  from  his  own  experience  all 
the  sufferings  and  infirmities  to  which  our  na- 
ture is  exposed,  and  can  therefore  be  compas- 
sionate and  indulgent;  Heb.  ii.  14 — 17,  coll.  1 
Timothy,  ii.  5. 

(4)  Names  given  in  the  scriptures  to  the  last 
judgment.    The  time  of  this  judgment,  and  the 
judgment  itself,  are  called  in  the  passages  al- 
ready cited,  ^iif'pa  (DV)  Kupt-'ov  or  'Irjaov,  Xptcr- 
•tov,  x.  -t.  X. ;  also  jfluapa  ufydhq  (Svu  oi>),  Jude, 
ver.  6 ;  xpt'tftj  (sometimes  written  xaraxptorts), 
xptjtia,  Ttaporfli-a  XptOT'ov,   1   Thess.   iv.    15;    2 
Thess.  ii.  1 ;  ts^d-f^  ^Ipa,  John,  vi.  39,  40,  44. 
Hence  the  ecclesiastical  name  of  this  transac- 
tion, judicium  extremum,  or  novissimum,  the  last 
judgment,  because  it  will  take  place  at  the  end 
of  the  world  that  now  is.     The  term,  the  last 
judgment,  is  not  used,  however,  in  the  New 
Testament.     Nor  are  the  phrases  ia%a,tr}  yfispa 
and  to  £G%di?ov  T'WV  j^uspcov  used  exclusively  with 
reference  to  the  end  of  the  world.     They  often 
designate  merely  the  future,  coming  days — e.  g., 
2  Timothy,  iii.  1 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  3  ;  like  D->p>n  nnrw, 
Genesis,  xlix.  1.     They  sometimes  also  denote 
the  last  period  of  the  world,  or  the  times  of  the 
Messiah — e.  g.,  Heb.  i.  1 ;  1  Pet.  i.  20,  like  ti^ 
euwvwv,  aiuv  yusXTuov,  Heb.  ton  oSiy. 

(5)  The  time  of  the  judgment,  or  of  the  end  of 
the  world,  and  its  signs  or  precursors.     Vide 
Morus,  p.  304,  s.  13.     According  to  the  assur- 
ance of  the  apostles  this  time  is  unknown.     Yet 
many  of  the  Jewish  Christians  at  the  times  of 
the  apostles  supposed  that  it  would  take  place 
immediately  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  of  the  Jewish  state,  because  the  Jews  be- 
lieved that  their  temple  and  city  would  stand 
until  the  end  of  the  world.     Vide  s.  98,  II.  3. 
But  the  apostles  never  affirmed  this  ;  they  never 
pretended  to  the  knowledge  of  a  divine  revelation 
respecting  the  time,  but  contented  themselves 
with  saying,  that  it  would  come  suddenly  and 
unexpectedly,  like  a  thief  in  the  night;  1  Thess. 


v.  2  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  10.  In  the  first  of  these  texts, 
Paul  shews  that  this  event  was  not  so  near  as 
some  at  that  time  supposed ;  and  in  the  second, 
Peter  shews  that  the  actual  coming  of  this  event 
could  not  be  doubted,  merely  because  it  seemed 
to  some  to  be  long  delayed.  In  2  Cor.  iv.  14, 
Paul  considers  himself  and  his  contemporaries  as 
being  among  those  whom  God  would  raise  from  the 
dead  through  Christ;  he  did  not  therefore  expect 
himself  to  survive  the  judgment  of  the  world, 
although  from  other  passages  it  might  seem  that 
he  at  least  wished  he  might.  It  is  not  by  chance 
that  the  declaration  of  the  apostles — that  they 
could  not  determine  the  time  and  the  hour  of 
this  event,  is  so  clearly  preserved  to  us.  Were 
there  any  reason  to  charge  them  with  the  oppo- 
site, to  what  contempt  would  their  doctrine  be 
exposed  ! 

As  to  the  signs  and  precursors  of  this  event 
nothing  can  be  very  definitely  determined  from 
the  New  Testament;  nothing  certainly  by 
which  we  can  draw  conclusions  with  any 
safety  with  regard  to  the  precise  time  of  its  oc- 
currence. No  indications  pointing  definitely  to 
the  day  and  hour  can  be  expected,  especially 
for  this  reason,  that  the  coming  of  this  event  is 
always  described  as  sudden  and  unexpected. 
Cf.  2  Pet.  iii.  10.  Even  with  regard  to  the  far 
less  important  revolution  among  the  Jewish 
people,  in  the  overthrow  of  their  state,  it  is  said 
(Matt.  xiii.  32)  that  the  exact  time  when  it 
would  take  place  no  one  but  God  knew,  not 
even  the  angels,  nor  the  Son  of  man  in  his  hu- 
miliation. And  yet  there  have  never  at  any 
period  been  wanting  persons  who  have  under- 
taken to  determine  definitely  the  time  and  hour 
of  this  event.  They  have  commonly  reasoned 
from  some,  and  often  very  arbitrary,  explana- 
tions of  the  Apocalypse,  and  from  calculations 
drawn  from  the  same.  This  ingenious  search 
after  the  time  and  hour  of  the  fulfilment  of  the 
divine  predictions  is  not  according  to  the  mind 
and  will  of  Christ,  since  it  usually  leads  to  the 
neglect  of  what  is  more  important;  and  besides, 
nothing  is  gained  by  it.  Vide  Acts,  i.  7. 

In  the  earliest  age  of  the  church  many  sup- 
posed that  the  end  of  the  world  would  follow 
immediately  upon  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
When  this  event  was  past,  other  calculations 
were  made.  In  the  tenth  century  the  opinion 
was  very  prevalent  in  the  Western  church  that 
the  end  of  the  world  was  near  at  hand,  because, 
according  to  Rev.  xx.  3,  4,  the  millennial  king- 
dom should  commence  after  a  thousand  years. 
This  belief  had  the  effect,  upon  the  multitudes 
who  adopted  it,  to  render  them  inactive ;  they 
squandered  and  consumed  their  goods ;  they 
suffered  their  houses  to  go  to  ruin  ;  and  many 
families  were  reduced  to  want.  Hence,  in  the 
eleventh  century  there  was  more  building  and 
repairing  done  than  at  any  other  period. 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       543 


From  this  we  may  conclude  that  the  way  to 
promote  the  conversion  of  men  is  not,  as  it  were, 
to  compel  them  to  it  by  the  fear  of  the  proximity 
of  the  last  day.  Even  in  modern  times  many 
•theologians,  and  those  too  of  some  celebrity, 

1  have   entered  into   calculations   of  this   kind, 
drawn  chiefly  from    the    Apocalypse — e.    g., 
Bengal,  Crusius,  and  others. 

What  we  are  definitely  taught  on  this  subject 
in  the  New  Testament  may  be  stated  as  fol- 
lows : — The  Christian  church  will  hereafter  be 
subjected  to  great  temptation  from  heathen  pro- 
faneness,  from  false,  delusive  doctrine,  and  ex- 
treme moral  corruption,  and  will  seem  for  a 
time  to  be  ready  to  perish  from  these  causes; 
but  then  Christ  will  appear,  and,  according  to 
his  promise,  triumph  over  this  opposition;  and 
then,  and  not  till  then,  will  the  end  of  the  world 
come  ;  Christ  will  visibly  appear  and  hold  the 
general  judgment,  and  conduct  the  pious  into  the 
kingdom  of  the  blessed.  This  is  the  distinctdoc- 
trine  of  Paul,  2  Thess.  ii.  3 — 12,  and  is  taught 
throughout  the  Apocalypse,  xii.  18 — xxii.  5, 
and  this  is  sufficient  for  our  instruction,  warn- 
ing, and  comfort. 

(6)  As  to  the  nature  of  the  general  judgment, 
and  the  manner  in  which  it  will  be  conducted 
by  Christ,  we  can  state  on  scriptural  authority 
only  the  following  particulars : — 

(a)  That  Christ  will  pronounce  sentence  upon 
all  men,  even  on  those  who  have  lived  in  pa- 
ganism, Rom.  ii.  6,  seq.;  Acts,  xvri.  71.  Vide 
s.  98,  II.  3.  Final  sentence  will  then,  too,  be 
pronounced  upon  the  evil  spirits,  Jude,  ver.  6 ; 

2  Pet.  ii.  4;  Matt.  xxv.  41.     For  other  texts, 
cf.  Morus,  p.  294,  not.  1  and  3. 

(6)  This  sentence  will  be  righteous  and  im- 
partial, 2  Tim.  iv.  8.  Every  one  will  be  judged 
according  to  the  light  he  has  enjoyed,  and  the 
use  he  has  made  of  it.  Those  who  have  had 
the  written  law  will  be  judged  according  to 
that;  the  heathen,  according  to  the  light  of  na- 
ture, Rom.  ii.  13 — 16.  Those  who  have  had 
greater  knowledge,  and  more  opportunities  and 
powers  for  doing  good  than  others,  and  yet  have 
neglected  or  abused  them,  will  receive  a  severer 
sentence,  &c.;  Matthew,  x.  15,  11,  23,  24; 
2  Thess.  i.  5.  Morus,  p.  294,  note  4. 

(c)  This  will  be  the  final  and  irrevocable  sen- 
tence, by  which  rewards  will  be  bestowed  upon 
the  righteous,  and  punishments  allotted  to  the 
wicked,  for  their  good  and  evil  actions,  and  the 
thoughts  of  the  heart;  Matt.  xxv.  31 — 46;  2 
Cor.  v.  10 ;  1  Cor.  iv.  5 ;  Rom.  ii.  6,  16. 

Note. — It  has  for  a  long  time  been  disputed 
among  theologians,  whether  the  judgment  of  the 
world  will  be  an  external,  visible,  formal  trans- 
action, or  whether  the  mere  decision  respecting 
the  destiny  of  man,  the  actual  taking  effect  of 
retribution,  is  represented  under  the  image  of  a 
judicial  proceeding,  like  what  is  now  common 


among  men?  The  reasons  alleged  on  both 
sides  of  this  question  are  stated  by  Gerhard  in 
his  Loci  Theologici.  Cf.  Morus,  p.  295,  note 
1.  The  latter  opinion  is  adopted  by  many  the- 
ologians at  the  present  time — e.  g.,  Eckermann, 
Henke,  and  others,  who  contend  that  this  whole 
representation  was  intended  by  Christ  and  the 
apostles  to  be  merely  figurative,  and  should  be 
so  understood.  It  is  clear,  however,  from  the 
New  Testament,  unless  its  language  is  arbitra- 
rily interpreted  and  explained  away,  that  the 
first  Christian  teachers  everywhere  represent 
the  judgment  of  the  world  as  a  solemn,  visible 
transaction,  distinct  from  retribution ,-  though 
its  more  particular  nature  cannot  be  distinctly 
determined  or  made  plain  to  us ;  and  is  therefore 
described  in  the  New  Testament,  for  the  most 
part,  by  figures.  This  is  very  well  expressed 
by  Morus,  p.  295,  s.  6.  If  the  New  Testament 
taught  the  contrary  opinion,  its  doctrines  would 
not  be  consistent  with  each  other.  For,  accord- 
ing to  the  New  Testament,  man  will  possess 
a  body,  even  in  the  future  life,  and  continue 
to  be,  as  he  now  is,  a  being  composed  both  of 
sense  and  reason ,-  and  so  there,  as  well  as  here, 
he  will  have  the  want  of  something  cognizable 
by  the  senses. 

With  regard  to  this  subject,  as  well  as  many 
others,  the  Bible  is  accustomed  to  connect  figu- 
rative and  literal  phraseology  together,  and  to 
use  these  modes  of  speech  interchangeably,  in 
order  to  render  clear  and  impressive  to  our 
minds  many  things  which  could  not  otherwise 
be  represented  plainly  and  forcibly  enough. 
Thus  it  is,  for  example,  in  the  discourses  of 
Christ  on  this  subject,  Matt.  xvi.  27,  seq.,  and 
chap.  xxv.  By  all  which  he  has  there  said  in 
a  figurative  style,  the  idea  should  be  impressed 
that  Christ  will  visibly  appear  in  a  majestic 
manner,  pronounce  some  innocent  and  others 
guilty,  and  treat  them  accordingly.  In  the 
courts  of  the  ancients  it  was  a  custom  to  place 
the  former  on  the  right  hand,  the  latter  on  the 
left  ,•  and  every  one  who  heard  this  discourse  of 
Christ  knew  what  he  meant  by  this  representa- 
tion. He  taught  the  same  truth  without  a 
figure,  when  he  declared  that  some  should  be 
pardoned  and  made  happy,  and  others  pro- 
nounced guilty  and  punished. 

II.  Scriptural  Doctrine  respecting  the  End  of  the 

World. 

(1)  Even  the  anci&nt  Hebrews  believed  that 
as  the  world  had  a  beginning  it  would  also  have 
an  end  ;  and  so  their  prophets  speak  of  the  grow- 
ing old  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  They 
teach  that  hereafter  the  whole  material  creation 
will  become  unfit  for  its  purposes,  and  useless 
to  its  inhabitants,  and  that  God  will  then  lay 
by  the  aged  heavens,  like  an  old,  worn-out  gar- 
ment, and  create  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth. 


544 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


Vide  Ps.  cii.  10 — 12,  where  this  is  described, 
in  opposition  to  the  eternity  and  unchangeable- 
ness  of  God.  Cf.  Heb.  i.  10—12. 

Our  seeing  the  constant  fluctuations  and 
changes  of  all  things,  the  wasting  and  falling 
away  of  the  hardest  rocks,  and  other  observa- 
tions of  a  similar  nature,  may  lead  to  the  same 
thought,  and  give  it  confirmation. 

Hence  we  find,  even  in  the  Old  Testament, 
such  expressions  as  the  following:  until  the 
heavens  are  no  more,  until  the  sun  and  the  moon 
are  no  more — e.  g.,  Job,  xiv.  12.  So  in  Ps. 
Ixxii.  5,  7,  17,  where  a  time  far  removed  is  ex- 
pressed by  this  phraseology;  for  this  period 
was  naturally  conceived  of  as  far  distant,  since 
changes  of  this  nature  are  found  by  experience  to 
require  along  time.  Moreover,  in  the  prophets, 
such  expressions  as  the  destruction  of  the  heavens 
and  of  the  earth,  the  growing  pale  and  darkening 
of  the  sun  and  moon,  are  often  used  figuratively,  to 
denote  great  changes  in  the  world,  the  calamity 
and  downfall  of  particular  states  and  countries, 
&c. — e.  g.,  Is.  xiii.  (respecting  Babel ;  chap, 
xxxiv. ;  Ezek.  xxii. ;  Rev.  vi. ;  Matt.  xxiv.  29, 
seq.  On  the  contrary,  the  phrases  new  heavens, 
new  earth,  the  clear  shining  sun,  &c.,  are  used 
to  denote  the  welfare  and  returning  prosperity 
of  states — e.  g.,  Isaiah,  Ixv.  17;  Ixvi.  22  ;  xiii. 
10,  et  passim.  But  these  very  figurative  ex- 
pressions presuppose  the  literal  idea. 

(2)  From  these  more  general  ideas  and  ex- 
pectations respecting  great  changes  hereafter  to 
take  place  in  the  universe,  there  was  developed 
among  the  Jews  and  other  nations  the  more  de- 
finite idea  of  the  future  destruction  of  the  world, 
and  especially  of  our  earth.  Everything,  it  was 
supposed,  would  be  hereafter  shattered  and  de- 
stroyed, but  not  annihilated  ;  since  from  the 
ruins  of  the  ancient  structure  there  would  come 
forth  again  a  renewed  and  beautified  creation. 
Philo  says,  (De  Vita  Mosis,  torn.  ii.  p.  144, 
ed.  Mangey,)  vta  avafyaivsTfai,  q  yyj,  pf.ta  xcfeap- 
GW,  the  earth  shall  appear  new  again,  after  its 
purification,  even  as  it  was  after  its  first  creation. 
He  calls  this  renovation  rtafayyevsaiav,  vsutepia- 
pbv  ifMv  <rtot,%£iuv,  x.  f.  h. ;  as  the  Greeks  also 
denominated  the  same  thing,  rtahiyyeveaiav  tfwv 
ofMv — an  expression  used  by  the  stoics  with 
reference  to  this  subject.  This  end  of  the 
world  was  not  then  described  as  its  entire  de- 
struction or  annihilation. 

Now  Christ  and  the  apostles  taught  the  doc- 
trine of  the  end  of  the  world  very  distinctly  and 
plainly,  and  sanctioned  what  was  previously 
known  on  this  subject  by  their  owrn  authority. 
Vide  Matt.  v.  !8;  Luke,  xxi.  33;  2  Pet.  iii. ; 
1  Cor.  xv. ;  Rev.  xx.  1 1 ,  et  passim.  But  among 
the  Jews  and  some  others  the  doctrine  prevailed 
that  this  change  would  be  effected  by  a  general 
conflagration.  This  belief  in  such  a  conflagra- 
tion did  not  at  first  rest  upon  any  arguments 


drawn  from  a  profound  knowledge  of  natural 
philosophy  ;  such,  for  example,  as  the  supposi- 
tion of  a  fire  burning  in  the  centre  of  the  earth, 
or  the  approximation  of  a  cornet,  as  many  mo- 
dern writers  have  thought,  but  they  were  first 
led  to  this  belief,  and  afterwards  confirmed  in 
it,  by  thoughts  like  the  following  :  Water  and 
Jire  are  the  two  most  powerful  and  efficient  ele- 
ments, by  which  the  most  violent  changes  are 
produced  in  the  earth,  and  by  which  desolations 
and  renovations  are  effected.  Now  we  find  tra- 
ditions among  all  nations  respecting  great  floods 
of  water,  and  the  desolations  occasioned  by  them 
in  the  earliest  times.  According  to  Moses,  the 
water  originally  covered  the  whole  earth,  and 
the  dry  land  issued  from  thence,  and  then  fol- 
lowed Noah's  flood.  It  was  now  the  expecta- 
tion that  hereafter  the  other  still  more  fearful 
element — the  Jire,  which  even  now  often  causes 
such  terrible  desolations,  would  effect  a  still 
more  amazing  and  universal  revolution  than 
that  effected  by  the  water,  and  that  by  this 
means  the  earth  would  be  renewed  and  beau- 
tified. 

It  was  by  such  analogies  as  these  that  this 
traditionary  belief  was  confirmed  and  illustrated 
among  the  heathen  nations  where  it  prevailed. 
It  was  afterwards  adopted  by  many  philoso- 
phers into  their  systems,  and  advocated  by  them 
on  grounds  of  natural  philosophy.  Thus,  for 
example,  Heraclitus  among  the  Greeks  con- 
tended for  such  a  conflagration  and  regenera- 
tion of  the  earth  by  means  of  fire;  and  so  after 
him  the  stoics.  Cf.  Cicero,  De  Nat.  Deor.  ii, 
46 ;  and  Seneca,  Quaest.  Nat.  ii.  28—30. 

This  doctrine  of  the  perishing  of  the  world  by 
fire  was  unquestionably  prevalent  among  the 
Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  al- 
though Philo  does  not  accede  to  it  in  his  book 
Ilept  oK}£aptfux$  xotipov.  The  arguments  which 
he  there  brings  against  it  are,  however,  ex- 
tremely meagre,  built  partly  upon  arbitrary  me- 
taphysical reasoning  and  partly  upon  a  play  on 
the  word  #6cr/*oj. 

In  one  passage  of  the  New  Testament  this 
doctrine  is  very  distinctly  stated,  2  Pet.  iii. 
7 — 13.  It  cannot  be  thought  that  what  is  here 
said  respecting  the  burning  of  the  world  is  to  be 
understood  figuratively,  as  Wetstein  supposes; 
because  the  fire  is  here  too  directly  opposed  to 
the  literal  water  of  the  flood  to  be  so  understood. 
It  is  the  object  of  Peter  to  refute  the  boast  of 
scoffers,  that  all  things  had  remained  unchanged 
from  the  beginning,  and  that  therefore  no  day 
of  judgment  and  no  end  of  the  world  could  be 
expected.  And  so  he  says  that  originally,  at  the 
time  of  the  creation,  the  whole  earth  was  cover- 
ed and  overflowed  with  water,  (Gen.  i.,)  and 
that  from  hence  the  dry  land  appeared ;  and  the 
same  was  true  at  the  time  of  Noah's  flood.  But 
there  is  yet  to  come  a  great  fire-revolution.  The 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       5-15 


heavens  and  the  earth  (the  earth  with  its  atmo- 
sphere) are  reserved,  or  kept  in  store,  for  the 
fire  until  the  day  of  judgment;  ver.  10,  at  that 
time  the  heavens  will  pass  away  (rtapf'p^scr^cu,) 
with  a  great  noise,  the  elements  will  be  dissolved 
by  fervent  heat,  and  everything  upon  the  earth 
will  be  burnt  up.  The  same  thing  is  taught  in 
ver.  12.  But  in  ver.  13,  Peter  gives  the  design  of 
this  revolution;  it  will  not  be  an  annihilation, 
but  "  we  expect  a  new  heaven,  and  a  new  earth, 
wherein  dwelleth  righteousness" — i.  e.,  an  en- 
tirely new,  altered,  and  beautified  abode  for  man, 
to  be  built  from  the  ruins  of  his  former  dwell- 
ing-place, as  the  future  habitation  of  the  pious. 
Cf.  Rev.  xxi.  1,  seq.  This  will  he  very  much 
in  the  same  way  as  a  more  perfect  and  an  im- 
mortal body  will  be  reared  from  the  body  which 
we  now  possess.  The  passage,  Rom.  viii.  19, 
seq.,  also  treats  of  this  renovation  and  beauti- 
fying of  the  world.  Vide  Morus,  p.  303,  note  5. 
Cf.,  with  regard  to  the  subjects  here  discussed, 
Siiskind's  "Magazin  fiir  christliche  Dogmatik 
und  Moral,"  lOtes  St.  No.  2,  respecting  the 
Jewish  ideas  of  the  Messiah  as  the  governor  of 
the  world  and  the  raiser  of  the  dead  ;  and  No.  3, 
the  declarations  of  Jesus,  in  which  he  ascribes 
to  himself  the  raising  of  the  dead,  the  judging 
of  the  world,  and  a  kingdom  at  the  end  of  the 
world. 

SECTION  CLVI. 

OF  THE  PUNISHMENTS  OF  HELL,  OR  ETERNAL 
CONDEMNATION. 

I.  Scriptural  Names  and  Representations  of  these 
Punishments,  and  of  the  Place  where  they  will 
be  inflicted. 

ACCORDING  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  na- 
tion at  the  time  of  Christ — a  doctrine  which  he 
himself  receives  as  true,  and  expressly  author- 
izes and  confirms — the  wicked  are  miserable, 
and  the  righteous  happy,  even  immediately 
after  death.  Cf.  what  was  said  respecting  the 
intermediate  state  s.  150.  Still  it  is  not  until 
after  the  day  of  judgment  that  the  perfect  bless- 
edness of  the  righteous  or  the  entire  misery  of 
the  wicked  will  properly  commence,  and  they 
enter  upon  the  state  of  full  retribution.  The 
former  will  then  go  to  an  abode  of  joy,  the  latter 
to  a  place  of  sorrow.  Vide  Wetstein  on  Matt. 
xxv.  46.  The  condition  of  wicked  men  and  of 
the  fallen  angels  before  the  day  of  judgment  is 
described  by  the  sacred  writers  as  like  that  of 
malefactors  while  yet  in  prison,  before  the  final 
judicial  sentence  is  pronounced  upon  them. 

The  place  in  which  they  are  confined  is  pro- 
perly called  Taptapoj,  and  it  is  a  part  of  Hades 
— the  invisible  world  in  which  bad  angels  and 
ungodly  men  are  reserved  until  the  day  of  judg- 
ment. Vide  s.  150,  I.  1.  This  place  is  also 


called  £o(j>of,  or  axotos,  in  the  epistle  of  Jude  and 
in  2  Pet.  ii.,  and  $vhaxrj  in  1  Pet.  iii.  19.  Even 
in  this  place  the  wicked  are  represented  as  in- 
deed unhappy,  but  their  complete  misery  will 
not  commence  until  after  judicial  sentence  has 
been  pronounced  upon  them. 

The  place  of  punishment  of ter  judgment  is  not 
revealed  in  the  scriptures,  nor  is  it  known  dis- 
tinctly whether  the  Jews  conceived  of  it  as  under 
the  earth,  or  as  entirely  beyond  the  boundaries 
of  our  planet.  The  term  aSqs  is  not  used  in  the 
scriptures  to  designate  specifically  this  place, 
for  Sixty  and  a§>?£  are  the  names  given  to  the 
kingdom  of  the  dead,  where  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked  both  abide  after  death.  Vide  s. 
150,  I.  The  more  appropriate  designations  of 
this  place  are  xt/u^  *vp6$  xai  §siov ;  Rev.  xx. 
10,  15;  and  yiiwa,  Matt.  x.  28;  v.  22;  on 
which  place  cf.  Wetstein. 

The  names  given  to  these  punishments  them- 
selves, both  before  and  after  judgment,  are  in 
part  figurative,  and  many  terms  which  were 
commonly  applied  by  the  Jews  to  this  subject 
are  retained  in  the  New  Testament.  These 
images  are  taken  from  death,  capital  punish- 
ment, tortures,  prisons,  &c. ;  and  it  is  the  design 
of  the  sacred  writers,  in  using  such  figures,  to 
awaken  the  idea  of  something  terrible  and  fear- 
ful ;  future  punishment,  they  mean  to  teach,  will 
awaken  in  men  the  same  feelings  of  distress  as 
are  produced  by  the  objects  employed  to  repre- 
sent it.  Some  of  the  more  general  and  literal 
names  of  this  punishment  are  oto^poj  <uwvio?, 
2  Thess.  i.  9 ;  6py^  fiiM.ovoa,  Matt.  iii.  7;  xoha- 
fftj  cuwvtoj,  Matt.  xxv.  46 ;  fidaav oc,  Luke,  xvi. 
24,  25.  The  more  figurative  names  are  ^avaroj, 
John,  viii.  51 ;  xi.  26;  §dvatos  Sfitffpoj,  Rev. 
xx.  6,  &c.  Vide  s.  147,  II. ;  <sx6no$  and  £o<j>o£ 
tov  axotovs,  Matt.  xxv. ;  Jude,  ver.  6,  seq. ;  ?tup 
cuwvtov,  $x6|  rtupoj,  Matt.  xxv.  41;  xviii.  8; 
2,  Thess.  i.  9;  the  worm  which  dies  not,  Mark, 
ix.  44,  where  the  comparison  is  taken  from 
Isaiah,  Ixvi.  24 ;  rtoptvea^ai  drto  ®eov,  in  oppo- 
sition to  beholding  th?  countenance  of  God,  Matt. 
xxv.  41 ;  having  no  rest  day  nor  night,  Rev. 
xiv.  11,  &c. 

Many  of  the  Jews,  and  some  even  of  the 
church  fathers,  took  these  terms  in  an  entirely 
literal  sense,  and  supposed  there  would  be  literal 
fire  &c.  in  hell.  But  nothing  more  can  be  in- 
ferred with  certainty  from  the  words  of  Christ 
and  the  apostles  than  that  they  meant  by  these 
images  to  describe  great  and  unending  misery. 
The  name  adopted  by  the  schoolmen,  damnatio 
seterna,  is  founded  upon  Heb.  vi.  2,  where  we 
find  xpifia,  (i.  e.,  xatdxpi.pa)  atcovtov.  Cf. 
2  Thess.  i.  9. 

II.  Nature  of  Future  Punishments. 

It  is  certain  from  the  plainest  declaration  of 
the  holy  scriptures  (cf.  s.  155),  and  may  also 


546 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


be  proved  on  grounds  of  reason,  that  the  happi- 
ness or  misery  of  the  future  world  stands  in 
most  intimate  connexion  with  the  present  life. 
The  rewards  and  blessedness  of  the  world  to 
•ome  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  salutary  and  hap- 
py consequences  of  the  present  life  a,nd  conduct 
of  men  ;  and,  on  the  contrary,  the  punishments 
there  to  be  endured,  and  future  misery,  as  the 
sad  and  fatal  consequences  of  their  character 
and  actions  in  this  world.  Our  future  good  or 
evil  estate  is  dependent  upon  our  present  life 
and  character. 

The  divine  punishments  are  divided  into  na- 
tural and  positive,  or  arbitrary,  and  both  these 
kinds  belong  to  future  punishment.  Vide  s.  31, 
86,  87. 

(1)  Among  natural  punishments  we  may 
reckon  the  following — viz., 

(a)  The  loss  or  deprivation  of  eternal  happi- 
ness, pccna  damni,  Matt.  vii.  21 — 23,  artoxcopti-ts 
a*'  spov.  Matt.  xxii.  13;  xxv.  41 :  in  all  of 
these  texts  the  representation  is  figurative.  Cf. 
2  Thess.  i.  9,  Si/'x^v  tiaovaw — dwto  7tpo<ju>7toi)  "fov 
KvpJov — i.  e.,  removed  from  Christ,  and  from 
the  happiness  which  he  enjoys. 

(6)  The  painful  sensations  which  are  the  na- 
tural consequence  of  committing  sin,  and  of  an 
impenitent  heart,  pvena  sensus.  These  punish- 
ments are  inevitable,  and  connected  as  closely 
and  inseparably  with  sin  as  any  effect  with  its 
cause.  From  the  consciousness  of  being  guilty 
of  sin  arise  regret,  sorrow,  and  remorse  of  con- 
science, and  it  is  these  inward  pangs  which  are 
the  most  grievous  and  tormenting.  The  con- 
science of  man  is  a  stern  accuser,  which  cannot 
be  refuted  or  bribed,  and  the  more  its  voice  is 
disregarded  or  suppressed  here  upon  earth,  the 
more  loudly  will  it  speak  hereafter.  For  man 
will  then  be  no  longer  surrounded,  as  he  is  in 
this  world,  with  external  circumstances,  which 
distract  the  mind,  and  prevent  him  from  seeing 
the  heinousness  of  sin,  and  from  reflecting  on 
bis  unhappy  situation.  He  will  pass  at  once 
from  the  noise  and  tumult  of  the  things  of  sense 
into  the  stillness  of  the  future  world,  and  will 
there  awake  to  reflection.  He  will  then  see 
how  he  has  neglected  the  means  of  improvement 
and  salvation,  and  to  what  irreparable  injury  he 
has  thus  exposed  himself. 

Add  to  this,  that  the  propensity  to  sin,  the 
passions  and  evil  desires  which  in  this  world 
occupy  the  human  heart,  are  carried  along  into 
the  next.  For  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  they 
will  be  suddenly  eradicated  as  by  a  miracle ;  and 
this  is  not  promised.  But  these  desires  and 
propensities  can  no  longer  find  satisfaction  in 
the  future  world,  where  man  will  be  placed  in 
an  entirely  different  situation,  and  surrounded 
by  a  circle  of  objects  entirely  new;  hence  they 
will  become  the  more  inflamed.  From  the  very 
nature  of  the  case  it  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the 


state  of  such  a  man  hereafter  must  necessarily 
be  miserable.  Shame,  regret,  remorse,  hope- 
lessness, and  absolute  despair,  are  the  natural, 
inevitable,  and  extremely  dreadful  consequences 
of  the  sins  committed  in  this  life. 

(2)  But  there  are  also,  according  to  the  most 
incontrovertible  declarations  of  the  scriptures, 
positive  or  arbitrary  punishments — i.  e.,  such  as- 
stand  in  no  natural  and  necessary  connexion, 
with  sin.  Vide  Morus,  p.  297,  note  2.  This. 
is,  indeed,  denied  by  those  who  will  not  allow 
that  God  inflicts  any  arbitrary  punishments. 
Vide  s.  31,  36,  87.  But  even  if  they  suppose 
they  can  make  their  opinion  appear  probable  on 
philosophical  grounds,  they  ought  not  still  to- 
assert  that  the  doctrine  of  positive  punishments 
is  not  taught  in  the  Bible.  All  the  ancient  na- 
tions who  believed  in  the  punishments  of  hell 
regarded  these  punishments,  at  least  the  most 
severe  and  terrible  of  them,  as  positive  or  arbi- 
trary— i.  e.,  as  depending  on  the  will  of  the 
Legislator;  as,  on  the  other  band,  they  regard- 
ed the  rewards  of  the  pious  as  not  merely  natu- 
ral, but  principally  arbitrary. 

There  are,  in  fact,  but  few  men  in  such  a  state; 
that  the  merely  natural  punishments  of  sin  will 
appear  to  them  terrible  enough  to  deter  them, 
from  the  commission  of  it;  and  so,  for  this  rea- 
son, if  for  no  other,  the  doctrine  of  positive  pu- 
nishments should  be  retained  in  popular  instruc- 
tion. Experience  also  shews  that  to  threaten 
positive  punishment  has  far  more  effect,  as  well 
upon  the  cultivated  as  the  uncultivated,  in  de- 
terring them  from  crime,  than  to  announce  and 
lead  men  to  expect  the  merely  natural  conse- 
quences of  sin,  be  they  ever  so  terrible.  Hence1 
we  may  see  why  it  is  that  the  New  Testament 
says  little  of  natural  punishments,  (although 
these  beyond  a  question  await  the  wicked,)  and 
makes  mention  of  them  in  particular  far  less 
frequently  than  of  positive  punishments;  and 
why,  in  those  passages  which  treat  of  the  pu- 
nishments of  hell,  such  expressions  and  images 
are  almost  always  employed  as  suggest  and 
confirm  the  idea  of  positive  punishments.  Cf. 
No.  I.  of  this  section  ad  finem. 

Those,  therefore,  who  consider  Jesus  to  be 
a  teacher  of  truth,  in  whose  mouth  there  was  no 
guile,  must  necessarily  believe  also  his  often 
repeated  declarations  on  this  subject.  It  is  very 
inconsistent  in  some  modern  philosophers  and 
theologians  to  admit  of  positive  rewards  for  the 
pious,  and  yet  deny  positive  punishments  for  the 
wicked.  We  are,  indeed,  compelled  to  admit 
positive  rewards,  because  those  which  are  merely 
natural  are  not  sufficient  to  complete  the  mea- 
sure of  our  happiness.  If  the  positive  rewards 
are  probable  on  grounds  of  reason,  how  can  it 
be  said  that  positive  punishments  are  impossible 
and  contradictory  ?  It  was,  moreover,  the  pre- 
vailing doctrine  among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      547 


Christ,  that  punishments  are  for  the  most  part 
positive,  and  that  they  affect  even  the  body. 
Hence  the  words  of  Christ,  drtota'crai  ^v%^v  xai 
tjwua,  Matt.  x.  28.  For  since  the  impenitent 
•will  be  again  clothed  with  a  body  at  the  resur- 
rection, this  body  must  participate  in  their  pu- 
nishment, as  the  body  of  the  righteous  will  par- 
ticipate in  their  reward. 

As  to  the  question,  In  what  these  positive  or 
corporeal  punishments  will  consist  ?  no  definite 
answer  can  be  drawn  from  the  Bible,  because 
it  is  plainly  intended  that  all  the  representations 
made  of  this  subject  should  be  understood  figu- 
ratively and  by  way  of  comparison — i.  e.,  these 
punishments  will  consist  of  pains  like  those, 
ft.  g.,  arising  from  fire  or  from  a  gnawing  worm. 
We  are  so  little  acquainted  with  the  state  in 
which  we  shall  be  hereafter,  and  with  the  na- 
ture of  our  future  body,  that  no  strictly  literal 
representation  of  future  punishments  could  be 
made  intelligible  to  us.  Even  the  place  in 
which  the  wicked  are  confined  will  contribute 
much  to  their  misery,  also  the  company  of  other 
sinners,  and  of  evil  spirits — a  circumstance 
particularly  mentioned  in  Matt.  xxv.  41. 

Note. — The  efforts  of  those  who  have  endea- 
voured to  persuade  even  the  common  people 
and  the  young  that  no  positive  divine  punish- 
ments are  to  be  expected  in  the  world  to  come, 
have  ever  had  a  most  injurious  tendency,  as 
the  history  of  all  ages  will  shew.  For  the 
deep-rooted  expectation  of  such  punishments 
among  all  nations  has  always  been  a  check 
upon  the  more  gross  outbreakings  of  sin.  It 
was  from  this  expectation  that  the  oath  derived 
its  sacred  ness  and  inviolableness.  It  is  often 
said  by  Cicero  and  others,  that  all  philosophers, 
both  Greek  and  Roman,  are  agreed  in  this,  that 
the  gods  do  not  punish,  dcos  non  nocere.  But 
as  soon  as  this  opinion  of  the  philosophers  be- 
gan to  prevail  among  the  people,  it  produced, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  all  the  Roman 
writers,  the  most  disastrous  consequences, 
which  lasted  for  centuries.  No  subsequent  ef- 
forts could  ever  succeed  in  awakening  a  fear 
of  divine  punishments  in  the  minds  of  the  great 
multitude.  Hence  resulted  the  deplorable  de- 
generacy of  the  Roman  empire.  Truth  and 
faith  ceased,  chastity  became  contemptible, 
perjury  was  practised  without  shame,  and 
every  species  of  luxurious  excess  and  of  cruelty 
was  indulged.  To  this  corruption  no  philoso- 
pher was  able  to  oppose  any  effectual  resist- 
ance; until  at  length  its  course  was  arrested 
by  Christianity. 

Among  Christians  themselves  such  efforts 
have  always  been  followed  by  similar  disastrous 
consequences. 

(1)  The  papal  sale  of  indulgences,  which  be- 
came general  during  the  twelfth  and  the  suc- 
ceeding centuries,  and  especially  after  the  cru- 


sades, had  a  tendency,  in  the  same  way,  to 
diminish  the  fear  of  positive  divine  punishments, 
because  it  was  supposed  one  might  purchase 
exemption  from  them.  The  result  of  this  delu- 
sion was  equally  deplorable  in  this  case  as  in 
the  one  before  mentioned;  the  greatest  immo- 
ralities prevailed  throughout  Christian  lands; 
until  this  evil  was  arrested  by  the  reformation, 
and  the  fear  and  the  love  of  God  were  both 
awakened  anew  in  the  hearts  of  Christians. 

(2)  A  similar  result  took  place  in  England  in 
the  latter  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  when 
some  rationalist  philosophers,  during  the  reign 
of  Charles  II.,  undertook   to   emancipate  the 
minds  of  men  from  the  fear  of  positive  divine 
punishments.     The  effect  of  their  efforts  is  well 
known  from  history.     Frivolity  of  spirit,  im- 
morality, sins  of  impurity,  and  all  the  dreadful 
consequences  of  forgetting  God,  suddenly  pre- 
vailed. 

(3)  The  principles  of  these  English  philoso- 
phers were  gradually  diffused  through  France 
by  the  writings  of  Voltaire,  Diderot,  and  others; 
and  after  1740,  they  were  also  adopted  and  dis- 
seminated   by  some   even  in   Germany.     The 
history  of  our  own  times  shews  us  sufficiently 
what  has  been  the  result  of  these  principles  here. 

It  is  agreeable  to  the  gospel — it  is,  indeed  the 
very  spirit  of  the  gospel,  to  represent  God  as 
Love.  It  is  also  right  for  the  evangelical  teacher, 
indeed,  it  is  his  duty,  to  preach  respecting  the 
infinite  love  of  God,  especially  as  it  is  manifested 
in  Jesus  Christ.  In  this  his  whole  heart  should 
live.  But  he  must  never  forget  to  teach  in  what 
order  and  on  what  conditions  alone  man  becomes 
susceptible  of  these  proofs  of  the  divine  favour. 
The  gospel  itself,  though  at  a  loss  for  words 
sufficiently  to  magnify  the  infinite  love  of  God, 
represents  also  his  penal  justice  in  a  light  ex- 
tremely terrifying  to  all  who  do  not  fall  in  with 
this  prescribed  order,  and  threatens  them  with 
the  most  severe  and  inevitable  punishments  in 
the  world  to  come.  Both  of  these  views  should 
therefore  be  connected  together.  Cf.  the  small 
work  written  by  Jacobi,  Was  soil  ich  zur  Beru- 
higung  meiner  Seele  glauben  ?  Was  soil  ich  hoffen 
bey  den  mannichfaltigen  Meinungen  der  Gelehr- 
ten?"  1790;  s.  83—96. 

III.  The  Justice  and  Necessity  of  the  Punishments 
of  Hell,'  the  Sins  which  being  Condemnation  in 
their  train  ;  and  the  different  Degrees  of  Punish- 
ment. 

(1)  That  there  will  be  punishments  in  the 
future  state  has  been  believed  by  nearly  all  men 
who  have  reflected  impartially  upon  the  world, 
the  destiny  of  man  as  a  moral  being,  and  upon 
the  attributes  of  God.  It  is  obvious  to  every 
one  that  the  earth  is  not  the  theatre  of  the  divine 
justice,  and  that  the  lot  of  man  here  below  is 
not  justly  apportioned  to  his  moral  conduct. 


548 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


The  greatest  criminal  often  goes  unpunished, 
and  lives,  perhaps,  in  external  peace  and  pros- 
perity; and  the  pious,  good  man  is  often  unre- 
warded, lives  in  adverse  external  circumstances, 
and  frequently  is  severely  persecuted.  All  this, 
now,  appears  to  contradict  our  ideas  of  the  di- 
vine justice,  goodness,  and  wisdom,  and  makes 
the  destination  of  man  an  inexplicable  riddle. 

As  soon,  therefore,  as  men  came  to  believe  in 
a  future  life,  and  began  to  reflect  upon  the  dis- 
proportion which  now  exists  between  the  moral 
character  and  the  happiness  of  men,  the  thought 
would  naturally  suggest  itself  to  their  minds 
that  the  proper  theatre  of  divine  justice  will  be 
first  opened  in  the  world  to  come,  and  that  the 
punishment  of  the  sinner  there  may  be  as  confi- 
dently expected  as  the  reward  of  the  righteous, 
since  in  this  way  only  can  either  the  justice  or 
goodness  of  God  be  vindicated.  Vide  the  Arti- 
cle on  Providence,  especially  s.  71,  VI.,  ad 
finem.  Also  Michaelis,  Ueber  die  Lehre  von 
der  Siinde,  s.  314.  Such,  accordingly,  is  the 
uniform  representation  of  the  New  Testament. 
Vide  2  Thess.  i.  5,  seq. ;  Rorn.  ii.  6,  seq. 

(2)  Causes  of  condemnation.  According  to  the 
conceptions  of  men  possessing  only  a  very  limited 
and  imperfect  knowledge  of  moral  things,  it  is 
only  a  few  of  the  grosser  crimes  which  are 
punished  after  death.  In  proportion  as  their 
ideas  on  moral  subjects  become  enlarged  and 
perfected,  the  number  of  offences  which  they  re- 
gard as  liable  to  punishment  is  increased,  and 
they  come  at  length  to  the  just  result  that  every 
sin  must  be  punished.  Vide  s.  150,  II.  2.  And 
so,  according  to  the  express  doctrine  of  the  New 
Testament,  all  irreligiousness  (an  ungodly  dis- 
position, forgetfulness  of  God,  dcr^ta),  every 
transgression  of  the  divine  precepts,  all  kinds 
of  vice  and  moral  corruption,  will  be  inevitably 
punished  in  the  future  world  ;  and  this  punish- 
ment will  be  inflicted  not  only  upon  those  who, 
like  Jews  and  Christians,  have  the  express 
written  law  of  God,  but  also  upon  the  heathen, 
who  have  merely  the  law  of  nature.  Vide  Rom. 
ii.  6— 16;  Gal.  iv.  8;  Matt.  xxv.  41,  seq.;  1 
Cor.  vi.  9 ;  2  Pet.  ii.  1—3. 

Especially  is  art^la,  or  artsfeua  represented 
as  a  cause  of  condemnation.  So  Mark,  xvi.  IG, 
"he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned."  John, 
iii.  18,  and-  ver.  36,  o  aris^Mv  vi<?  ovx  o^/ffat 
^w^v,  &M.'  37  6py>7  ®fov  p^vst,  trt  avT'ov.  By  this 
unbelief  is  meant,  the  deliberate  rejection  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ,  and  disobedience  to  his  pre- 
cepts, against  one's  better  conviction.  It  in- 
cludes also  apostasy  from  the  Christian  doctrine 
when  it  has  been  once  received  and  acknowledged 
as  true;  Hebrews,  x.  26,  39.  Everything  there- 
fore which  draws  after  it  punishment  in  the  fu- 
ture world  may  be  comprehended  under  arao'tCo, 
and  cU-Ojiu'a — a  criminal  disbelief  and  transgres- 
sion of  the  divine  precepts.  Whoever,  then,  is 


or  dvo^oj,  will  be  unhappy  hereafter, 
however  different  the  degrees  of  unhappiness 
may  be.  On  the  contrary,  rtiWi$  and  twopos 
j3t'oj  (ftw'fJfia)  will  be  followed  by  blessedness, 
however  great  the  difference  in  degree  may  be. 
It  will  be  understood,  of  course,  that  among  the 
unbelieving  who  will  be  punished  those  are  not 
included  who  have  no  opportunity  to  become 
acquainted  with  the  divine  will  or  with  the 
Christian  doctrine,  or  who  are  naturally  incapa- 
citated for  this;  in  short,  those  who  do  not  be- 
lieve without  any  fault  of  their  own — e.  g., 
children  and  many  of  the  heathen.  Vide  s.  121. 

Note. — As  to  the  number  of  those  who  will  be 
saved  and  lost,  the  Bible  says  nothing  definitely. 
When,  on  a  certain  occasion,  the  question  was 
proposed  to  Christ,  Whether  the  number  of  the 
saved  would  be  small?  he  gave  an  answer,  ac- 
cording to  Luke,  xiii.  23,  seq.,  of  the  following 
import: — "Ask  not  such  questions  from  an  idle 
curiosity,  but  act  as  if  thou  wert  alone  among 
many  thousands."  There  are,  indeed,  many 
who  will  be  saved,  (cf.  ver.  28,  29,  and  Rev. 
vii.  9,)  but  among  them  there  will  be  many 
whose  lot  it  was  supposed  would  be  different; 
and  not  all  of  those  who  account  themselves  the 
heirs  of  salvation,  and  are  so  esteemed  by  others, 
will  be  found  in  this  number,  ver.  29,  30.  It 
is  often  distinctly  affirmed  by  Christ,  that  among 
those  who  profess  his  name  there  are  many 
who  will  not  obtain  eternal  life,  although  he  de- 
sires to  lead  all  to  salvation.  E.  g.,  Matt.  xx.  16 ; 
xxii.  14,  "  many  are  called,  but  few  are  chosen" 
— i.  e.,  many  who  hear  me  suffer  themselves 
to  be  instructed  in  my  doctrine,  and  become  ex- 
ternally professors  of  my  religion  (x^rot)  ;  but 
few,  however,  belong  to  the  number  of  the 
chosen  saints,  the  elect,  those  who  are  well- 
pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God,  who  do  that  which 
is  commanded  them,  who  are  what  they  should 
be.  It  is  the  same  as  to  Matt.  vii.  13, 14,  where 
Christ  shews  that  the  way  in  which  many 
teachers  lead  the  people  is  not  the  right  way  for 
attaining  salvation — i.  e.,  their  instruction  is  not 
true  and  salutary,  although  followed  by  the  ma- 
jority of  men  (latavia};  the  right  and  sure  way 
which  he  points  out  meets  with  less  approbation 
(it  is  narrow  and  forsaken,  trodden  by  few),  be- 
cause it  is  more  difficult  and  requires  many  sa- 
crifices. For  there  were  at  that  time  but  few 
who  believed  on  him,  and  kept  his  command- 
ments with  the  whole  heart. 

(3)  As  there  are  future  punishments,  they 
must  be  different  in  degree.  Vide  Morus,  p.  298, 
s.  9.  This  might  be  concluded  a  priori,  and 
might  be  reasonably  expected  from  the  justice 
of  God;  for  there  are  different  degrees  in  sin, 
and  one  is  greater  than  another;  (vide  s.  81, 
II. ;)  and  hence  punishments,  both  natural  and 
positive,  must  he  proportionately  varied.  Now 
this  is  ike  uniform  doctrine  of  Jesus  and  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       549 


apostles.  The  more  knowledge  of  the  divine 
will  a  man  has,  the  more  opportunity  and  in- 
ducement to  avoid  sin,  the  greater  the  incentives 
to  faith  and  virtue  which  are  held  up  before  him, 
by  so  much  is  his  responsibility  increased,  and 
the  greater  will  be  his  punishment  if  he  does  not 
make  a  faithful  use  of  his  advantages.  "The 
servant  who  knows  his  Lord's  will,  and  does  it 
not,  deserves  to  be  beaten  with  many  stripes." 
"  To  whom  much  is  given,  of  him  will  much  be 
required."  Matt.  x.  15;  xxiii.  15;  Luke,  xii. 
46.  Hence  Paul  says  that  the  heathen  who  act 
against  the  law  of  nature  will  be  punished  ;  but 
that  the  Jews  will  be  punished  more  than  they, 
because  they  had  more  knowledge,  and  more  was 
given  to  them. 

But  we  can  go  no  further  than  this  general 
rule,  that  this  difference  of  degree  will  be  ap- 
portioned xata  lyvuGiv,  rtiWt-v,  and  i'pya.  For 
God  alone  is  able  rightly  to  appoint  punish- 
ments, and  to  fix  their  degree,  since  he  alone  is 
able  by  his  omniscience  to  determine  infallibly 
the  degree  of  sin  and  its  ill  desert.  It  may 
therefore  be,  that  many  whom  we  regard  as  ut- 
terly damnable  may  not  in  God's  judgment  de- 
serve damnation,  or  not  that  degree  of  it  which 
we  award  them.  Others,  on  the  contrary,  to 
whom  we  might  adjudge  reward,  may  appear 
in  the  eyes  of  God  to  deserve  severe  punish- 
ment. 

SECTION  CLVII. 

DURATION  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENTS  ;  REASONS 
FOR  AND  AGAINST  THEIR  ETERNAL  DURATION. 

Reasons  in  favour  of  the  Eternal  Duration  of  Fu- 
ture Punishments,  and  what  is,  or  may  be,  ob- 
jected against  these  Reasons. 

(1)  From  the  holy  scriptures.  In  the  New 
Testament,  the  punishments  of  hell  are  ex- 
pressly described  as  eternal.  In  Matt.  xxv.  41, 
46,  we  find  rtvp  <uu>vtoj>  and  xoTiastj  atcovtoj  op- 
posed to  £w»7  atuvto;*  in  both  of  these  sentences, 
therefore,  must  attonoj  be  taken  in  the  same 
sense,  per  legern  disjunctions.  And  so,  if  in 
connexion  with  £«^,  it  means  unending,  eternal, 
it  must  mean  the  same  in  connexion  with  itvp. 
In  accordance  with  this  must  other  texts  be  ex- 
plained ;  as  where  it  is  said  respecting  the  fallen 
angels,  that  they  are  bound  in  Stcr/tot  diStoi, 
Jude,  ver.  6,  coll.  2  Pet.  ii.  4;  Rev.  xiv.  11  ; 
oto^po?  cwavtoj,  2  Thess.  i.  9 ;  Mark,  ix.  44,  46 ; 
Rev.  xx.  10.  So  in  John,  iii.  36,  where  it  is 
said  respecting  unbelievers,  (JLSVSI  %  6py^  ®eov — 
ovx  o^cfot  £W]v.  In  Matt.  xxvi.  24,  Christ 
says  respecting  Judas,  "that  it  would  have 
been  better  for  him  never  to  have  been  born." 

With  regard  to  these  texts  we  shall  here  sub- 
join some  observations. 


(a)  On  the  texts  in  which  ouwv  and  cutoff 
are  used.  These  are  regarded  by  some  as  not 
decisive.  For  D*?IJ?  and  <uwi>  are  used  to  denote 
any  long  duration  or  period  of  time.  Sometimes 
they  refer  to  the  past,  and  denote  ages  gone  by, 
ancient  days,  antiquity  ,•  thus,  rtvhai  atu>pta,  Ps. 
xxiv.  7,  9  ;  Itrj  at  an  a,  years  of  antiquity,  Ps. 
Ixxvii.  5;  ^povot  atapuu,  Rom.  xvi.  25;  a*' 
atwvoj,  Acts,  iii.  21.  Sometimes  they  refer  to 
future  time,  and  are  applied  to  everything 
which  lasts  long,  although  in  time  it  may  come 
to  an  end,  or  has  come  to  it  already.  For  the 
Hebrews  and  other  ancient  people  have  no  one 
word  for  expressing  the  precise  idea  of  eternity. 
Cf.  s.  20,  III.,  respecting  the  eternity  of  God. 
Thus  Paul,  2  Cor.  iv.  18,  opposes  aioviov  to 
Ttpotfxcupor.  Thus  Sia^x"/]  atunoj  is  used  with 
reference  to  the  Mosaic  institute,  although  it 
came  to  an  end,  Ex.  xxxi.  16  ;  the  same  as  to 
ispateia  ativwj,  Num.  XXV.  13. 

From  this,  as  some  suppose,  it  follows,  that 
jco^acrt?  atai'toj  may  mean  either  the  pain  and 
condemnation  ordained  by  God  of  old  (as  Christ 
says,  with  regard  to  the  blessedness  opposed  to 
it,  that  it  was  ftpo^toLfiau^sv^,  Matt.  xxv.  34, 
41),  or  misery  and  happiness  long  continued, 
lasting  for  ages,  without  yet  designating  a  dura- 
tion absolutely  endless;  or  both  of  these  senses 
may  be  comprehended  under  this  expression.  In 
the  invisible  world,  everything  is  aiovtov  and 
dtStov.  There,  according  to  the  conceptions  of 
all  nations,  time  is  not  measured  by  years  and 
short  human  periods,  as  it  is  here  in  the  world, 
but  by  long  periods,  by  ages. 

To  this  some  add  the  remark,  that  rtrp  and 
xohaais  aiavtoj  properly  denote  the  place,  the 
kingdom,  the  residence  of  the  lost — the  state  of 
condemnation;  as  {3aat,teia  ®tov  and  £u>r]  atai/toj 
denote  the  place,  the  abode  of  the  blessed. 
This  place,  they  say,  may  be  eternal,  because 
it  will  never  be  without  occupants,  or  persons 
who  endure  punishment  on  account  of  sin. 
There  will  always  be  two  different  kingdoms, 
one  of  happiness,  the  other  of  misery,  the  dis- 
tinction between  which  will  never  be  removed, 
and  which  can  never  be  united.  But  from  this 
it  does  not  follow  that  every  person  who  has 
once  been  there,  or  suffered  punishment,  will 
remain  there  for  ever. 

(5)  As  to  the  phrase,  their  worm  dieth  not, 
&c.,  Mark,  ix.,  this,  it  is  said,  occurs  also  in 
Is.  Ixvi.  24,  with  reference  to  the  unhappy  fate 
of  the  idolatrous  Israelites,  and  is  transferred 
here  to  the  punishments  of  hell.  Since,  how- 
ever, in  the  former  case  it  does  not  denote  an 
absolute  eternity  of  suffering,  but  only  its 
dreadfulness  and  long  continuance,  so  it  is  at 
least  possible  it  may  mean  the  same  here.  And 
as  to  the  term  pivsi  in  John,  iii.,  the  idea  of 
eternity  is  still  less  implied  in  this.  As  used 


550 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


by  John,  it  may  stand  for  ilvtu,  and  denote  only 
the  certainty  and  inevitablenesss  of  future  pu- 
nishments. 

(c)  In  the  passage  with  regard  to  Judas, 
Matt,  xxvi.,  the  language  employed,  it  is  said, 
may  be  proverb! aland  popular,  not  admitting  of 
a  strict  construction.  It  is  as  much  as  to  say, 
*'  such  an  one  makes  himself  extremely  misera- 
ble; well  would  it  be  for  him  had  he  never 
been  born !" 

But  those  texts  in  which  there  is  a  clear  con- 
trast between  £<o^  cuoi/toj  and  xo^afftj  ouaz/toj, 
cannot  be  so  easily  explained  away  as  some 
suppose.  And  if  any  one  considers  them  im- 
partially, and  without  attempting  to  prevent 
their  obvious  meaning,  he  will  not  fail  to  de- 
rive from  them,  as  Morus  justly  observes,  (p. 
300,  ad  finem,)  "idea  sempiternitatis,  non  autem 
longi  temporis,"  For  since  ^wj?  atcmoj  in  all 
the  other  discourses  of  Jesus  is  understood, 
without  contradiction,  to  denote  a  blessed  life 
lasting  for  ever,  there  is  no  reason  £>r  under- 
standing it  differently  here.  And  if  ^^  cuivcof 
here  means  eternal  life,  then,  per  legem  disjunc- 
tionis,  must  xoXatftj  <HQI>IOJ  denote  eternal,  un- 
ending punishment.  And  the  other  texts  relat- 
ing to  this  subject  must  now  be  explained  in 
accordance  with  these. 

(2)  Other  arguments  a  priori  have  been  em- 
ployed in  behalf  of  the  eternity  of  future  punish- 
ments. 

(a)  The  guilt  (culpa,  reatus')  of  sin,  it  is  said, 
is  infinite,  and  its  punishment  must  therefore  be 
the  same.  The  injured  majesty  of  the  law- 
giver is  infinite,  and  hence  punishment  for  the 
injury  must  be  infinite  too.  This  argument 
was  employed  by  many  of  the  schoolmen — 
e.  g.,  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  has  also  been  urged 
by  Mosheim,  and  other  modern  theologians. 

Answer. — There  is  no  infinitus  reatus  peccato- 
rum,  nor  can  the  object  against  which  sin  is 
committed  be  made  in  every  case  the  measure 
of  its  criminality  or  ill  desert;  certainly  this 
cannot  be  done  with  regard  to  God.  Vide  s. 
81,  ad  finem. 

(6)  Every  sin  is  followed,  to  all  eternity,  by 
injurious  consequences  to  him  who  commits  it; 
as  every  virtue  or  good  action  is  followed  by 
good  consequences.  The  wicked,  therefbre, 
must  be  miserable  to  all  eternity,  and  endure 
the  punishment  of  their  sins. 

Answer. — This  is  very  true,  as  far  as  natural 
punishments,  or  the  natural  evil  consequences 
of  sin,  are  spoken  of.  And  if  these  are  meant 
when  the  eternity  of  future  punishments  is 
mentioned,  then  indeed  must  they  be  called 
eternal,  since  something  will  always  be  de- 
tracted from  the  happiness  of  the  sinner  for  his 
having  sinned,  even  if  he  repents,  and  all  posi- 
tive punishments  are  removed  from  him  or  re- 


pealed, as  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than  that  the 
natural  consequences  of  sin  should  always  re- 
main. Those  who  have  sinned  will  always 
stand  proportionably  below  others  in  point  of 
happiness,  as  there  are  degrees  both  of  blessed- 
ness and  misery. 

Here,  however,  two  things  should  be  remark- 
ed— viz.,  first,  all  the  consequences  of  our  ac- 
tions cannot  be  imputed  to  us,  and  so  all  the 
evil  consequences  of  our  actions  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  punishment,  especially  in  case  it  was 
impossible  for  us  to  foresee  these  consequences, 
or  when  we  sinned  unintentionally.  Secondly. 
Divine  Providence  has  wisely  ordered  it,  that 
good  and  useful  consequences  shall  often  result 
even  from  the  sins  of  men,  and  these  conse- 
quences are  equally  unending — e.  g.,  through 
the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  the  heathen  are  saved, 
according  to  Paul,  Rom.  xi.  This  now  should 
be  taken  into  consideration,  in  mitigation  of  the 
guilt  and  punishableness  of  many  sins. 

(c)  Another  argument  in  behalf  of  the  eter- 
nity of  future  punishments  is  drawn  from  the 
scientia  media  Dei.  Vide  s.  22, 1.  With  regard 
to  some  men,  God  foresaw  that  if  they  conti- 
nued here  upon  the  earth  they  would  sin  with- 
out cessation.  Since  now  these  persons  are 
such,  as  to  their  whole  constitution  and  dispo- 
sition, that  they  would  go  on  for  ever  to  sin, 
they  are  justly  punished  for  ever.  This  argu- 
ment was  employed  by  Fulgentius  and  Gregory 
the  great;  and  it  has  been  again  used  of  late  by 
Drexel,  Baumgarten,  Troschel,  and  others. 

Answer. — It  cannot  be  reconciled  with  our 
ideas  of  justice  that  sins  which  were  never  ac- 
tually committed  should  be  punished  as  if  they 
had  been  committed.  If  a  human  ruler  should 
punish  an  individual  for  crimes  of  which  he  was 
never  actually  guilty,  but  which  he  knew  with 
certainty  he  would  perpetrate  if  he  had  means, 
time,  and  opportunity,  it  would  doubtless  be 
pronounced  unjust  and  tyrannical.  The  fact, 
too,  is  very  questionable,  whether  there  are  any 
men  who  would  go  to  sin  without  interruption, 
in  every  possible  situation  and  under  all  cir- 
cumstances in  which  they  might  be  placed  in 
this  world.  Nothing  like  this  is  taught  us  in 
the  Christian  doctrine.  According  to  this,  God 
punishes  only  ta  i'pya,  or  a  iTtpaffv  f'xatyroj. 
Rom.  ii.  6;  2  Cor.  v.  10. 

(e?)  The  eternity  of  the  punishments  of  hell 
is  inferred  by  others  from  the  bias  to  sin,  which 
will  continually  acquire  strength  in  those  who 
are  lost,  and  finally  make  repentance  impossible. 
It  is  often  seen,  even  here  upon  the  earth,  how 
deeply  this  propensity  to  sin  takes  root  when  it 
is  long  indulged,  and  how  difficult,  and  indeed 
impossible,  repentance  becomes.  Besides,  the 
use  of  the  means  of  grace  is  confined  to  the  pre- 
sent life.  Hereafter  there  will  be  no  preaching 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       551 


of  the  word  of  God,  and  no  sacraments,  and  the 
grace  of  God  will  no  longer  be  there  given  to 
bring  men  to  repentance. 

Answer. — In  these  statements  there  is  much 
which  is  vague  and  incapable  of  proof. 

First.  The  state  of  things  in  the  future  world 
is  very  different  from  the  state  here.  The  rea- 
son why  the  bias  to  sin  takes  such  deep  root, 
and  why  reformation  is  so  difficult  in  the  pre- 
sent world,  often  lies  in  the  external  circum- 
stances by  which  man  is  surrounded,  and  which 
make  an  irresistible  impression  upon  his  senses. 
As  soon  as  these  objects  can  be  removed,  or  the 
impression  which  they  make  upon  the  senses 
can  be  weakened,  it  is  seen  that  reformation 
becomes  more  easy.  But  now  in  the  future 
world  the  spirits  of  lost  men  will  no  longer  be 
surrounded  by  these  external  objects,  which 
prove  so  exciting  to  the  senses;  so  that,  even 
if  the  impression  before  made  upon  them  by 
these  objects  should  for  awhile  remain,  they 
must  still,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  human 
soul,  become  weaker  and  weaker  in  the  absence 
of  these  excitements.  It  would  seem,  there- 
fore, that  sometimes,  at  least,  the  propensity  to 
sin  must  gradually  decrease  in  the  future  world, 
especially  when  we  consider  that  those,  who  are 
lost,  being  no  longer  deceived  by  external  and 
sensible  objects,  and  being  no  longer  withdrawn 
from  reflection  as  when  upon  the  earth,  will 
now  see  and  deeply  feel  the  evil  consequences 
of  sin. 

Secondly.  From  hence  we  may  conclude,  if 
the  use  of  reason  is  not  wholly  denied  to  the 
damned,  and  if  their  moral  nature  is  not  wholly 
destroyed,  that  it  is  not  improbable  that  even  in 
hell  they  may  possibly  conceive  an  abhorrence  of 
sin,  and  renounce  their  love  for  it,  although  the 
word  of  God  is  not  there  preached,  nor  the  sacra- 
ments there  administered.  Morus,  p.  301.  The 
knowledge  which  they  will  carry  with  them 
from  this  life  into  the  next  cannot  be  entirely 
obliterated ;  nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  God 
will  compel  them  to  sin,  or  so  entirely  withhold 
from  them  his  grace  that  they  will  not  be  able 
to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  their  sins,  and  to 
renounce  the  prejudice  and  wickedness  cherish- 
ed during  the  present  life.  For  God  to  do  this 
would  be  to  punish  sin  with  sin,  and  to  be  him- 
self the  author  of  new  offences.  It  may  be 
asked,  then,  whether  the  end  of  the  divine  pu- 
nishments, to  promote  the  actual  reformation  of 
those  upon  whom  they  are  inflicted,  may  not  be 
attained  even  in  the  case  of  those  who  will 
hereafter  be  condemned  1 

Thirdly.  But  should  any  one  say  that  these 
punishments  will  be  so  severe,  and  will  cause 
so  great  pain,  that  they  will  rather  drive  those 
upon  whom  they  are  inflicted  to  despair,  dis- 
traction, or  fury,  than  promote  their  repentance, 
ho  does  not  consider  that  such  a  statement  can 


hardly  be  reconciled  with  our  ideas  of  the  jus- 
tice and  goodness  of  God.  These  ideas  do  not 
permit  us  to  suppose  that  he  will  punish  any 
one  as  an  offender  from  whom  he  himself  has 
withdrawn  all  opportunity  for  repentance  and 
all  freedom  of  action.  He  only  can  be  rightly 
punished  who  enjoyed  freedom,  but  would  not 
employ  the  means  and  opportunities  for  reform- 
ation which  were  offered  him. 

II.  Arguments  for  the  Finiteness  of  Future  Punish- 
ments, and  Objections  to  these  Arguments. 

Besides  what  is  commonly  said  to  invalidate 
the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  eternity  of  future 
punishments,  the  following  arguments  are  often 
employed  to  support  the  opinion  that  they  are 
finite  in  duration.  These  arguments  are  of  very 
unequal  weight. 

(1)  Arguments  from  the  New  Testament* 
(a)  The  advocates  of  this  opinion  appeal  to  the 
declaration  of  Peter,  Acts,  iii.  21,  where  #pov<x. 
artoxataardaeus  rtavruv  are  spoken  of,  which 
God  had  before  promised  by  the  prophets.  This- 
is  understood  by  many  to  denote  the  future  re- 
covery of  lost  spirits  and  men  to  a  happy  condi- 
tion, which  is  on  this  account  called  restoration* 
(6)  The  finiteness  of  future  punishments  is  in- 
ferred by  others  from  the  efficacy  and  univer- 
sality of  the  merits  of  Christ.  There  is  no  rea- 
son, they  say,  to  limit  the  salutary  consequences- 
of  his  work  merely  to  the  present  life.  It  will 
continue  to  be  efficacious  in  the  future  world  if 
man  is  only  willing  to  reform.  Such  is  the 
reasoning  of  many,  and  they  refer  to  1  Cor.  xv. 
22 — 28,  where  ^ai/aroj  denotes  misery  and  the 
punishment  of  sin;  and  also  other  texts. 

Answer. — From  the  New  Testament,  how- 
ever, no  clear  argument  can  be  derived  in  be- 
half of  the  finite  duration  of  future  punish- 
ments ;  for, 

(a)  The  passage  in  1  Cor.  xv.  treats  of  death 
in  the  literal  sense,  since  ^avowo^  is  there  op- 
posed to  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  it  is 
there  expressly  said  that  Christ,  in  raising  the 
dead  to  life,  will  conquer  this  last  enemy  of  the 
human  race.  Cf.  s.  98,  ad  fin.  This  is  therefore 
described  as  his  last  great  work  for  the  good  of 
the  human  race.  And  so,  judging  from  this  pas- 
sage, one  could  expect  no  influence  of  Christ, 
or  of  his  work  for  the  good  of  men,  beyond  the 
grave. 

(6)  That  the  passage  referred  to  in  Acts  iii. 
does  not  relate  to  this  point  is  beyond  all  ques- 
tion. Vide  Ernesti's  Programm  on  this  text* 
in  his  »  Opusc.  Theol.,"  p.  477,  seq.  Cf.  s.  97r 
ad  finem.  The  meaning  of  this  passage  is  as- 
follows: — "The  heavens  have  received  Christ, 
or  retain  him  within  themselves,  as  long  as 
(a^ptj  oti)  the  happy  period  of  the  New  Testament 
continues."  He  will  not  come  again  to  found 
an  earthly  kingdom.  In  ver.  20,  these 


553 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


rtavt'cov  are  called  xaipol  avo^v- 
|?coj  artb  Krptov,  and  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  xaipoj  Stop^w- 
tfgwj.  Thus  it  is  said  in  Matt.  xvii.  11,  'Hu'aj 
(i.  e.,  John)  artoxa-taa-trfiei,  rtdvta,  where  the 
phrase  is  taken  from  the  Sept.  Version  of  Mai. 
iv.  6.  ttdvta  refers  to  everything  which  needs 
reformation  in  religious  affairs,  and  to  every- 
thing which  is  predicted  by  the  prophets.  Cf. 
Morus,  p.  301. 

(c)  Nor  is  there  in  the  discourses  of  Jesus  a 
single  passage  which  encourages  the  hope  that 
there  will  be  a  termination  of  future  punish- 
ments. Cf.,  e.  g.,  Luke,  xvi. 

(2)  Arguments  from  reason  for  the  finite  dura- 
tion of  future  punishments.  The  principal  of 
these  are  drawn  from  our  ideas  of  the  divine  at- 
tributes, the  goodness,  wisdom,  and  justice  of 
God.  How  can  it  be  reconciled  with  these  at- 
tributes, it  is  asked,  that  God  should  make  so 
large  a  number  of  his  rational  creatures  for  ever 
miserable  ?  How  can  God,  who  is  love  itself, 
punish  his  creatures  eternally  because  they  have 
lived  zfew  years  only  in  a  thoughtless,  wicked, 
and  irrational  manner?  This  seems  to  be 
wholly  disproportionate.  Again  it  is  asked, 
how  could  God  create  beings  whose  eternal 
misery  he  foresaw  ? 

To  these  questions  it  may  be  replied, 

(a)  That  although  the  views  expressed  in 
them  are  in  general  true,  yet  our  limited  under- 
standing is  unable  to  determine,  in  particular 
cases,  what  is  to  be  expected  from  the  divine 
goodness,  wisdom,  and  justice,  and  what  is  ac- 
cordant with  these  attributes,  and  what  other- 
wise. And  so,  although  it  may  appear  to  us  to 
be  agreeable  to  the  goodness  and  the  other  attri- 
butes of  God  to  put  a  period  to  the  punishments 
of  hell,  still  it  does  not  follow  that  he  must  ne- 
cessarily, or  will  actually  do  this.  Did  we  not 
see  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  God  has  created  a  world 
in  which  there  is  so  much  physical  and  moral 
evil,  we  should  proceed  to  argue,  on  this  prin- 
ciple, that  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  his 
perfections  to  give  such  a  world  existence,  and 
should  think  that  we  had  reasoned  conclusively. 

(6)  Again;  in  reply  to  the  above  questions  it 
may  be  said,  that  God  does  not  look  merely  at 
single  individuals,  but  has  respect  to  the  whole 
of  his  creation,  and  that  he  must  prefer  the  wel- 
fare of  the  whole  to  that  of  a  few.  The  offender 
himself  may  not  always  be  benefited  by  the  di- 
vine punishments  visited  upon  him,  butjiis  ex- 
ample may  yet  serve  for  the  warning  of  others, 
and  thus  conduce  to  their  good.  Cf.  Rom.  ix. 
17,  22.  Thus  the  eternal  punishments  inflicted 
upon  some  may  perhaps  serve,  through  all  eter- 
nity, to  deter  from  sins  many  other  beings  in  the 
boundless  empire  of  God — good  angels,  and 
men  redeemed,  and  perhaps  still  other  classes 
of  beings  not  belonging  to  this  world.  By 
this  punishment,  therefore,  a  good  may  be  done 


for  many  which  will  overbalance  the  evil  in- 
flicted on  a  few.  The  subject  is  exhibited  by 
Michaelis  in  this  light  in  his  work,  "  Von  der 
Sunde,"  s.  325,  seq.  Plato,  in  his  Gorgias, 
near  the  end,  ascribes  a  similar  thought  to  So- 
crates ;  "  he  believed  that  the  irreclaimable  part 
of  mankind  would  be  eternally  punished,  as 
,  i'va  aXXot,  opuivt* j,  ^o^ov^svoi,  ]3sk- 
There  is  much  probability  in 
this  thought.  The  force  of  it,  however,  some 
endeavour  to  invalidate,  by  saying  that  it  is 
conceiving  of  God  too  narrowly,  and  too  much 
after  the  manner  of  men.  God  cannot  be  want- 
ing in  other  means  by  which  this  object  could 
be  more  easily  and  surely  attained.  Again ;  it  is 
very  much  to  be  doubted  whether  the  example  of 
persons  condemned  to  eternal  punishment  would 
have  such  a  powerful  effect  upon  all,  and  ac- 
tually deter  them  from  sin.  This  effect  is  not 
certainly  produced  upon  many  here  in  this 
world,  who  believe  most  confidently  in  the 
eternity  of  future  punishments.  Moreover,  it 
is  an  imperfection  belonging  to  human  legisla- 
tors and  rulers,  and  not  therefore  to  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  supreme  legislator,  that  the  pu- 
nishments inflicted  by  them  often  serve  merely 
for  the  warning  of  others,  and  cannot  secure  the 
reformation  of  those  who  are  punished.  Vide 
s.  31,  No.  2,  respecting  the  positive  justice  of 
God. 

SECTION  CLVIII. 

RESULT  DRAWN  FROM  COMPARING  AND  EXAMIN- 
ING THE  DIFFERENT  ARGUMENTS  FOR  AND 
AGAINST  THE  ETERNAL  DURATION  OF  FUTURE 
PUNISHMENT;  AND  A  SKETCH  OF  THE  HISTORY 

OF  THIS  DOCTRINE. 

I.  Result  of  the  Reasons  far  and  against  this 
Doctrine. 

(1)  THERE  is  not  a  single  text  in  the  New 
Testament,  either  in  the  discourses  of  Christ  or 
in  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  which  clearly 
authorizes  the  hope  of  an  entire  and  universal 
removal  of  all  future  punishments  ;  but  exactly 
the  opposite  of  this  sentiment  is  expressly  af- 
firmed in  many  passages.     Vide  s.  157,  I.  1, 
and  II.  1. 

(2)  The  following  remarks,   drawn  partly 
from   scripture   and   partly  from   reason,  may 
serve  to  illustrate  and  confirm  what  we  are 
taught  in  the  Bible  respecting  the  duration  of 
punishment  in  the   future  world.     There  are 
two  kinds  of  punishment  which  the  wicked  will 
be  made  to  suffer — viz., 

(a)  Natural  punishment.  As  every  action 
morally  good  is  followed  by  endless  good  con- 
sequences to  him  who  performs  it,  so  it  is  with 
every  wrong  action.  This  is  founded  in  the 
wise  constitution  of  things  which  God  himself 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       553 


has  established.  When,  therefore,  natural  pu- 
nishments are  spoken  of,  it  is  obvious  to  reason 
how  an  eternal  duration  of  them  may  be  affirm- 
ed. Indeed,  reason  cannot  conceive  it  to  be 
otherwise,  since  there  is  no  promise  of  God, 
either  in  the  holy  scriptures  or  elsewhere,  that 
the  natural  evil  consequences  of  sins  once  com- 
mitted will  ever  cease.  In  order  to  this  there 
must  be  some  incomprehensible  miracle  per- 
formed, and  this  God  has  not  promised  to  do. 
Hence,  as  far  as  natural  punishments  are  con- 
cerned, their  eternal  duration  may  be  affirmed, 
both  on  grounds  of  scripture  and  reason.  Cf. 
s.  157,  I.  2. 

(Z>)  Positive  punishments.  With  regard  to  these 
we  may  conceive  that  they  may  be  removed ; 
indeed,  much  can  be  said,  on  grounds  of  reason, 
to  render  this  opmionprobabk.  To  hope  that  God 
would  remove  the  positive  punishments  of  sins, 
in  case  the  sinner,  even  in  the  future  life,  should 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  himself,  and  truly 
repent,  would  seem  to  be  agreeable  to  the  divine 
goodness  and  justice.  That  the  repentance  of 
the  sinner  in  the  future  world  is  absolutely  im- 
possible is  not  taught  in  the  scriptures.  Vide 
s.  157,  1,  2,  coll.  s.  63,  II.  Note,  respecting  the 
fallen  angels.  And  that  even  these  miserable 
beings  are  by  no  means  wholly  excluded  from 
the  active  proofs  of  the  goodness  and  justice  of 
God  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  Bible  ex- 
pressly teaches  that  the  lot  of  some  of  the 
damned  will  be  more  light  and  tolerable  than  that 
of  others.  Vide  Matt.  xi.  22,  24 ;  x.  15 ;  Luke, 
xii.  48.  The  phrase  *o?uxcrtj  cuwwoj  may  per- 
haps relate  therefore  merely  to  the  natural  pu- 
nishments of  sin,  and  not  to  the  positive.  Still 
it  cannot  be  shewn  that  this  phrase  does  and 
must  refer  exclusively  to  these  natural  punish- 
ments, and  it  is  still  possible  that  both  these 
kinds  of  punishment  may  be  comprehended  in 
its  meaning.  In  short,  no  arguments  which  are 
merely  philosophical  furnish  anything  more  than 
a  certain  degree  of  probability  on  this  subject; 
they  cannot  enable  us  to  decide  anything  defi- 
nitely with  regard  to  it.  WTe  know  too  little 
what  the  positive  punishments  of  the  future 
world  will  be,  to  speak  decidedly  with  regard 
to  them.  Where  the  object  is  unknown  to  us, 
we  cannot  pronounce  decidedly  that  the  predi- 
cate of  eternal  duration  may  not  be  applied  to 
them.  But  allowing  that  positive  punishments 
may  be  wholly  removed  from  one  who  may 
have  actually  repented,  still  the  natural  evil 
consequences  of  sin  will  not  therefore,  of  neces- 
sity, come  to  an  end.  These  may,  indeed,  be- 
come more  light  and  tolerable  to  one  who  has 
repented,  but  even  such  an  one  can  never  be 
happy  in  the  same  degree  as  another  who  has 
never  sinned.  Such  an  one  will  always  stand 
on  a  lower  point  of  happiness  than  others,  and 
70 


there  will  always  be  a  great  gulf  fixed  between 
him  and  them. 

(3)  The  wisdom  which  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles always  shewed  in  exhibiting  this  doctrine 
should  be  imitated  by  all  Christian  teachers. 
In  our  practical  instructions  we  should  never 
indulge  in  speculations,  or  suffer  ourselves  to 
enter  upon  the  investigation  of  learned  questions 
which  the  unpractised  cannot  understand,  and 
will  but  too  easily  misconstrue  and  pervert. 
Even  the  distinction  between  natural  and  posi- 
tive punishments  cannot  be  made  perfectly  plain 
to  the  unlearned ;  and  hence  it  is  never  insisted 
upon  in  the  sacred  scriptures ;  and  that  positive 
punishments  will  ever  wholly  cease  in  the  fu- 
ture world  can  be  shewn  incontrovertibly  nei- 
ther from  the  Bible  nor  any  other  source.  It  is 
moreover  impossible  to  prevent  the  doctrine  of 
the  finite  duration  of  future  punishments,  let  it 
be  stated  ever  so  guardedly,  from  being  pervert- 
ed in  various  ways  by  the  great  mass  of  man- 
kind, to  their  own  injury. 

Let  the  teacher,  therefore,  adhere  to  the  sim- 
ple doctrine  of  the  Bible ;  the  more  so,  consi- 
dering how  little  we  know  of  the  future  world, 
and  how  liable  we  are,  through  our  ignorance, 
to  mistake.  Had  more  full  disclosures  on  this 
subject  been  necessary  or  useful  for  us  in  the 
present  life,  they  would  have  been  given  to  us 
by  God  either  through  nature,  or  direct  revela- 
tion, or  in  both  these  ways.  But  since  he  has 
not  seen  fit  to  do  this,  let  the  Christian  teacher 
exhibit  faithfully  and  conscientiously  that  only 
which  Christ  and  the  apostles  taught  on  this 
subject,  without  either  adding  anything  to  their 
testimony,  or  diminishing  aught  from  it. 

Note. — Some  modern  writers,  who  admit  that 
eternal  punishments  are  threatened  in  the  Bible, 
but  who  are  unable  to  reconcile  this  doctrine 
with  their  preconceived  philosophical  or  theo- 
logical principles,  have  hit  upon  the  thought 
that  God  has  merely  threatened  these  eternal 
punishments,  in  order  to  deter  men  more  effec- 
tually from  sin,  and  to  sustain  more  firmly  the 
authority  of  his  law ;  but  that  it  depends  upon 
himself  to  what  degree  he  will  fulfil  his  threat- 
enings.  In  executing  the  sentence,  he  can  and 
will,  it  is  said,  abate  something  from  the  seve- 
rity of  the  punishment  threatened.  So  thought 
Tillctson,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Pains  of  Hell. 
And  this  view  has  appeared  not  improbable  to 
many  German  theologians — e.  g.,  Bushing, 
Bahrdt,  (in  his  "Dogmatik,")  Less,  and  others.  J 

But  such  a  supposition  is  unworthy  of  God. 
Human  legislators  do,  indeed,  in  consequence 
of  their  weakness,  sometimes  resort  to  such  ex- 
pedients, in  order  to  sustain  the  authority  of 
their  laws.  Still  such  measures,  even  among 
men,  are  generally  followed  by  injurious  conse- 
quences, and  are  rarely  adopted  except  by  weak 
3A 


554 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


princes.  But  with  regard  to  God,  who  is  faith- 
ful and  true,  such  a  supposition  is  incongruous. 
Nor  does  he  need  any  such  expedients,  since  he 
cannot  want  for  means  to  effect  this  object, 
without  going  contrary  to  his  veracity.  Be- 
sides, the  whole  strength  and  efficacy  of  all  the 
threatenings  connected  with  the  divine  laws 
would  by  this  supposition  be  diminished.  For 
men  are  always  inclined  enough  to  believe  that 
they  shall  not,  after  all  these  threatenings,  be 
dealt  with  so  strictly  and  severely,  because  they 
have  been  accustomed  to  see  some  abatement 
of  the  penalty  annexed  to  human  laws,  when  it 
comes  to  be  inflicted.  But  against  so  hurtful  a 
mistake  the  holy  scriptures  labour  with  the 
greatest  earnestness,  and  everywhere  insist 
upon  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  veracity,  and 
the  unfailing  fulfilment  of  the  divine  threaten- 
ings; e.  g.,  Heb.  iv.  12,  13. 

II.  Sketch  of  the  History  of  this  Doctrine  among 

Christians. 

Cf.  Burnet,  De  Statu  Mortuorum  et  Resur- 
gentium;  also,  J.  A.  Dietelmair,  Hist.  Anti- 
quior  Commenti  Fanatici  de  artoxaTfatrtdofuisis 
ftdvtw',  Altorf,  1769,  8vo;  and  Cotta,  Historia 
succincta  Dogmatis  de  Pcenarum  Infernalium 
Duratione;  Tubing.  1774. 

(1)  We  are  not  to  expect  any  deeply-learned 
and  philosophical  investigations  and   distinc- 
tions, with  regard  to  this  subject,  from  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  earliest  Christian  period.     The 
teachers  were  then  contented  with  the  simple 
doctrine  of  the  apostles  which  has  been  already 
exhibited,  and  they  made  use  of  this  with  the 
most  happy  success  in  their  didactic  and  horta- 
tory discourses.     Afterwards,  since  the  second 
century,  when  they  began  to  mingle  the  philo- 
sophy of  the  schools  with  Christianity,  they  fell 
into  speculation  upon  this  doctrine.     Some  un- 
dertook to  define  the  idea  of  atwvtoj  more  accu- 
rately, and  to  shew  that  it  does  not  necessarily 
imply  punishments  which  are  strictly  unending. 
Others  insisted  upon  the  literal  meaning  of  this 
term,  and  would  have  it  taken  in  its  strictest 
sense.    Thus  two  parties  were  formed.    These 
might  perhaps  have  found  some  points  of  union, 
or  at  least  of  approximation,  if  they  had  properly 
considered  the  distinction  between  natural  and 
positive  punishments.     But  no  traces  of  this 
distinction  can  be  found  in  most  of  the  ancients ; 
certainly  they  did  not  see  it,  and  all  the  conse- 
quences which  can  be  derived  from  it,  with  suf- 
ficient distinctness. 

(2)  The  doctrine  that  the  pains  of  hell  are 
finite  in  duration  was  first  clearly  taught  by 
some  of  the  Christian  teachers  of  the  Alexan- 
drine school  in  the  second  century.    *They  ob- 
viously derived  their  mode  of  representation 
from  the  principles  of  the  Platonic  philosophy. 
Plato  regarded  punishments  merely  as  medi- 


cinal, designed  to  effect  the  cure  of  the  disorders 
of  men.  He  supposed  that  all  spirits  and  souls 
not  wholly  irreclaimable  would  be  morally  pu- 
rified and  renovated  by  means  of  punishments, 
and  would  in  this  way  attain  to  happiness ; 
which,  however,  would  be  very  different  as  to 
its  degree.  But  still  he,  as  well  as  Socrates, 
believed  in  the  unending  punishment  of  the  irre- 
claimable. Cf.  s.  150. 

Even  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  we  find  a 
clear  exhibition  of  these  Platonic  ideas.  Cf. 
Strom.  4  and  6.  But  Origen,  in  the  third  cen- 
tury, taught  still  more  plainly,  a 
SatjUovt-coj'  xai  dcfgjSwv  d^pwrtcov,  and 
pov  slvai,  xohatiw  doffjSwv  df^pcartcov,  and  endea- 
voured to  establish  this  doctrine  by  many  argu- 
ments. In  the  works  of  his  which  are  still 
extant,  there  are  passages  which  are  clearly  of 
this  import — e.  g.,  in  his  works,  "  Contra  Celr 
sum,"  v.  15;  "De  Principiis,"  ii.  5.  Homil. 
19,  in  Jerem.,  and  Athanasius  and  other  ancient 
writers,  are  agreed  that  he  taught  this  doctrine. 
Some  modern  writers  have  undertaken  to' dis- 
pute this,  though  without  sufficient  reason.* 
Origen  was  followed  in  this  doctrine  by  many 
of  the  learned  Grecian  fathers — e.  g.,  Diodorus 
of  Tarsus,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  others 
of  the  school  of  Origen.  Even  in  the  Latin 
church  this  opinion  was  widely  disseminated 
in  the  fourth  century,  as  we  learn  from  Augus- 
tine and  Hieronymus. 

But  in  opposition  to  these,  the  doctrine  of  the 
eternity  of  future  punishments  was  affirmed  by 
other  equally  distinguished  teachers — e.  g., 
Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  Basilius,  John  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  among  the  Latins,  by  Hiero- 
nymus, Augustine,  and  others.  Even  in  the 
fourth  century  Origen  and  his  adherents  were 
severely  reproached  on  account  of  this  and  other 
doctrines  which  had  been  already  freely  circu- 
lated. At  length  the  ecclesiastical  anathema 
was  pronounced  upon  this  doctrine.  Among 
the  opponents  of  the  school  of  Origen  and  of 
their  doctrine  on  this  subject,  Theophilus  of 
Alexandria,  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries, 
was  especially  distinguished.  The  doctrine  of 
Origen  was  therefore  condemned  by  the  fourth 
council  at  Carthage,  in  the  year  398,  and  after- 
wards by  many  other  councils,  and  in  opposi- 
tion to  it  the  doctrine  of  the  eternity  of  future 
punishment  was  established  as  the  faith  of  the 
church. 

(3)  Still  the  doctrine  of  the  limited  duration 
of  future  punishment  has  never  wanted  defend- 
ers. Even  during  the  dark  ages  and  among  the 


*  [Neander,  while  he  concedes  that  Origen  taught 
this  doctrine,  thinks  it  is  one  of  those  points  respect- 
ing which  his  opinion  afterwards  changed.  Cf.  Ne- 
ander, Allg.  Kirch.  Gesch.  b.  i.  Abth.  iii.  s.  1098.— 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       555 


schoolmen  there  were  some  who  took  this 
ground,  especially  Scotus  Erigena  in  the  ninth 
century,  and  the  Abbot  Raynaldus  in  the 
twelfth.  But  the  great  majority  of  teachers 
during  this  period  held  fast  to  the  opposite  opi- 
nion, and  endeavoured  to  confirm  it  by  new  ar- 
guments ;  so,  e.  g.,  Thomas  Aquinas  and  others. 

But  this  doctrine  of  the  limited  duration  of 
future  punishment  fell  into  very  ill  repute  in  the 
Western  church,  on  account  of  its  being  pro- 
fessed by  some  of  the  enthusiastic  and  revolu- 
tionary parties  in  the  sixteenth  century,  (e.  g., 
by  the  Anabaptists,)  and  from  its  being  inti- 
mately connected  with  their  expectations  and 
schemes.  The  mere  profession  of  the  doctrine 
came  to  be  regarded  as  implying  assent  to  the 
other  extravagances  of  these  parties,  and  as  the 
signal  for  rebellion.  Hence  it  is  rejected  in  the 
symbolical  books  of  the  Lutheran  church  as  an 
Anabaptistical  doctrine;  Augs.  Confess.  Art. 
xvii.  In  the  form  in  which  this  doctrine  was 
held  by  these  sects  it  deserves  the  most  unmin- 
gled  disapprobation.  Again;  among  the  ill- 
famed  Christian  free-thinkers — e.  g.,  the  Soci- 
nians — there  were  some  who  professed  it.  In 
modern  times  it  has  been  the  same.  This  doc- 
trine has  been  advocated  in  the  protestant  church 
both  by  men  who  have  stood  in  suspicion  of 
enthusiasm,  (e.  g.,  Peterson,  Lavater,  and 
others,)  and  by  some  of  the  free-thinkers  in 
philosophy  and  theology,  although  for  very  dif- 
ferent causes,  and  on  very  different  grounds,  by 
these  two  classes. 

The  principal  advocates  of  the  common  opi- 
nion on  this  subject,  in  modern  times,  are, 
Mosheim,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  Sermons ;  and 
among  the  philosophers,  Leibnitz,  Baumgarten 
in  his  Dogmatik  and  Vindiciae  Prenarum  Mter- 
narum;  Halle,  1742:  Schubert,  Verniinftige 
Gedanken  von  der  Endlichkeit  der  Hollenstra- 
fen,  3te  Aufg.  Jena,  1750 ;  Heinr.  Meine,  Gute 
Sache  der  Lehre  von  der  unendlichen  Dauer 
der  Hollenstrafen ;  Helmstadt,  1748 ;  Schlitte, 
Ueberlegung  der  beidersei tiger  Grunde  fur  und 
wider  die  unendliche  Ungliickseligkeit  der 
Verbrecher,  &c.  Cf.  also  Michaelis,  Von  der 
Sttnde,  &c. 

The  principal  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
limited  duration  of  future  punishments  are, 
Soner,  (in  an  acute  philosophical  work,  to 
which  Leibnitz  replied ;  vide  Lessing's  Bey- 
trage  zur  Geschichte  und  Literatur,  Ir  Beytr., 
Braunschweig,  1773,  s.  201;)  Eberhard,  Apo- 
logie  des  Sokrates,  th.  i.  and  ii. ;  Gruner,  Theol. 
Dogm.  p.  G36;  Basedow,  Philalethie,  s.  539; 
Steinbart,  System,  u.  s.  w.  A  work  entitled 
Ueber  die  Strafe  der  Verdammten  und  deren 
Dauer;  Leipzig,  1782;  is  composed  with  much 
reflection.  The  arguments  on  both  sides  are 
examined,  and  a  middle  course  between  them 
is  chosen.  Some  have  supposed  that  the  wicked, 


after  enduring  the  punishments  of  hell  for  a 
season,  will  be  at  last  annihilated,  and  have 
called  this  mortem  scternam.  Vide  s.  151,  ad 
finem.  But  according  to  scriptural  usage,  £a- 
fatfof,  or  ote^poj  atavtoj,  or  Scvftpoj,  is  not  anni- 
hilation, but  eternal  condemnation. 


ON  ETERNAL  BLESSEDNESS. 


SECTION  CLIX. 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THIS  DOCTRINE  ;  AND  EXPLANA- 
TION OF  THE  SCRIPTURAL  PHRASEOLOGY  WITH 
REGARD  TO  IT. 

I.  Grounds  for  expecting  a  happier  life  hereafter. 

THAT  a  more  happy  life  is  to  be  expected  after 
death  appears,  even  on  grounds  of  reason,  in  a 
high  degree  probable,  if  either  the  present  state 
of  human  life  is  considered,  or  the  attributes  of 
God,  his  goodness,  justice,  and  wisdom.  Cf. 
the  arguments  in  behalf  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  s.  149.  Man  and  his  destination  are 
the  most  insolvable  riddle,  if  he  has  received 
existence  merely  for  the  present  life.  And  this 
riddle  can  be  explained  only  on  the  supposition 
that  the  period  of  man's  existence  extends  be- 
yond the  grave,  and  that  there  will  properly 
begin  the  happy  state  where  the  pious  will  reap 
the  fruits  of  what  they  have  sown. 

The  destination  of  man,  as  a  moral  being,  is, 
holiness  and  proportionate  happiness.  As  to 
holiness  or  moral-perfection,  it  is  and  remains 
extremely  defective  during  the  present  life ;  and 
even  those  who  make  the  greatest  advances  in 
moral  excellence  still  fall  very  far  short  of  that 
high  standard  which  is  set  up  before  them  and 
which  their  own  inmost  feeling  tells  them  they 
ought  to  attain.  And  as  to  happiness,  it  must 
be  confessed  that  no  one  in  the  present  life  is 
perfectly  happy,  either  as  to  body  or  soul,  al- 
though there  is  implanted  in  all  by  the  Creator 
a  disposition  to  seek  for  happiness,  and  an  in- 
extinguishable thirst  to  enjoy  it.  But  how 
scanty  and  miserable  is  the  satisfaction  of  this 
desire  in  the  present  life,  even  with  those  who 
in  the  judgment  of  others  are  enviably  happy  ! 
Beautifully  and  faithfully  is  this  described  in 
Ecclesiastes — a  book  which  contains  the  true 
philosophy  of  life. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  agreeable  sensations, 
both  bodily  and  spiritual,  are  enhanced  in  their 
value  and  charm  by  being  connected  with  un- 
pleasant sensations,  if  the  unpleasant  only  go 
before,  and  the  pleasant  follow  after.  Thus  to 
the  convalescent  man,  after  he  has  endured 
great  sufferings  in  his  sickness,  the  mere  cessa- 
tion of  pain  is  an  exquisite  delight,  while  to 
those  who  have  felt  none  of  these  sufferings  it 


656 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


is  no  source  of  pleasure.  '  But  an  order  exactly 
the  reverse  is  common  in  the  life  of  men  here 
upon  the  earth.  The  most  cheerful  time  is  that 
of  youth;  then  we  have  the  full  power  and 
bloom  of  life.  The  older  we  grow,  the  more 
we  become  entangled  in  business,  burdened 
with  cares,  oppressed  with  griefs  and  distresses, 
infirmities  of  body  and  mind,  perhaps  with  po- 
verty and  disgrace.  How  sad  were  the  lot  of 
man  if  he  had  no  future  and  happier  life  to 
expect! 

How  many  men  are  bora  with  intellectual 
faculties  and  powers  which  they  can  never  fully 
develop  here,  either  because  they  die  early  or 
are  wholly  destitute  of  the  means  and  opportu- 
nities for  development  and  cultivation.  Now  if 
existence  ceases  with  death,  this  sum  of  powers 
is  wholly  lost,  But  since  our  Creator  does  not 
give  us  even  our  bodily  powers  in  vain  and  for 
no  end,  how  much  less  can  he  have  imparted 
the  higher  intellectual  and  especially  moral  fa- 
culties without  design ! 

It  is  no  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  expecta- 
tion of  a  more  happy  state  after  the  present  life 
has,  as  it  were,  forced  itself  so  universally 
upon  reflecting  men.  But  equally  universal  and 
equally  well  grounded  is  the  hope  of  an  unend- 
f  n_r  continuance  of  .this  future  happy  state.  For 
if  it  is  not  to  continue  for  ever  it  ceases  to  be  a 
truly  happy  condition.  To  foresee  the  end  of  a 
state  of  bliss  would  be  of  itself  enough  to  dis- 
turb the  happiness  which  we  might  for  a  time 
possess,  and  to  embitter  its  enjoyment;  and 
when  it  should  actually  come  to  an  end,  it  would 
leave  us  far  more  miserable  than  we  were  before 
we  had  experience  of  this  blessedness.  For  one 
who  is  born  and  brought  up  poor  and  in  a  state 
of  servitude  will  not  feel  his  situation  to  be  so 
miserable  and  oppressive  as  a  rich  or  great  man, 
who  is  cast  down  from  his  elevation  and  brought 
into  the  same  condition,  will  find  it  to  be. 

Great  and  inestimable,  therefore,  is  the  merit 
of  Jesus  Christ  in  giving  to  this  doctrine  of  an 
eternal  blessedness  beyond  the  grave  that  firm- 
ness and  certainty  which  it  cannot  receive  from 
arguments  of  reason,  by  which  it  can  be  rendered 
only  probable;  and  also  in  referring  everything, 
as  he  does,  to  this  future  life.  Vide  John,  xx. 
98;  1  John,  ii.  25;  Rom.  ii.  7,  and  s.  143.  Ex- 
cept for  Christ  we  should  have  no  satisfying 
certainty  to  lift  us  above  all  doubt  But  now 
this  doctrine  is  placed  in  the  most  intimate  con- 
nexion with  the  history  of  his  person,  since  he 
always  represents  himself  as  the  one  through 
whom  we  attain  to  the  possession  of  this  eter- 
nal happiness,  and  in  whose  society  we  shall 
enjoy  it,  Cf.  the  sections  above  cited,  also  s. 
190,  II. 

n.  Mature  art  Somes  of  Future  Blessedness. 
On  this  subject  we  have  no  very  clear  and  de- 


finite knowledge,  nor  can  we  have  in  the  pr 
life.  "Men,  indeed,  usually  conceive  the  joys  of 
heaven  to  be  the  same  as,  or  at  least  to  rese: 
the  pleasures  of  this  world ;  and  each  one  hopes 
to  obtain  with  certainty,  and  to  enjoy  in  full  mea- 
sure, beyond  the  grave,  that  good  which  he  holds 
most  dear  upon  earth — those  favourite  employ- 
ments or  particular  delights  which  he  ardently 
longs  for  here,  but  which  he  can  seldom  or  never 
enjoy  in  this  world,  or  in  the  enjoyment  of  which 
he  has  never  been  fully  satisfied.  Hence  rude 
men,  living  only  in  the  indulgence  of  their  pas- 
sions and  appetites,  have  always  expected  to  find 
in  heaven  the  uninterrupted  enjoyment  of  sensual 
delights  of  every  kind.  The  indolent  man,  or 
one  who  is  exhausted  by  severe  labour,  regards 
rest  and  freedom  from  employment  as  the  high- 
est good,  and  places  the  chief  blessedness  of 
heaven  in  this.  But  one  who  reflects  soberly 
on  this  subject  will  easily  see  that  the  happi- 
ness of  heaven  must  be  a  very  different  thing 
from  earthly  happiness.  This  last  is  of  such 
a  nature  as  to  be  soon  followed  by  disgust  and 
satiety.  \Ve  should  be  very  unhappy,  if  we 
should  live  for  ever  in  the  richest  profusion  of 
the  highest  earthly  delights  and  joys,  even 
could  we  continue  in  perpetual  and  never-fading 
youth.  For  all  earthly  joys  and  delights  of 
which  we  know  anything  by  experience,  are  of 
such  a  nature  that  after  they  have  been  enjoyed 
for  a  short  time  they  lose  their  relish,  and  then 
follows  satiety.  Experience  daily  confirms  the 
truth  of  what  is  said  by  the  preacher,  that  t 
thing  upon  earth  is  vanity  and  vexation  of  spirit. 
If  it  were  appointed  to  us  in  our  present  condi- 
tion to  live  for  ever  upon  the  earth,  ia  the  full 
enjoyment  of  all  it  can  afford  to  please  and 
charm,  our  lot  were  indeed  pitiable.  Had  we 
tasted  all  possible  earthly  pleasures,  and  were 
there  none  now  left  which  could  attract  us  by 
their  novelty,  satiated  with  a  joyless  life  we 
should  wish  ourselves  dead,  and  even  this 
wish,  to  our  sorrow,  would  remain  unsatisfied ; 
even  that  rest,  or  rather  indolence  and  torpidity, 
which  is  so  highly  praised  and  so  ardently 
longed  for  by  some  drones,  would,  long  conti- 
nued, render  us  perfectly  miserable,  and  at 
length  become  wholly  intolerable. 

Cicero  very  justly  remarks,  that  the  bl- 
gods,  according  to  the  notion  which  the  Epicu- 
reans entertained  of  them,  could  not  possibly  be 
happy,  being  without  employment,  and  having 
nothing  to  think  of,  through  all  eternity,  except 
belle  est  mihi.  Hence  the  bliss  and  joys  of  the 
future  world  must  be  of  an  entirely  different 
kind  from  what  is  called  earthly  joy  and  happi- 
ness, if  we  are  there  to  be  truly  happy  for  ever. 

But  since  we  have  no  distinct  conceptions  of 
those  joys  which  never  have  been  and  never  will 
be  experienced  by  us  here  in  their  full  extent, 
we  have  of  course  no  words  in  our  language  to 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       557 


express  them,  and  connot  therefore  expect  any 
clear  description  of  them,  even  in  the  holy  scrip- 
tures. Cf.  Moms,  p.  298,  s.  7,  ad  finem,  and 
p.  299,  note  1.  Hence  the  Bible  describes  this 
happiness  sometimes  in  general  terms  designat- 
ing its  greatness,  (as  Romans,  viii.  18 — 22;  2 
Cor.  iv.  17, 18,)  and  sometimes  by  various  beau- 
tiful images  and  figurative  modes  of  speech,  bor- 
rowed from  everything  which  we  know  to  be  at- 
tractive and  desirable. 

The  greater  part  of  these  images  were  already 
common  among  the  Jewish  contemporaries  of 
Christ,  but  Christ  and  his  apostles  employed 
them  in  a  purer  sense  than  the  great  multitude 
of  the  Jews.  The  Orientalists  are  rich  in  such 
figures.  They  were  employed  by  Mohammed, 
who  carried  them,  as  his  manner  was,  to  an  ex- 
travagant excess,  but  at  the  same  time  said  ex- 
pressly that  they  were  mere  figures,  although 
many  of  his  followers  afterwards  understood 
them  literally,  as  has  been  often  done  in  a  similar 
way  by  many  Christians.  If  all  which  is  figura- 
tive is  taken  away,  the  main  idea  which  is  left  is 
that  of  great  felicity,  which,  as  it  is  expressly 
said,  will  transcend  all  our  expectations  and  con- 
ceptions. Vide  1  John,  iii.  2;  Col.  iii.  3,  ^to^ 
j^itwv  xtxpvrttai.  The  passage  1  Cor.  ii.  9,  eye 
hath  not  seen,  ear  hath  not  heard,  &c.,  (which  is 
taken  from  Isa.  Ixiv.  4,)  does  not  properly  relate 
to  this  subject.  Judging  from  ver.  7,  8,  the 
subject  here  treated  of  is  the  Christian  doctrine, 
which  was  before  unknown,  and  which  is  not 
the  product  of  human  invention.  Still  the  whole 
passage  leads  to  this,  that  God  made  these  ex- 
traordinary provisions  through  Christ,  in  order 
to  bring  us  to  the  enjoyment  of  an  unspeakable 
bliss.  Cf.  also  1  Cor.  xiii.  2. 

The  following  are  among  the  principal  names 
of  future  happiness,  both  literal  and  figura- 
tive : — 

(1)  The  literal  appellations.   Zuq,  fay  ouwt> toj, 
which,  according  to  Hebrew  usage,  signifies,  a 
happy  life,  vita  vere  vitalis,  eternal  well-being. 
Hence  the  term  opyrj  ®sov  is  opposed  to  it — 
e.  g.,  John,  iii.  16,  36;  also  xatdxpiGLs,  xo^cwtj, 
x.  r1.  ?u     Ao|a,  86|a  ©EOV,  reward,  Rom.  ii.  7 ; 
v.  3.     'A^aputa,  6o|a,  ti^  xai  d^aptjta,  Rom. 
ii.  7;  and  elp^v^,  ver.  10.     Aluvtov  j3apoj  66|^j, 
an  eternal  reward  of  full  weight,  2  Cor.  iv.  17. 
Scor^pt'a,  tfcoT^pux  atwvtoj,  Heb.  v.  9,  &c. 

(2)  Figurative  representations.    Among  these 
is  the  name  heaven.    The  abode  of  the  departed 
saints  is  a  place  which,  to  us  who  live  upon  the 
earth,  and  while  we  remain  here,  is  invisible 
and  inaccessible,  beyond  the  bound  of  the  visi- 
ble world,  and  entirely  separated  from  it;  there 
they  live  in  the  highest  well-being,  and  in  a 
nearer  connexion  with   God   and  Christ  than 
here  below.     This  place  and  state  cannot  be 
designated  by  any  more  fit  and  brief  expression 
than  that  which  is  found  in  almost  every  lan- 


guage— viz.,  heaven ;  thi«,  therefore,  is  frequent- 
ly employed  by  the  sacred  writers.  It  is  there 
that  the  highest  sanctuary  or  temple  of  God  is 
situated — i.  e.,  it  is  there  where  the  omnipre- 
sent God  reveals  himself  most  gloriously.  That, 
too,  is  the  abode  of  the  higher  spiritual  creation 
of  God.  Thither  was  Christ  translated;  he 
alls  it  the  house  of  his  Father,  and  says  that  he 
lias  there  prepared  an  abode  for  his  followers, 
John,  xiv.  2,  coll.  s.  23,  II.,  and  s.  97,  II. 

This  place  was  never  conceived  of  in  ancient 
times,  as  it  has  been  by  some  modern  writers, 
as  a  particular  planet,  or  world,  but  as  the  wide 
expanse  of  heaven,  high  above  the  atmosphere, 
or  starry  heaven  ;  hence  it  is  sometimes  called 
the  third  heaven,  as  being  neither  the  atmo- 
sphere nor  starry  heaven.  Vide  2  Cor.  xii.  2. 
The  remark  of  Morus  is  good,  p.  297,  note  4, 
"  Illud  in  coelo  esse,  magis  indicat  statum  condi- 
tionemque  hominis,  quam  locum  certum." 

Another  figurative  name  is  paradise,  taken 
from  the  abode  of  the  first  man  in  his  innocence. 
Vide  vol.  i.  s.  52,  ad  finem.  From  this  it  is 
transferred  to  the  abode  of  the  blessed.  Luke, 
xxiii.  43;  2  Cor.  xii.  4;  Rev.  ii.  7;  xxii.  2. 

Again  :  this  place  is  called  the  heavenly  Jeru- 
salem (trtovpdvios,  xawri,  vj  awo) ;  because  -the 
earthly  Jerusalem  was  the  capital  city  of  the 
Jews,  the  place  of  the  royal  residence,  and  the 
seat  of  the  divine  worship,  Gal.  iv.  26;  Heb. 
xii.  22  ;  Rev.  iii.  12.  Bacrttot'a  ovpavwv,  or  ©so-D, 
Matt.  xxv.  34 ;  James,  ii.  5  ; 
and  at'owio?,  2  Tim.  iv.  18;  2  Pet.  i.  11 ; 

vsw  ty  XpKtt-9,  2  Tirn.  ii.  12 — i.  e.,  to  be 
distinguished,  honoured,  and  happy,  as  he  is, — 
to  enjoy  royal  felicity.  Cicero  says,  turn  nos 
rcgnare  videbamur.  The  stoics  say,  omncm  sapi- 
entem  regnare.  K^povo^ia  and  xx^pof,  (accord- 
ing to  the  Heb.  eh^  and  *?ru,  possidere,  to  attain 
to  possession,}  the  possessing  and  fully  enjoying 
happiness,  as  the  ancientlsraelites  did  Palestine. 
Hence  x^povoftia  tvfrftijfuvij  sv  ovpotvotj,  1  Pet. 
i.  4;  Heb.  ix.  15.  To  sit  down  at  table  with 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob — i.  e.,  to  share  with 
the  pious  of  antiquity  in  the  joys  of  salvation; 
to  be  in  Jlbraham's  bosom — i.  e.,  to  sit  next  to 
Abraham,  Luke,  xvi.  22;  Matt.  viii.  11.  Vide 
Wetstein,  ad  h.  1.  Saj3/3cn'KJjuoj,  or  avdrtcww, 
av£<st$,  Heb.  iv.  10,  11,  where  it  denotes  the 
happiness  of  pious  Christians,  both  in  this  life 
and  that  to  come.  'Ztityuvos  SLxaioavvrjs,  the  re- 
ward of  piety,  2  Tim.  iv.  8  ;  Phil.  iii.  14. 

(3)  As  to  the  abode  of  perfected  and  happy 
men  after  the  judgment,  when  their  souls  will 
be  again  united  with  their  bodies,  the  opinions  of 
men  have  been  very  different.  It  is  of  chief  im- 
portance to  notice  that  it  is  always  described  in 
the  New  Testament  as  a  very  delightful  and 
happy  place.  Moreover,  the  apostles  teach  dis- 
tinctly that  this  earth,  after  the  present  state  of 
things  is  ended,  will  be  renewed,  and  fitted  for  the 
3A2 


553 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


ordinary  residence  of  those  whose  souls  will  be 
again  united  with  their  bodies,  in  short,  of  the 
saints  who  will  be  raised.  Vide  2  Pet.  iii.  13, 
where  he  speaks  of  a  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth.  Hence  it  is  said  in  the  Apocalypse,  that 
the  New  Jerusalem  in  heaven  (i.  e.,  the  abode 
of  the  departed  souls  of  the  pious)  will,  after 
the  resurrection,  (when  their  souls  will  be  again 
united  with  the  body,)  be  let  down  (xa-tafiaivi tv) 
to  the  earth,  (now  renewed  and  beautified.)  Rev. 
xxi.  1,  seq.,  coll.  Rom.  viii.  18,  seq. 

SECTION  CLX. 

WHAT  DO  REASON  AND  SCRIPTURE  TEACH  AND 
LEAD  US  TO  EXPECT,  IN  A  GENERAL  VIEW,  AS 
TO  THE  REAL  NATURE  OF  FUTURE  BLESSED- 
NESS? 

THE  sum  of  what  we  are  taught  by  reason  and 
scripture  on  this  point  may  be  comprehended 
under  the  three  following  particulars  : — («)  We 
shall  hereafter  be  entirely  freed  from  the  suffer- 
ings of  this  life;  (6)  Our  future  blessedness  will 
be  a  continuation  of  the  happiness  of  this  life ; 
(c)  But  it  will  also  be  increased  by  the  addition 
of  many  new  joys,  which  stand  in  no  natural  or 
necessary  connexion  with  our  preceding  condi- 
tion in  this  life. 

I.  Entire  Freedom  from  the  Sufferings  and  Adver- 
sities of  this  Present  Earthly  Life. 

This  is  often  expressed  in  the  Bible  by  words 
which  denote  rest,  repose,  refreshment,  after  per- 
forming labour  and  suffering  affliction — e.  g., 
avftftj,  ai/artauffis,  <jaj3j3artctyK>s,  (not  inactivity, 
entire  freedom  from  employment,  or  indolence; 
vide  s.  159 ;)  vide  2  Thess.  i.  7,  "  G0d  will  give 
to  you,  who  are  troubled,  avtow.  Heb.  iv.  9, 
11 ;  Rev.  xiv.  13,  "they  rest  from  their  labours," 
where  xonoi,  like  labores,  signifies  molestiae  af- 
flictions, and  not  employments.  Cf.  Morus,  p. 
299,  n.  1.  Cf.  also  Rev.  vii.  17,  "God  shall 
wipe  away  all  tears  from  their  eyes." 

This  exemption  from  the  evils  of  the  pre- 
sent life  includes,  according  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 

(1)  Deliverance  from  the  earthly  body,  the 
seat  of  the  lower  principles  of  our  nature  and  of 
our  sinful  corruption,  and  the  cause  of  so  many 
evils  and  sufferings,  2  Cor.  v.  1,  2 ;  1  Cor.  xv. 
Vide  s.  153. 

(2)  Entire  separation  from  the  society  of 
wicked  and  evil-disposed  persons,  who  in  vari- 
ous ways  injure  the  righteous  man,  and  embitter 
his  life  on  earth ;  2  Tim.  iv.  1 8,  pvastai  pe  arco 
rtavtos  Jfpyou  rtovypov,  (i.  e.,  men  who  do  evil.) 
It  is  hence  accounted  as  making  a  part  of  the 
felicity  of  Christ  in  heaven  that  he  is  there  sepa- 
rated from  sinners,  (xE^coptctytEj/oj,)  Heb.  vii.  26. 

(3)  Everything  here  upon  the  earth  is  incon- 
stant, and  subject  to  perpetual  change ;  and  in- 


capable of  satisfying  our  expectations  and  de- 
sires. Everything  is  vanity.  Even  the  pleasures 
and  joys  of  this  life  are  of  such  a  nature  that 
they  lead  to  satiety  and  disgust  when  they  are 
long  continued.  Vide  s.  159.  But  in  the  world 
to  come  it  will  be  different.  The  bliss  of  the 
saints  will  continue  without  interruption  or 
change,  without  fear  of  termination,  and  without 
satiety ; — attfyavos  a^oproj,  Ojiuayroj,  a^apcwfoj, 
a  crown  ever  new  and  beautiful,  in  opposition  to 
the  fading  crowns  of  earthly  victors ;  1  Pet.  i. 
4;  v.  10;  2  Cor.  iv.  16,  18;  Luke,  xx.  36; 
1  John,  iii.  2,  et  passim.  From  hence  it  is  also 
manifest  that  the  joys  of  the  pious  in  the  future 
world  will  be  capable  of  a  constant  increase,  an 
ever-progressive  enlargement.  For  everything 
uniform  and  stationary  produces  satiety  and  dis- 
gust. In  the  heavenly  world,  then,  there  will 
be  no  sameness  and  stagnant  uniformity  of  joy. 
Note. — The  question  is  here  asked,  whether 
the  pious,  in  the  future  world,  will  be  entirely 
delivered  from  natural  depravity,  or  the  prepon- 
derance of  sense  over  reason  ?  Whether  their 
obedience  to  God,  and  their  virtue,  will  be  so 
entirely  confirmed  that  they  will  be  for  ever  free 
from  all  danger  of  sinning?  If  we  would  agree 
with  the  holy  scriptures  we  must  answer  this 
question  in  the  affirmative.  The  whole  ana- 
logy of  Christian  doctrine  implies  that  this  will 
be  so ;  and  so  clearly  that  it  does  not  need  any 
further  proof.  That  the  state  of  the  saint  in  the 
future  world  will  be  one  of  secure  and  confirmed 
holiness  may  also  be  deduced  incontrovertibly 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  perfectionment  and  en- 
nobling of  the  body.  The  seat  of  carnal  appe- 
tite and  of  sin  is  in  the  earthly  and  mortal  body ; 
and  from  this  we  shall  then  be  freed,  and  shall 
possess,  like  Christ,  a  heavenly  body,  s.  77, 
and  8.  153.  According  to  1  Cor.  xv.,  our  body 
will  no  more  then  be  crw^a  -^v%ix6v,  but  ytvsv/jia- 
tixov.  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  resorting 
to  purgatory  to  explain  how  man  may  be  here- 
after purged  from  hereditary  depravity.  The 
possibility  of  sinning  will,  however,  still  re- 
main, as  it  was  with  man  in  his  original  inno- 
cence, and  as  it  is  with  the  holy  angels.  But 
the  blessed  saints  in  heaven  will  not  wish  to  sin ; 
for  the  preponderance  of  sense  will  then  be  en- 
tirely removed  ;  nor  will  they  any  longer  meet 
with  those  external  hindrances,  those  allure- 
ments to  sin,  which  obstructed  their  piety  here 
upon  the  earth.  On  the  contrary,  they  will 
there  have  the  strongest  attractions  and  motives 
to  piety,  more  enlarged  views,  good  examples, 
&c.  And  these  means  are  sufficient  to  confirm 
the  saints  in  goodrress. 

II.  Continuance  of  the  Happiness  of  the  Present  . 

Life. 

When  the  soul  leaves  the  body  it  will  retain 
the  consciousness  of  whatever  passed  within  it 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.      559 


while  here  upon  the  earth.  It  carries  along  with 
it,  into  the  future  world,  the  ideas,  the  know- 
ledge, the  habits,  which  it  possessed  here.  And 
so  it  takes  also  good  and  evil  from  this  life  into 
the  next,  as  its  own  property,  and  there  receives 
the  fruit  of  it.  It  is  therefore  certain  that  a  part 
of  the  heavenly  blessedness  will  consist  in  the 
consciousness  and  recollection  of  the  good  en- 
joyed and  performed  in  the  foregoing  life,  and 
in  that  cheerfulness  and  peace  of  mind  which 
will  proceed  from  the  thought  of  this.  As  to 
the  wicked,  the  case  will  be  reversed.  This, 
now,  is  one  of  the  natural  good  consequences  or 
rewards  of  virtue  and  piety;  and  the  opposite  is 
one  of  the  natural  evil  consequences  or  punish- 
ments of  sin.  Vide  s.  15G,  157. 

From  what  has  now  been  said,  it  follows  of 
course  that  there  will  be  a  difference  of  degree 
(diversitas  graduum)  in  the  happiness  of  saints 
in  heaven.  The  happiness  of  all  will  be  equally 
eternal,  but  not  equally  intense.  The  more  good 
actions,  such  as  are  acceptable  in  the  sight  of 
God,  one  has  performed,  the  nobler  his  virtues 
were,  the  greater  the  difficulties  and  hindrances 
which  he  had  to  overcome,  the  greater  will  be 
his  reward.  That  this  should  be  otherwise  nei- 
ther the  goodness  nor  justice  of  God  permit  us 
to  believe.  Thus,  for  example,  two  men,  one 
of  whom  had  devoted  his  whole  life  to  virtue 
and  piety,  while  the  other  had  put  off  reflection 
to  a  late  period,  and  then  first  renounced  his 
former  sins,  could  not  possibly  be  equal  to  each 
other  in  reward.  Vide  s.  127,  II.  In  short, 
the  happiness  of  each  individual  will  be  exactly 
apportioned  to  his  susceptibility  of  happiness. 
Great  and  various  as  may  be  his  capacity  or 
susceptibility  for  the  enjoyment  of  happiness, 
just  so  great  and  various  will  his  happiness 
certainly  be  hereafter.  The  very  different  ta- 
lents, powers,  and  knowledge  of  men,  and  the 
use  they  have  made  of  them,  also  make  a  great 
difference  as  to  the  capacity  for  happiness. 

All  this  is  perfectly  accordant  with  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine.  Cf.  the  parables,  Matt.  xxv.  14, 
seq.,  and  Luke,  xix.  16 — 19;  also  2  Cor.  ix.  6,, 
"he  who  soweth  sparingly  shall  reap  also  spar- 
ingly ;  and  he  who  soweth  bountifully  shall  reap 
also  bountifully;"  coll.  Gal.  vi.  7;  1  Cor.  iii. 
8,  "every  man  shall  receive  his  own  reward, 
according  to  his  own  labour,  (xatu  tbv  ifaov 
xortov;)  Rom.  ii.  10,  "to  him  who  worketh 
good,  glory,  honour,  and  peace,  will  be  given, 
'IW&U9  rtpwT'ov,  (since  from  his  greater  know- 
ledge he  could  do  more  good,)  xai  "EM^w,"  in 
opposition  to  the  punishment  spoken  of  ver.  9. 

This  sentiment  is  not  contrary  to  the  de- 
claration of  Christ,  the  last  shall  be  first,  &c., 
Matt.  xix.  30;  xx.  1—16,  the  parable  of  the 
labourers  in  the  vineyard.  For  all  which  Christ 
there  says  has  respect  to  the  mercenary  question 
of  Peter,  IVhat  shall  ive  receive  in  return  ?  In 


opposition  to  this,  Christ  teaches  that  men  must 
not  undertake  to  prescribe  to  God  when  and 
how  he  shall  bestow  rewards;  in  their  dealings 
with  him  they  must  not  insist  upon  recompence ; 
for  men  have  deserved  no  reward  at  the  hand 
of  God  which  they  can  claim  as  a  right.  They 
ought  rather,  conscious  of  their  own  unwor- 
thiness,  to  expect  this  reward,  with  humility 
and  submission,  only  because  God,  of  his  mere 
good  mercy,  has  promised  it.  Cf.  Cotta,  De 
Diversis  Gradibus  Glorias  Beatorum;  Tub. 
1773. 

Note  1. — The  Christian  doctrine  requires  of 
every  one  who  desires  to  partake  of  eternal  hap- 
piness that  he  should  possess  a  humble  and  un- 
pretending spirit,  and  should  be  deeply  con- 
vinced that  he  deserves  nothing  by  his  good 
deeds,  and  has  not  so  merited  the  rewards  of 
the  world  to  come  that  he  can  claim  them  as  his 
right.  This  disposition  is  finely  represented  in 
Matt.  xxv.  37,  seq.,  where  Christ  says,  that  the 
pious  will  be  hereafter  surprised  to  find  them- 
selves so  rewarded,  as  they  will  not  be  conscious 
of  having  done  any  thing  to  deserve  such  re- 
wards. On  the  contrary,  the  wicked,  ver.  44, 
suppose  they  have  done  much  good,  but  are  not- 
withstanding sent  away  into  the  place  of  torment. 
Vide  especially  Luke,  xiii.  26,  seq. 

Note  2. — According  to  the  Christian  doctrine, 
such  actions  only  as  flow  from  grateful  love  to 
God  and  Christ  can  be  consistently  rewarded, 
for  these  virtues  only  are  recognised  by  scrip- 
ture as  having  any  good  desert.  Hence  in 
Matt.  xxv.  35,  36,  Christ  himself  specifies  such 
deeds  as  are  Active  proofs  of  faith  in  him,  and 
of  grateful  love  to  him.  Vide  s.  124,  125,  re- 
specting good  works.  One  who  does  good  from 
impure  motives  has,  as  Christ  says,  already  re- 
ceived his  reward. 

III.  Positive  Rewards  in  the  Future  World. 

Besides  being  exempt  from  all  earthly  trials, 
and  having  a  continuance  of  that  happiness 
which  we  had  begun  to  enjoy  even  here,  we 
have  good  reason  to  expect  hereafter  other  re- 
wards and  joys,  which  stand  in  no  natural  or 
necessary  connexion  with  the  present  life.  For 
our  entire  felicity  would  be  extremely  defective 
and  scanty,  should  it  be  confined  merely  to  that 
which  we  carry  with  us  from  the  present  world, 
to  that  peace  and  joy  of  soul  which  result  from 
reflecting  on  what  we  may  have  done  which  is 
good  and  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God ;  since 
even  the  best  man  will  always  discover  great 
imperfections  in  all  that  he  has  done.  Our  feli- 
city would  also  be  incomplete  Were  we  com- 
pelled to  stop  short  with  that  meagre  and  ele- 
mentary knowledge  which  we  take  with  us 
from  this  world, — that  knowledge  so  broken  up 
into  fragments,  and  yielding  so  little  fruit,  and 
which,  poor  as  it  is,  many  good  men,  from  lack 


560 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 


of  opportunity  and  without  any  fault  on  their 
part,  never  here  acquire.  Besides  the  natural 
rewards  of  goodness,  there  must,  therefore,  be 
others  which  are  positive  and  depending  on  the 
will  of  the  Supreme  Legislator. 

On  this  point  almost  all  philosophers  are  for 
the  above  reasons  agreed,  even  those  who  will 
admit  of  no  positive  punishments  in  the  world  to 
come.  But  for  want  of  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  state  of  things  in  the  future  world,  we 
can  say  nothing  definite  and  certain  as  to  the 
nature  of  these  positive  rewards.  Vide  s.  159, 
I.  In  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  how- 
ever, positive  rewards  are  considered  most  ob- 
viously as  belonging  to  our  future  felicity,  and 
as  constituting  a  principal  part  of  it.  For  it 
always  represents  the  joys  of  heaven  as  result- 
ing strictly  from  the  favour  of  God,  and  as  being 
undeserved  by  those  to  whom  they  are  given. 
Hence  there  must  be  something  more  added  to 
the  natural  good  consequences  of  our  actions, 
something  which  cannot  be  considered  as  the 
necessary  and  natural  consequences  of  the  good 
actions  we  may  have  before  performed.  But 
on  this  subject,  we  know  nothing  more  in  gene- 
nil  than  this,  that  God  will  so  appoint  and  order 
our  circumstances,  and  make  such  arrange- 
ments, that  the  principal  faculties  of  our  souls — 
reason  and  affection,  will  be  heightened  and  de- 
veloped, so  that  we  shall  continually  obtain 
more  pure  and  distinct  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
and  make  continual  advances  in  holiness. 

The  following  particular  remarks  may  be  of 
some  use  in  illustrating  this  subject: — 

(1)  In  this  life  God  has  very  wisely  allotted 
various  capacities,  powers,  and  talents,  in  dif- 
ferent ways  and  degrees,  to  different  men,  ac- 
cording to  the  various  ends  for  which  he  designs 
them,  and  the  business  in  which  he  employs 
them.  Now  there  is  not  the  least  reason  to 
suppose  that  God  will  abolish  this  variety  in 
the  future  world  ;  it  will  rather  continue  there 
in  all  its  extent.  We  must  suppose,  then,  that 
there  will  be,  even  in  the  heavenly  world,  a  di- 
versity of  tastes,  of  labours,  and  employments, 
and  that  to  one  person  this,  to  another  that,  field 
in  the  boundless  kingdom  of  truth  and  of  useful 
occupation  will  be  assigned  for  his  cultivation 
according  to  his  peculiar  powers,  qualifications, 
and  tastes. 

A  presentiment  of  this  truth  is  contained  in 
the  idea,  which  was  widely  diffused  throughout 
the  ancient  world — viz.,  that  the  Manes  will 
still  prosecute,  in  the  future  life,  the  employ- 
ments to  which  they  had  been  here  accustomed. 
At  least,  such  arrangements  will  doubtless  be 
made  by  God  in  the  future  life,  that  each  indivi- 
dual will  there  develop  more  and  more  the 
germs  implanted  within  him  by  the  hand  of  the 
Creator;  and  will  be  able,  more  fully  than  he 
even  could  here,  to  satisfy  the  wants  of  his 


intellectual  nature,  and  thus  to  make  continual 
progress  in  the  knowledge  of  everything  worthy 
of  being  known,  of  which  he  could  learn  only 
the  simplest  elements  in  this  world;  and  he 
will  be  able  to  do  this  in  such  a  way  that  the 
increase  of  knowledge  will  not  be  detrimental 
to  piety,  as  it  often  proves  on  earth,  but  rather 
promotive  of  it.  To  the  sincere  and  ardent 
searcher  after  truth  it  is  a  rejoicing  and  consol- 
ing thought  that  he  will  be  able  hereafter  to  per- 
fect that  knowledge  which  here  has  so  many 
deficiencies.  Vide  1  Cor.  xiii.  9,  seq. 

But  there  is  danger  here  of  going  too  far,  and 
of  falling  into  those  strange  conceptions  of 
which  we  find  so  many  examples  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Lavater.  Various  as  the  tastes  and 
wants  of  men  in  the  future  world  will  doubtless 
be,  they  will  still  be  in  many  respects  different 
from  what  they  are  here;  because  the  whole 
sphere  of  action,  and  the  objects  by  which  we 
shall  there  be  surrounded,  will  be  different. 
We  shall  there  have  a  changed  and  more  per- 
fect body,  and  by  this  single  circumstance  shall 
be  freed  at  once  from  many  of  the  wants  and  in- 
clinations which  have  their  seat  in  the  earthly 
body.  And  this  will  also  contribute  much  to 
rectify,  enlarge,  and  perfect  our  knowledge. 
Many  things  which  seem  to  us  very  important 
and  essential  during  this  our  state  of  infancy 
upon  earth,  will  hereafter  doubtless  appear  in  a 
different  light;  we  shall  look  upon  them  as  tri- 
fles and  children's  play,  and  employ  ourselves 
in  more  important  occupations,  the  utility  and 
interest  of  which  we  may  have  never  before 
thought  of. 

Some  theologians  have  supposed  that  the 
saints  in  heaven  may  be  taught  by  immediate  di- 
vine revelations  (lumen  glorias')  ;  especially  those 
who  may  enter  the  abodes  of  the  blessed  without 
knowledge,  or  with  only  a  small  measure  of  it, 
— e.  g.,  children,  and  others  who  have  died  in 
an  ignorance  for  which  they  themselves  were 
not  to  blame.  On  this  subject  nothing  is  defi- 
nitely taught  in  the  scriptures;  but  both  scrip- 
ture and  reason  warrant  us  in  believing  that 
provision  will  be  made  for  all  such  persons  in 
the  future  world.  Vide  s.  126,  II. 

Note. — In  the  popular  exhibition  of  the  whole 
doctrine  of  future  blessedness  much  prudence 
and  caution  are  requisite ;  and  the  teacher  must 
pay  careful  attention  to  the  difference  of  educa- 
tion and  intellectual  culture  among  his  hearers. 
This  is  particularly  necessary  with  regard  to  the 
point  introduced  in  the  foregoing  paragraph. 
The  importance  which  the  learned  and  educated 
man  attaches  to  the  culture  of  his  intellectual 
powers,  and  to  the  increase  of  knowledge,  may 
easily  lead  him  into  the  mistake  of  insisting, 
even  in  his  religious  discourses,  too  much  on 
the  importance  of  this/or  every  one,  and  of  repre- 
senting it  as  constituting  a  chief  part  of  the 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       561 


employments  and  joys  of  the  future  life.  But  the 
great  mass  of  mankind  have  but  little  taste  for 
this  intellectual  culture.  They  even  associate 
with  it  the  idea  of  severe  labour  and  toil,  be- 
cause thinking  and  learning  are  so  difficult  to 
them.  It  is  the  same  as  to  the  expectation  of 
increased  activity  hereafter.  This  has  no  charm 
for  the  great  mass  of  mankind,  because  their  bo- 
dily labours  are  so  oppressive.  They  find  more 
satisfaction  in  the  idea  of  rest  and  refreshment, 
with  regard  to  which,  however,  they  should  be 
taught  that  the  rest  of  heaven  is  not  a  state  of 
entire  inactivity.  Vide  s.  159.  They  prefer  to 
hear  of  the  cessation  of  all  their  pains,  and  the 
drying  of  all  their  tears.  Cf.  Rev.  vii.  17,  &c. 
It  is  therefore  very  necessary,  in  presenting  this 
subject  before  popular  assemblies,  to  have  re- 
gard to  the  different  wants,  conceptions,  and 
dispositions  of  men,  and  thus  to  imitate  the  ex- 
ample of  Christ  and  the  apostles. 

(2)  A  principal  part  of  our  future  happiness 
will  consist,  according  to  the  Christian  doctrine, 
in  the  enlargement  and  correcting  of  our  know- 
ledge respecting  God,  his  nature,  attributes,  and 
works,  and  in  the  salutary  application  of  this 
knowledge  to  our  own  moral  benefit,  to  the  in- 
crease of  our  faith,  love,  and  obedience.  There 
has  been  some  controversy  among  theologians 
with  regard  to  the  vision  of  God,  (visioDei  in- 
tuitiva,  or  sensitiva,  or  beatifica,  or  comprehen- 
sive,.} The  question  is,  whether  the  saints  will 
hereafter  behold  God  with  the  eyes  of  the  glo- 
rified body,  or  only  with  the  eyes  of  the  mind — 
J.  e.,  merely  know  him  with  the  understanding. 
On  this  point  there  was  dispute  even  in  the  an- 
cient Oriental  church  among  the  Nestorians, 
some  of  whom  advocated  the  bodily  vision  of 
God,  and  were  on  this  account  blamed  by  others. 
Even  in  the  Latin  church,  too,  there  was  con- 
troversy on  this  point  among  the  schoolmen, 
and  the  different  theological  schools  of  the  Rom- 
ish church.  And  this  was  transmitted  to  the 
protestant  church  of  the  seventeenth  century ; 
since  Musaeus,  and  other  theologians  of  Jena, 
rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  bodily  vision  of  God, 
which  was,  on  the  other  hand,  advocated  by  the 
theologians  of  Wittemberg. 

But  in  the  scriptures  God  is  always  repre- 
sented as  a  Being  invisible  by  the  bodily  eye 
(ddpcwoi/),  as  indeed  every  spirit  is.  Vide  s.  19. 
The  texts  of  scripture  which  speak  of  seeing 
God  have  been  misunderstood ;  they  signify, 
sometimes,  the  more  distinct  knowledge  of  God, 
as  we  speak  of  knowing  by  seeing,  of  seeing 
with  the  eyes  of  the  mind  ;  so  John,  i.  18 ;  iii.  2 ; 
iv.  12,  coll.  v.  20;  1  Tim.  vi.  16;  and  Paul 
uses  fatrtfiv  and  ywuaxew  as  synonymous 
1  Cor.  xiii.  12,  13,  coll.  v.  10. — Again,  they 
express  the  idea  of  felicity,  the  enjoyment  of 
God's  favour,  the  being  thought  worthy  of  his 
71 


riendship,  &c.  Still  more  frequently  are  both 
of  these  meanings  comprehended  under  the 
shrase  to  see  God.  The  image  is  taken  from 
oriental  princes,  to  see  whose  faces,  and  to  be 
n  whose  presence,  was  esteemed  a  great  favour. 
3f.  Matt.  v.  8;  Heb.  xii.  14,  "Without  holi- 
ness ov8fi$  o-^sfat  tfov  Kvpiov."  The  opposite 
of  this  is,  to  be  removed  from  God  and  from  his 
'ace. 

But  Christ  is  always  represented  as  one  who 
will  be  personally  visible  by  us,  and  whose  per- 
sonal, familiar  intercourse  and  guidance  we 
shall  enjoy.  And  herein  Christ  himself  places 
chief  part  of  the  joy  of  the  saints,  John,  xiv., 
xvii.,  &c.  And  so  the  apostles  often  describe 
the  blessedness  of  the  pious,  by  the  phrase  being 
with  Christ.  To  his  guidance  has  God  entrust- 
ed the  human  race,  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 
And  Paul  says,  2  Cor.  iv.  6,  we  see  "  the  bright- 
ness of  the  divine  glory  in  the  face  of  Christ," 
— he  is  "  the  visible  representative  of  the  invi- 
sible God,"  Col.  i.  15.  Vide  s.  120,  respecting 
the  office  of  Christ. 

(3)  According  to  the  representation  contained 
in  the  holy  scriptures,  the  saints  will  dwell  to- 
gether in  the  future  world,  and  form,  as  it  were, 
a  kingdom  or  state  of  God.  Cf.  Luke,  xvi. ;  xx. 
38;  Rom.  viii.  10;  Rev.  vii.  9;  Heb.  xii.  23. 
They  will  there  partake  of  a  common  felicity. 
Their  enjoyment  will  doubtless  be  very  much 
heightened  by  friendship,  and  by  their  confiding 
intercourse  with  each  other.  We  must,  how- 
ever, separate  all  earthly  imperfection  from  our 
conceptions  of  this  heavenly  society.  But  that 
we  shall  there  recognise  our  former  friends,  and 
shall  be  again  associated  with  them,  was  uni- 
formly believed  by  all  antiquity.  Vide  s.  150, 
II.  2.  This  idea  was  admitted  as  altogether 
rational,  and  as  a  consoling  thought,  by  the 
most  distinguished  ancient  philosophers.  Cf. 
the  speech  of  the  dying  Socrates,  recorded  by 
Plato,  and  translated  by  Cicero  in  his  Tusculan 
Questions,  i.  41.  This  too  was  the  opinion  of 
Cicero,  as  may  be  seen  from  his  treatise,  De  Se- 
nectute,  c.  23,  and  De  Amicitia,  c.  3,  4. 

And  yet  there  have  been  Christians,  and  even 
teachers,  calling  themselves  Christian  teachers, 
who  have  blamed,  and  even  ridiculed,  other 
Christians  for  comforting  themselves  under  the 
loss  of  those  who  were  dear  to  them,  by  che- 
rishing the  joyful  hope  of  seeing  them  again, 
and  renewing  after  death  the  friendship  here 
formed.  Even  reason  regards  this  as  in  a  high 
degree  probable;  but  to  one  who  believes  the 
holy  scriptures  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of  doubt  or 
conjecture.  For, 

(a)  The  scriptures  assure  us  that  we  shall 
hereafter  see  Christ,  and  shall  enjoy  his  personal 
intercourse  and  friendship.  So  John,  xiv.  3, 
"I  will  take  you  to  myself;  where  I  am,  there 


562 


CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGYf 


shall  ye  be  also."  Cf.  1  Pet.  i.  8.  According 
to  John,  xvii.  24,  we  shall  be  high  witnesses 
and  participators  of  his  glory. 

(6)  Paul  says  expressly,  1  Thess.  iv.  17,  that 
we  shall  be  with  Christ,  in  company  with  our 
friends  who  died  before  us  (a/j-a  avv  avrotj)  ;  and 
this  presupposes  that  we  shall  recognise  them, 
and  have  intercourse  with  them,  as  with  Christ 
himself.  Paul  advises  that  Christians  should 
comfort  themselves,  under  the  loss  of  their 
friends,  by  considering  that  they  are  at  home 
with  the  Lord,  and  that  they  shall  be  again 
united  together. 

The  objections  made  against  this  opinion  are 
of  no  weight.  It  is  said,  for  example,  that  the 
body  of  the  saints  will  be  entirely  changed,  and 
cannot  therefore  be  recognised.  But  it  would 
need  to  be  proved  that  this  change  is  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  recognise  a 
person  to  be  the  same  whom  we  before  knew. 
And  even  were  this  allowed,  it  is  not  merely 
through  the  body  that  we  can  recognise  each 
other.  Even  friends  here  upon  the  earth,  who 
have  never  seen  each  other's  faces,  disclose 
themselves  by  conversation  and  agreement  of 
soul.  Indeed,  we  can,  even  upon  earth,  through 
the  instrumentality  of  others,  become  again  ac- 
quainted with  old  friends  whom  we  had  forgot- 
ten. And  why  may  not  this  be  the  case  in  the 
world  to  come  ? 

Again :  it  is  objected  that  Christ  himself  says, 
Matt.  xxii.  30,  that  the  relation  of  persons  con- 
nected by  marriage  will  cease  in  the  heavenly 
world.  It  is  said,  moreover,  that  the  love  which 
exists  between  husband  and  wife,  and  also  be- 
tween parent  and  child,  is  rather  of  a  bodily 
than  a  spiritual  nature,  and  therefore  will  wholly 
cease  when  this  gross  earthly  body  is  thrown 
off. 

ANSWER. — It  is  true,  indeed,  that  this  con- 
nexion and  love,  so  far  as  it  is  founded  in  the 
distinction  of  sexes  and  in  blood-relationship, 
will  cease ;  there  will  be  no  wedlock,  no  sexual 
propensities,  and  no  gross  material  bodies  in 
the  heavenly  world.  But  friendship,  in  virtuous 
and  pious  minds,  does  not  depend  upon  these 
circumstances,  but  rather  upon  conformity  of 
intellectual  tastes  and  dispositions.  Whatever, 
therefore,  is  merely  sensual  and  corporeal  in 
love  and  friendship  here  upon  the  earth,  will 
there  fall  away ;  but  whatever  is  spiritual,  which 
is  the  essential  and  nobler  part  of  friendship, 
will  remain,  and  constitute  a  great  part  of  the 
bliss  of  heaven.  Cf.  Less,  De  beatorum  in 
coelis  Consortio,  in  his  Opusc.  Theol.  p.  ii.,  p. 
329,  seq. ;  also  Ribbeck's  Sermons  on  this  sub- 
ject; and  Engel's  little  work,  "  Wir  werden 
uns  wiedersehen."  Villaume,  in  his  Inquiries 
on  some  Psychological  Questions,  denies,  in 
his  second  essay,  (whether,  in  the  future  life, 
we  shall  remember  the  present,)  that  we  shall 


hereafter  have  any  recollection  of  our  lives  on 
earth,  because  he  regards  memory  as  a  bodily 
faculty,  affected  and  often  destroyed  by  bodily 
injuries.  But  here  he  mistakes  the  exercise  of 
a  power  for  the  existence  of  the  power  itself. 
He  also  denies  that  friends  will  recognise  each 
other  in  the  life  to  come. 

Note. — The  question  is  asked,  whether  the 
pleasures  pertaining  to  the  body,  and  bodily 
employments,  will  continue  in  the  life  to  come  1 
There  can  be  no  hesitation,  if  we  follow  the 
scriptures,  in  answering  both  these  questions  in 
the  affirmative.  For  what  purpose  will  saints 
in  the  life  to  come  have  a  body  again,  if  it  is 
not  to  be  still  the  organ  through  which  they  will 
feel  and  act?  It  is  therefore  justly  concluded 
that  the  pleasures  and  employments  of  heaven 
are  not  merely  spiritual,  but  also  bodily.  Paul 
too  says,  according  to  the  most  natural  interpre- 
tation of  the  passage,  Rom.  viii.  18,  seq.,  that 
all  nature  will  be  ennobled  and  beautified  for 
the  residence  of  the  friends  of  God  ;  and  that 
they  will  dwell  in  a  world  which  will  minister 
pleasure  to  the  refined  senses  of  the  spiritual 
body. 

But  in  what  these  corporeal  pleasures  and 
employments  will  consist  cannot  now  be  under- 
stood by  us,  because  we  know  nothing  of  the 
nature  of  the  future  body,  of  its  organs,  or  of  the 
objects  by  which  we  shall  then  be  surrounded. 
So  much  is  certain,  however,  that  these  will  be 
different  from  corporeal  pleasures  and  employ- 
ments here  upon  the  earth.  This  is  clearly 
taught  in  the  New  Testament.  E.  g.,  Christ 
says,  Matt.  xxii.  20,  that  the  saints,  at  the  re- 
surrection, will  be  like  the  angels  of  God,  (as  we  • 
justly  conceive  of  them  ;)  "  they  will  not  mar-  \ 
ry,  nor  be  given  in  marriage,"  because  the  end 
of  marriage,  the  propagation  of  the  race,  will  no 
longer  exist.  Nor  will  the  glorified  body  be 
nourished  and  sustained  by  eating  and  drinking. 
Vide  1  Cor.  xvi.  13;  cf.  s.  153.  Hence  it  is 
obvious  that  Christ  employed  the  phrase,  to  sit 
down  (at  table)  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
which  was  common  among  his  contemporaries, 
in  a  figurative  sense. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  most  important 
or  most  celebrated  works  on  the  life  eternal,  and 
the  joys  of  the  blessed  above — viz.,  On  the  His- 
tory of  this  Doctrine,  Burnet;  also  Cotta,  in  his 
"  Historia  dogmatis  de  vita  aeterna."  Vide  s. 
149,  ad  finem.  This  subject  is  treated  doc- 
trinally  and  philosophically  in  Cotta's  "Theses 
Theol.  de  vita  seterna."  Tubing.  1758.  A 
poetical  delineation  of  this  doctrine  may  be  seen 
in  Lavater's  "  Aussichten  in  die  Ewigkeit."  In 
this  work,  while  we  find  many  very  beautiful 
and  happy  thoughts  and  fine  observations,  we 
feel  the  want  of  just  interpretation  of  scripture, 
and  calm  and  unimpassioned  investigation.  He 
gives  himself  entirely  to  the  wing  of  his  bold 


STATE  INTO  WHICH  MAN  IS  BROUGHT  BY  THE  REDEMPTION.       563 


imagination,  and  treats  the  subject  rather  as  a 
poet  than  a  philosopher.  A  more  strictly  philo- 
sophical and  theological  investigation  of  this 
subject  is  found  in  the  work  of  C.  L.  de  Villette, 
Unterredungen  iiber  die  Gliickseligkeit  des  zu- 
kiinftigen  Lebens,  translated  from  the  French 
into  the  German,  and  accompanied  with  a  Pre- 
face, by  Spalding.  Berlin,  1766,  8vo.  Cf.  also 


Carl  Wilhelm  Goldhammer's  Betrachtungen 
iiber  das  zukiinftige  Leben,  u.  s.  w.,  2  thl. ;  Leip- 
zig, 1791 ;  a  work  written  with  warmth  of  feel- 
ing and  in  a  popular  manner.  The  scriptural 
grounds  of  this  doctrine  are  briefly  and  tho- 
roughly investigated  by  Storr,  in  his  Comment, 
de  beata  Vita  post  Mortem,  p.  75,  torn.  ii.  of  his 
Opusc.  Academica. 


INDEX. 


PART  I.— SUBJECTS  DISCUSSED. 


Page 

ACTUAL  sins,  true  idea  of 297 

Adam,  original  state  />f 187 

Age,  notion  of  the  golden     .     .     .     .     .  198 

Angels,  creation  of 208 

,  divisions  of 209 

,  importance  of  the  doctrine  of     .  202 

-,  proofs  of  their  existence    .     .     .  208 

,  their  appellations 207 

,  their  nature 207 

,  fallen,  apostasy  of 219 

,  existence  of 215 

,  names  of 221 

— — ,  nature  of 219 

,  number  and  classes  of     .  221 
,  objections  to  the  common 

theory  of  the  employments  of     ...  222 

,  present  and  future  state  of  220 

,  holy,  classes  of 212 

•t  employments  of     ...  211 

,  names  of 213 

,  present  state  of .     .     .     .  209 

',  worship  of 214 

Arius,  his  view  of  the  Trinity   .     .      153,160 

,  origin  of  his  errors 12 

Athanasius,  his  view  of  the  Trinity    .     .  154 

Atheism,  nature  of 89 

Atonement,  perfection  of 393 

,  various  theories  on     ...  400 

Augustine,  his  view  of  the  soul      .     .    .  158 

opinions  of,  on  grace     .     .     .  459 
theory  of,  on  original  sin     275,  290 

Bacon,  principles  of,  applied  to  theology  *    13 

Baptism,  by  whom  to  be  administered    .  487 

effects  of  infant 495 

external  advantages  of.    .    .  488 

-,  formulas  used  in 486 

-,  institution  of 483 


Page 

Baptism,  internal  advantages  of     ...  488 

,  John's  the  same  as  Christ's    .  485 

knowledge  requisite  for     .     .  487 

lawfulness  of  infant ....  494 

,  mode  of 485 

names  of 483 

necessity  of 491 

not  to  be  repeated     ....  492 

origin  of 484 

usages  incidental  to  ....  487 
Bible,  see  Scriptures. 

Blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost    .     .  305 
Blessedness  eternal,  continuance  of  pre- 
sent happiness 558 

•'                   '    ,  exemption  from  suf- 
ferings     558 

• — • ,  nature  and  names  of  556 

— ,  to  be  expected     .    .  555 

'  •'      ',  rewards  of .     .     .     .  559 

Body,  human,  origin  of 200 

,  original  excellence  of      .195 


Children,  salvation  of 421 

Christ,  active  obedience  of 405 

ascension  of 348 

deity  and  humanity  of  ....  357 

descent  of,  into  hell     .     ...  343 

divine  attributes  ascribed  to  .    .  138 

divine  honour  claimed  for      .     .  139 

divine  names  given  to  .    .    .    .  136 

doctrine  of  his  person  ....  355 

doctrines  of,  their  truth     ...  57 

,  glory  of,  in  heaven 350 

happiness  derived  from,  on  earth  415 

•,  in  future  418 

-,  influence  of  his  example   .     .     .  411 

-,  kingdom  of 350 

-,  last  appearance  of 538 


3B 


565 


566 


IiNDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  DISCUSSED. 


Page 

Christ,  millennial  kingdom  of  ....  538 

,  mission  of 373 

,  names  of 372 

• ,  offices  of 377 

,  redemption  effected  by     ...  374 

,  resurrection  of 346 

,  seat  of,  at  God's  right  hand   .     .  355 

,  subjects  of  his  teaching     .     .     .  340 

,  sufferings  and  death  of     ...  390 

Christianity,  names  and  blessings  of .     .  412 
Christians,  views  of  the  primitive,  on  the 

Trinity 148 

Church,  catholic  and  apostolic  ....  474 

,  divisions  of 470 

,  head  of 475 

,  perpetuity  of 475 

,  sanctity  of 473 

,  scriptural  character  of  ....  469 

,  Christ  teaching  in  the  .     .     .     .  476 

,  unity  of 472 

Confession,  auricular,  its  futility    .     .     .  448 

Conversion,  meaning  of  the  term   .     .     .  439 

Creation,  end  of  God  in 171 

,  how  from  nothing     .     .     .     .  167 

,  Mosaic  account  of    ....  171 

,  six  days  of 177 

,  time  of  year  of 177 

,  work  of,  twofold 169 

Creatures,  different,  classes  of   .     .     .     .  169 
,  preservation  of 241 

Dead,  resurrection  of,  see  Resurrection. 

Death,  names  and  descriptions  of  .     .     .  514 

,  senses  in  which  used    ....  515 

,  state  after 516,  518 

,  universality  of 515 

,  whether  or  not  a  punishment      .  516 

Decrees,  divine 109 

Depravity,  natural,  ecclesiastical  phrase- 
ology on 289 

,  how  proved     .     .     .  283 

,  imputation  of ...  287 

,  manner  in  which  pro- 
pagated       286 

•^— — .,  names  of,  in  scripture  278 

- — • ,  nature  of     .     .     277,  285 

,  results  of  discussion 

of 293 

,  teaching  of  doctrine  295 

Divinity,  its  character 26 

Boctrines,  Christian,  fundamental      .     .  34 

,Eden,  its  character 188 

Edwards,  President,  views  of,  on  original 

sin 282 

Eve,  the  creation  of 188 

Faith,  analogy  of 35 

,  attributes  of 434 


Page 

Faith,  different  degrees  of 433 

,  division  of  doctrines  of     ....  33 

,  objects  of 427 

,  relation  of  one  part  of,  to  another    .  431 

,  significations  of  the  term       .     .     .  423 

,  signs  by  which  discovered   .       432,  434 

,  theological  divisions  of    ....  425 

Father,  deity  of 135 

Fathers,  terminology  of 366 

Forgiveness  of  sin,  to  what  owing      .     .  390 

Franke,  account  of  his  lectures      ...  13 

Germany,  school  of  biblical  theology  in     10,  14 

God,  decrees  of 109,  124 

,  division  of  the  attributes  of  ...  97 

,  doctrine  of  his  government   .     .     .  245 

,  eternity  and  immutability  of     .     .  99 

,  government  of,  in  relation  to  evil  .  249 

,  government  of,  relative  to  human 

freedom 247 

,  holiness  of 116 

,  justice  of 117 

,  knowledge  of,  whether  innate  .     .  32 

,  nature  and  attributes  of    ....  94 

God,  notion  of 85 

,  omnipotence  of 101 

,  omnipresence  of 105 

,  omniscience  of 102 

,  proofs  of  the  existence  of      ...  86 

,  scriptural  names  of 93 

,  source  of  the  knowledge  of  .     .     .  95 

,  spirituality  of 97 

,  unity  of 90 

,  veracity  and  goodness  of      .     .     .  114 

,  will  of 109,113 

,  wisdom  of     .     .     .%   .     ...     .     .  108 

Golden  age,  notion  of 198 

Grace,  different  theories  of 458 

'   •         ,  divine  origin  of 454 

,  explanation  of  the  term     .     .     .  449 

,  later  opinions  on 461 

,  operations  of      ....       451,  462 

,  opinions  of  Latin  fathers  on  .     .  458 

,  scriptural  phraseology  of  ...  455 

various  names  of 450 

Guilt  of  sin,  removal  of 386 

Heathen,  salvation  of  the 321 

Hell,  history  of  doctrines  of      ....  554 

,  names  of 545 

,  punishments  of 545 

Holy  Ghost,  blasphemy  against     .     .     .  305 

•,  scriptural  representation  of .  306 


Holiness,  its  nature 442 

Image  of  God,  how  to  be  understood  .     .  189 

Immortality,  ideas  of  Jews  of    ....  519 

,  ideas  of  rude  nations  of  .     .  519 

— — ,  philosophical  arguments  on  521 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  DISCUSSED. 


567 


Page 

Immortality,  scriptural  proofs  of     .     .     .  517 
Inclinations,  evil,  origin  and  punishable- 
ness  of 288 

Indulgences,  futility  of 449 

Inspiration,  idea  of  universal      ....  66 

,  national  views  of  ....  67 

,  various  theories  of     ...  68 

,  views  of  great  men  of     .     .  66 

Involuntary  sins 301 

Jesus,  ascension  of 348 

,  character  of,  as  a  teacher  ....  337 

,  deity  and  humanity  of      ....  357 

,  descent  into  hell  of 343 

,  different  conditions  of 331 

,  doctrine  of 337 

,  doctrine  of  the  person  of  ....  355 

,  early  history  of 337 

,  glory  of,  in  heaven      .     .     .     .     .  350 

,  history  of  opinions  concerning  .     .  361 

,  kingdom  of 350 

— — ,  method  of  his  ministry     ....  338 

,  miraculous  conception  of      ...  334 

,  mission  of 373 

,  names  of 373 

,  offices  of 377 

,  predictions  respecting 325 

,  redemption  effected  by     ....  374 

,  resurrection  of 346 

,  seat  of,  at  God's  right  hand  ...  355 

,  subjects  of  his  ministry    ....  340 

,  sufferings  and  death  of     .     .       341,390 

,  true  humanity  of 335 

Jews,  views  of,  on  original  sin  .     .     .     .  273 

Jews  and  Gentiles,  future  conversion  of  .  540 

Judgment,  the  geneaal  ...         ...  541 

Justification,  an  unmerited  favour  .     .     .  399 
-,  effect  of  Christ's  exaltation 

on 395 

,  only  of  Christ 388 

• ,  universality  of 397 

Keckermann,  B.,  his  view  of  the  Trinity  159 

Keys,  import  of  the  term 478 

Knapp,  Dr.,  memoir  of 16 

Language,  original,  of  man 196 

Law,  connexion  of  sin  with 299 

Law  and  gospel,  meaning  of     ....  429 

Life,  connexion  of  the  present  and  future  518 

,  the  tree  of 187 

Lord's  Supper,  by  whom  and  how  to  be 

observed 502 

?-,  by  whom  to  be  adminis- 
tered        503 

,  chief  object  of  ....  499 

,  external  uses  and  efficacy 

of 505 

,  history  of  opinions  of     .  508 


Page 

Lord's  Supper,  institution  of     ....  497 

,  internal  uses  and  efficacy 

of 505 

names  of 496 

remarks  on  hypotheses  of  512 

texts  relating  to     ...  497 

unessential  rites  in      .     .  504 

use  of  bread  and  wine  in  501 


Magic,  historical  observations  on  .     .     .  231 

Man,  destination  of 182 

,  means  of  subsistence  of  ....  187 

,  moral  inability  of 28 

,  Mosaic  account  of  the  origin  of      .184 

,  nature  of 180 

,  original  external  advantages  of      .  197 

,  original  language  of 196 

,  preservation  of 243 

-,  primitive  state  of    .     ...     .     .     .  192 

Matter,  on  the  eternity  of      .     ....  166 

Men,  great,  belief  of,  in  inspiration     .     .  66 

Messiah,  degrees  of  revelation  of  .     .     .  328 

,  gradual  development  of      .     .  321 

,  interpretation  of  the  predictions 

respecting 325 

,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  true      .  324 

,  views  of  the  Jews  of                ,  323 


Millennial  kingdom,  the 538 

Miracles,  Christianity  proved  by    ...  59 

,  their  possibility 254 

Monarchians,  their  views  of  God    .     .     .  151 

Monothelites,  sect  of 366 

Morals,  importance  of  the  Christian  sys- 
tem    31 

Mosaic  institute,  abolition  of     ....  413 

Mysteries,  religious 36 

Nations,  agreement  of,  in  ideas  of  inspi- 
ration    66 

Nature,  revelation  of  God  in      ....  28 

New-Testament  writers,  their  views  of 

original  sin 274 

Nicene  Council,  the 154 

Ordination,  nature  and  importance  of .     .  477 
Origen,  his  views  of  the  Trinity     .      153,  362 

Paradise,  its  character 188 

Pardon,  nature  of 385 

Participation,  how  shown  in  sin     ...  304 

Pelagius,  errors  of,  on  grace      ....  458 

,  views  of,  on  original  sin    .     .  282 

Penance,  futility  of 447 

,  self-inflicted,  folly  of    ...  382 

Plato,  his  views  of  God 145 

Possession,  satanic,  history  of  ....  227 

,  meaning  of     ...  226 
•,  records  of,  in  the  New 


Testament 229 


568 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  DISCUSSED. 


Prayer,  a  mean  of  grace 467 

Predictions,  Messianic,  accommodations 

of 325 

•     ,  degrees  of    .     .  328 

,  how  interpreted  325 

, ,  principles  of,  act- 
ed on  by  Christ  and  his  apostles     .     .  326 

Prophecies  of  Christ  proofs  of  Christian- 
ity      61 

Providence,  definition  of 235 

,  history  of  opinions  of     .     .  236 

,  its  benevolence      ....  253 

,  its  universality      ....  252 

,  its  unsearchableness  .     .     .  253 

,  proofs  of 238 

— ,  scholastic  views  of    ...  239 

Punishment,  its  nature  and  object .     •     .  311 

,  positive  divine       .     .     .    .  314 

,  removal  of 387 

,  scriptural  names  of    .     .     .  312 

Punishments,  division  of 312 

Purgatory,  opinions  on 529 

Rationalism,  character  and  design  of  .     .  14 

Reason,  definition  of 38 

,  use  of 38 

Reconciliation,  nature  of 501 

Recovery  of  man,  divine  institutions  for  .  317 

,  purpose  of  God  respect- 
ing      320 

,  requisites  for       ...  317 

Regeneration,  meaning  of  the  term     .     .  440 
Religion,  harmony  of  natural  and  reveal- 
ed       29,30 

,  its  distinction  from  theology   .  26 

,  mysteries  of 35 

,  of  Christ,  beneficial  tendency 

of 58 

Repentance,  character  of 42,  441 

,  danger  of  delaying     .     .     .  442 

,  mistakes  respecting  .     .     .  447 

,  not  the  procuring  cause  of 

salvation 382 

Revelation,  degrees  of 40 

,  principal  periods  of   ...  41 

,  object  of 40 

,  one  made  by  God  to  man    .  28 

Resurrection,  biblical  representation  of  .  532 

,  Christian  doctrine  of      .     .  531 

,  difference  of  the  future  body 

from  the  present 534 

,  doctrine  of  the  Jews  respect- 
ing      528 

-,  identity  of  the  present  and 


future  body 536 

,  what  is  understood  by    .     .     527 


Sabbath,  its  origin 173 

Sacrament,  nature  of  a 479 


Page 

Sacraments,  object  of  Christ  in  instituting  482 

Sacrifice,  universality  and  design  of  .  .  380 

Salvation,  conditions  of 420 

of  children  and  the  heathen  .  421 

Sanctification,  its  nature 442 

Satan,  power  of,  over  men 226 

Scriptures,  books  of 47 

,  external  proofs 47 

,  how  adapted  for  common  use  .  80 

,  inspiration  of 62 

,  integrity  of 56 

,  internal  proofs  of 47 

.,  reading  of 78 

,  the  use  of 37,  74 

Servetus,  his  view  of  the  Trinity  .  .  .  159 

Sin,  actual  idea  of 297 

,  against  the  Holy  Ghost  ....  305 

,  Christ's  instructions  on  ....  410 

,  definition  of 259 

,  different  degrees  of 298 

,  inquiry  as  to  whether  God  could 

have  prevented 265 

,  forgiveness  of,  its  cause  ....  380 

,  its  necessity  .  .  .  385 

,  how  connected  with  knowledge  .  300 

,  imputation  of  Adam's  .  .  .  .  .  273 

,  involuntary  . 301 

,  its  results  on  the  sinner  ....  308 

i,  manner  of 409 

,  Mosaic  account  of  original  .  .  .  266 

,  opinions  of  heathen  philosophers  on  261 

,  participation  of  others'  ....  304 

,  redemption  from 408 

,  results  of  reason  and  observation 

on 263 

,  scriptural  terms  for* 260 

,  sorrow  for  .  „ 443 

,  viewed  in  connexion  with  the  law  299 

Socinians,  their  views  of  the  Trinity  .  .  160 

Soul,  its  origin 200 

Souls,  departed,  opinions  of  their  state  .  525 

,  place  of  their  abode  .  .  523 

Spectres,  question  as  to  existence  of  .  .  233 

Spener,  proceedings  of,  at  Halle  ...  9 

Spirit,  Holy,  divinity  of 142 

,  meaning  of  the  term  .  .  .  140 

,  names  given  to  ....  143 

,  personality  of  .  .  .  .  .  141 


Teachers,  Christian,  rights  of  ....  478 

Testament,  New,  collection  of  books  of  .  53 

.                    ,  external  proofs  of   .     .  47 

,  inspiration  of     ...  62 

,  Old,  authenticity  of   ...  48 

,  cautions  in  reading       .  77 

1 ,  completion  of  canon  of  51 

,  external  proofs  of    .     .  44 

,  inspiration  of      ...  64 

,  origin  of  canon  of   .     .  50 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  DISCUSSED. 


569 


Page 

Testament,  Old,  reception  of  canon  of     .  52 

Theologians'  hypotheses  on  sin     ...  274 

Theology,  course  of  study  of     ....  44 

,  how  distinct  from  religion       .  26 

,  scientific  treatment  of   ...  43 

Tradition,  the  use  of 39 

Trinity,  distinction  of  persons  in    .     .     .  155 

,  doctrine  of 130 

,  history  of  doctrine  of   ....  144 

. ,  how  taught  in  New  Testament  .  133 

Old  Testament     .  131 

,  terms  employed  respecting      151,  154 
,  views  of  primitive  Christians  re- 
specting       148 

Understanding,    original    excellence    of 
man's    .  .192 


Urlsperger,  Dr.,  his  views  of  the  Trinity     161 

Will,  original  excellence  of  man's      .     .     194 
Works,  good,  connexion  of,  with  salva- 
tion   437 

,  history  of  opinions  respect- 
ing     437 

-,  not  to  be  depended  on  for 


salvation 382 

,  true  nature  of    ....  435 
Works  of  God,  knowledge  of    ....  170 
World,  ancient,  views  of,  on  divine  influ- 
ence         66 

,  creation  of 163 

,  end  of .     .  543 

,  material  from  which  formed     176,  163 

,  meaning  of  the  term     .     »t  .     .  161 


3u2 


PART  II.— SCRIPTURES  ILLUSTRATED. 


GENESIS. 

CHAP.  VERSE  PAGE 

1.1,2      ....  176 

1.  26 169 

2.  4—24  .     .       185,  271 

3.  14,  15  .     .       272,  329 

3.     19 271 

6.     7 113 

17.     1      .....  93 

49.     10 329 

EXODUS. 

3.     13 93 

32.     32    .                    ,  243 


NUMBERS. 


6.     24 


DEUTERONOMY. 


4.     7,8 
6.    4 
18.     18 


2  SAMUEL. 


16.     14 


JOB. 


14.     4     . 
19.     25,  &o. 
38.    7 


133 


29 

91 

329 


227 


283 

528 
207 


PSALMS. 

2.     7 132 

14.     1 89 

16.     10 344 

19.     1—6     ....  28 

32.  2 444 

33.  6,9       .     .      102,133 

51.     7 283 

90 101 

119.     89—91      ...  114 

139.     15,  16  .     .     .     .  200 


PROVERBS. 


CHAP.    VERSE 

8.     22—30 


PAGE 

.     .     108 


ECCLESIASTES. 

8.     8 99 

12.     7 99 

ISAIAH. 

6.     3 133 

28.     23—29      ...  122 

44.     6 100 

48.     11 94 

48.     16 133 

53 330 

JEREMIAH. 

23.     23,  24  ....  107 

MATTHEW. 

1.     20 335 

3.     16,  17  .     .     .     .  134 

5.     17 77 

1C.     18 476 

16.     19 478 

20.     1—16  ..    .       127,  559 

23.     35 52 

24 538 

25.  41—46      ...  300 

26.  41 301 

26.     63 57 

28.     18—20      ...  133 

MARK. 

3.    28—30      ...  306 

LUKE. 

1.     37 102 

11.     51 52 

15 443 

16.     8 251 

18.     9—14   .               .  443 


JOHN. 

CHAP. 

VERSE 

PAGE 

1. 

1,2   .  . 

.  .  136 

3. 

3,5   .  . 

441,  489 

5. 

23  ... 

.  .  140 

5. 

39  ... 

.  .   76 

5. 

39—47   . 

.  .  324 

7. 

15—17   . 

.  .   59 

8. 

44  ... 

,  ,  224 

10. 

28  ... 

.  .  137 

10. 

34—36   . 

.  .   93 

13. 

19  ... 

,  .   62 

14. 

6   ... 

,  ,  373 

14. 

16,  17  .  . 

.  .  141 

14. 

26  ... 

134,  141 

15. 

22—24   . 

.  .  300 

15. 

26  .  /  . 

.  .  141 

17. 

5   ... 

,  ,  138 

20. 

23  ... 

,  ,  478 

20. 

25  ... 

,  ,  234 

20. 

28  ... 

.  .  137 

ACTS. 

3. 

20,  21  .  . 

.  .  349 

13. 

48  ... 

.  •  128 

17. 

27—31   . 

.  .   28 

ROMANS 

1. 

3,4   .  . 

.  .  138 

1. 

19,  20  .  . 

.  28,  33 

2. 

14,  15  .  . 

.  .   32 

3. 

,  399 

3. 

21—28   . 

.  .  389 

4. 

4  ... 

116 

5. 

6   ... 

391 

5. 

11  ... 

386 

6. 

3,4   .  . 

.  .  490 

8. 

15  ... 

.  .   77 

8. 

29,  30  .  . 

.  .  125 

8. 

34  ... 

396 

9. 

5   ... 

,  .  137 

9. 

18  ... 

310 

10. 

14  ... 

,  .  337 

571 

572 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURES  ILLUSTRATED. 


CHAP. 
11. 

12. 

VERSE 

33—36      .     .     . 
6      

PAGE 

541 
35 

CHAP. 

1  THESSALONIANS. 

VERSE 

PAGE 

CHAP. 

12. 
12. 

VERSE 

1,2      .     .     .     . 
5—11  .... 

PAGK 

412 
122 

. 

—  1U    »      •      *      • 

J4: 
RfiO 

12. 

27    

42 

1. 

1  CORINTHIANS. 
30    

373 

1  TIMOTHY. 

JAMES. 

3. 

11    

33 

oo 

1. 

17   

101 

10. 
11. 
12. 

6—11  .    .     .     . 
27—34      .       121 
4—11  .... 

121 

,507 
142 

. 

3. 

2  TIMOTHY. 
14—17      .     .     . 

oU<± 

64 

1. 
3. 

1  PKTER. 

2      .     .    .    .  * 
19    

134 
344 

2  CORINTHIANS 

3. 

21    

489 

3. 

11    

42 

TITUS. 

5. 

21    

392 

2. 

11    

410 

2  PETER. 

7. 

9,  10    .... 

443 

2. 
3. 

13    
5      

138 

489 

1. 
1 

3,4       .     .     .     . 

iq    on 

410 

CK 

13. 

14    

134 

2. 

4           .... 

219 

EPHESIANS. 

1. 

HEBREWS. 
1      

40 

3. 

7—13  .     .      101 

,544 

1. 
2. 

4—14  .... 
3      .     .     .     •    . 

112 

285 

2. 

Q 

9—11  .... 

UQOK 

332 
373 

2. 

1  JOHN. 
1     

396 

4. 

12    

114 

5. 

7,8      .    .     .     . 

134 

PHILIPPIANS. 

6. 

1      

34 

2. 

6      

137 

1  Q                            "->», 

lie 

JUDE. 

2. 

8,9       .     .     .     . 

333 

7 

q    in 

274 

g       

219 

2. 

10    

140 

7 

OK 

•JQfi 

9. 

24    

39£ 

REVELATION. 

COLOSSI  ANS. 

11. 

3      

167 

20 

.     1—8  .     .    .    . 

538 

1. 

24    . 

391 

11. 

13    . 

41 

22 

18. 

74 

14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


*Etrt7 


^      , 


JUN  0  4  2°04 


LD  21A-60m-3,'65 
(F2336slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YC  40910' 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


